United States 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region 

MB-R3-03-23 

July 2012 

Environmental 

Assessment for the Isleta 

Collaborative Landscape 

Analysis Project 

Bureau of Indian Affairs, Cibola 

National Forest, and Chilili Land 

Grant 
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 complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 

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

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

Printed on recycled paper – July 2012 
Environmental Assessment 

for the 

Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 

Prepared for: 

Bureau of Indian Affairs
 

Cibola National Forest 

Chilili Land Grant 

On behalf of: 

Pueblo of Isleta 

P.O. Box 1270
 

Isleta, NM 87022
 

Telephone: (505) 724-9240
 

Fax: (505) 869-2284
 

Prepared by: 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

5647 Jefferson St. NE
 

Albuquerque, NM 87109
 

(505) 254-1115
 

SWCA Project No. 16134
 

Contents
 

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

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

Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1
 

The Project Area ..................................................................................................................................... 3
 

Purpose and Need for Action .................................................................................................................. 5
 

Purpose and Need for All Partners .................................................................................................... 5
 

Existing Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 5
 

Existing Conditions Specific to the Pueblo ....................................................................................... 5
 

Existing Conditions Specific to Chilili .............................................................................................. 6
 

Existing Conditions Specific to Sandia and Mountainair RDs.......................................................... 6
 

Proposed Action ..................................................................................................................................... 7
 

Decision Framework ............................................................................................................................. 10
 

Public Involvement ............................................................................................................................... 10
 

Issues .................................................................................................................................................... 11
 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action .........................................................13
 

Alternative A – No Action .................................................................................................................... 13
 

Alternative B – The Proposed Action ................................................................................................... 13
 

Alternative C ........................................................................................................................................ 14
 

Proposed Action Specific to Isleta Pueblo ............................................................................................ 14
 

Piñon-Juniper Treatments ................................................................................................................ 16
 

Ponderosa Pine Treatments ............................................................................................................. 16
 

Exterior Units .................................................................................................................................. 16
 

Interior Units ................................................................................................................................... 17
 

Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................................... 17
 

Meadow Areas................................................................................................................................. 17
 

Material Hauling ............................................................................................................................. 17
 

Herbicide Application ..................................................................................................................... 19
 

Proposed Action Specific to Chilili ...................................................................................................... 20
 

Proposed Action Specific to Cibola NF&Gs ........................................................................................ 22
 

Piñon-Juniper Treatments ................................................................................................................ 22
 

Ponderosa Pine Treatments ............................................................................................................. 22
 

Oak Woodland Treatments .............................................................................................................. 23
 

Mixed Conifer Treatments .............................................................................................................. 23
 

Areas Over 40 Percent Slope........................................................................................................... 23
 

Slash Disposal ................................................................................................................................. 23
 

Maintenance .................................................................................................................................... 23
 

Connected Actions................................................................................................................................ 25
 

Migratory Bird Recommendations .................................................................................................. 25
 

Wood Hauling ................................................................................................................................. 25
 

Heritage/Cultural Resources............................................................................................................ 32
 

Northern Goshawk .......................................................................................................................... 32
 

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

Piñon-Juniper Treatments ................................................................................................................ 33
 

Ponderosa Pine Treatments ............................................................................................................. 33
 

Mitigation Measures Common to Action Alternatives .........................................................................34
 

Soils/Watershed ............................................................................................................................... 34
 

Scenic Resources ............................................................................................................................. 34
 

Air Quality....................................................................................................................................... 35
 

Prescribed Burning .......................................................................................................................... 35
 

Wildlife ........................................................................................................................................... 36
 

Vegetation ....................................................................................................................................... 37
 

Recreation (Cibola NF&Gs)............................................................................................................ 38
 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project i 
 

Contents 

New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles .......................................................................................... 38
 

Comparison of Alternatives .................................................................................................................. 44
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...................................51
 

Fuels and Fire Behavior........................................................................................................................ 51
 

Historic Conditions of Forest Types and Fire ................................................................................. 51
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 56
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 58
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 62
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 64
 

Cumulative Effects on All Jurisdictions.......................................................................................... 68
 

Soils ...................................................................................................................................................... 68
 

Climate ............................................................................................................................................ 68
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 69
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 71
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 80
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 81
 

Water Resources ................................................................................................................................... 84
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 84
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ............................................................................................ 85
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ............................................................................ 86
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ................................................................................ 88
 

Cumulative Effects .......................................................................................................................... 97
 

Vegetation ............................................................................................................................................. 97
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ....................................................................................... 97
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................100
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................105
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................107
 

Cumulative Effects .........................................................................................................................110
 

Wildlife ............................................................................................................................................... 112
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ......................................................................................113
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................117
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................122
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................125
 

Cumulative Effects Across Jurisdictions ........................................................................................137
 

Air Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 138
 

Affected Environment Across Jurisdictions ...................................................................................138
 

Environmental Consequences Across Jurisdictions .......................................................................140
 

Climate Change .................................................................................................................................. 140
 

Affected Environment Across Jurisdictions ...................................................................................140
 

Impact of Climate Change on Fire Frequency and Severity ...........................................................141
 

Environmental Consequences Across Jurisdictions .......................................................................142
 

Scenic Resources ................................................................................................................................ 142
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ......................................................................................142
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................142
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................144
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................144
 

Cumulative Effects Across Jurisdictions ........................................................................................147
 

Transportation ..................................................................................................................................... 148
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................148
 

Transportation Environmental Consequences ................................................................................152
 

Socioeconomic Resources .................................................................................................................. 153
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ......................................................................................153
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................154
 

ii EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

Methodology ....................................................................................................................................... 158
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................159
 

Cultural Resources .............................................................................................................................. 160
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ......................................................................................160
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................161
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................161
 

Recreation Resources ......................................................................................................................... 162
 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment ......................................................................................162
 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment ...........................................................................................162
 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................163
 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences ...............................................................................163
 

Cibola NF&Gs Cumulative Effects ................................................................................................165
 

Indian Trust Assets ............................................................................................................................. 165
 

Affected Environment ....................................................................................................................165
 

Environmental Consequences ........................................................................................................165
 

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination.............................................................................167
 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies ..................................................................................................... 167
 

USFS Interdisciplinary Team Members ............................................................................................. 167
 

Tribes and Pueblos.............................................................................................................................. 167
 

Others ................................................................................................................................................. 168
 

List of Preparers.................................................................................................................................. 168
 

Literature Cited.......................................................................................................................... 169
 

Appendix 

A. Fire Risk Map for the Project Area ....................................................................................181
 

B. Pueblo and Chilili Biological Evaluation ..........................................................................183
 

List of Figures 

Figure 1. Project location (Source: Cibola National Forest 2011) ............................................................ 4
 

Figure 2. Illustration of desired spatial arrangement of leave groups....................................................... 9
 

Figure 3. Pueblo treatment units............................................................................................................. 15
 

Figure 4. Pueblo and Chilili meadow restoration areas.......................................................................... 18
 

Figure 5. Chilili treatment units.............................................................................................................. 21
 

Figure 6. Cibola NF&Gs proposed action treatment types. ................................................................... 26
 

Figure 7. Cibola NF&Gs implementation phases .................................................................................. 27
 

Figure 8. Cibola NF&Gs proposed action haul zones ........................................................................... 29
 

Figure 9. Cibola NF&Gs proposed action road designations post-treatment ......................................... 31
 

Figure 10. Annual fire occurrences within the proposed project area and 5 miles from the 

project boundary from 1970 to 2009 ....................................................................................... 55
 

Figure 11. Piñon-juniper woodland, note high tree density and continuous vegetative cover ................. 59
 

Figure 12. Even-aged ponderosa pine stand; note dense tree stocking and lack of herbaceous 

understory ............................................................................................................................... 60
 

Figure 13. Mixed conifer stand; note abundant regeneration creating ladder fuels.................................. 61
 

Figure 14. TEUs in the Mountainair RD of the Isleta CFR Project .......................................................... 73
 

Figure 15. TEUs within the Sandia RD of the Isleta CFR Project ........................................................... 74
 

Figure 16. Soil condition of the primary TEUs in the project area........................................................... 77
 

Figure 17. Soil condition in the Sandia RD.............................................................................................. 78
 

Figure 18. Soil condition in the Mountainair RD .................................................................................... 79
 

Figure 19. Sixth code watersheds, project watersheds, streams, and springs........................................... 87
 

Figure 20. USFS project watersheds ....................................................................................................... 93
 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project iii 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Contents 

List of Tables 

Table 1. Summary of Pueblo Treatment Units........................................................................................ 14
 

Table 2. BMPs for herbicide use............................................................................................................. 19
 

Table 3. Proposed treatments to meet the desired condition for each forest type based on soil
 

conditions, location, and slope .................................................................................................. 24
 

Table 4. NFS roads ................................................................................................................................. 30
 

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives ....................................................................................................... 45
 

Table 6. Fire regimes and condition classes .......................................................................................... 62
 

Table 7. Ponderosa pine, fuel model TU5 .............................................................................................. 64
 

Table 8. Piñon-juniper, fuel model 6 ...................................................................................................... 65
 

Table 9. Mixed conifer, fuel model 10 .................................................................................................... 65
 

Table 10. Ponderosa pine, fuel models TL8 (60 percent) and GR2 (40 percent)...................................... 66
 

Table 11. Piñon-juniper, fuel models 8 (60 percent) and GR1 (40 percent)............................................. 66
 

Table 12. Mixed conifer, fuel model TL5 ................................................................................................. 66
 

Table 13. Ponderosa pine, fuel models TL8 (90 percent) and GR2 (10 percent)...................................... 67
 

Table 14. Piñon-juniper, fuel models 8 (90 percent) and GR1 (10 percent)............................................. 67
 

Table 15. Mixed conifer, fuel model TL 5 ................................................................................................ 67
 

Table 16. Soils in the project area............................................................................................................. 69
 

Table 17. Available woody material information for the project area ...................................................... 77
 

Table 18. Comparison of alternatives for soil condition ........................................................................... 84
 

Table 19. 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (sixth code) watersheds........................................................... 86
 

Table 20. Average percent basal area reduction from each project watershed ......................................... 95
 

Table 21. Summary of water resource measures ...................................................................................... 97
 

Table 22. Old growth allocation within the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area ...........102
 

Table 23. Old growth allocation within the combined Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem
 

Management Area and Manzano Mountain Wilderness ..........................................................102
 

Table 24. Old growth allocation within the Isleta CFRP .........................................................................103
 

Table 25. Distribution by VSS class and forest type (percentage) for forested areas within the 

Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area................................................................103
 

Table 26. Distribution by VSS class and forest type (percentage) for forested areas within the 

Isleta CFRP Project area ..........................................................................................................104
 

Table 27. Distribution by VSS diameter groups (by site) at the site level ...............................................104
 

Table 28. Average tree densities (trees per acre) by forest type at the different scales............................105
 

Table 29. Average number of snags (standing dead trees) per acre at the different scales ......................105
 

Table 30. Average number of downed logs larger than 12 inches in midpoint diameter per acre 

at the different scales ...............................................................................................................105
 

Table 31. Potential threatened and endangered species for Bernalillo and Torrance Counties 

(species highlighted in gray will be considered in more detail) ...............................................117
 

Table 32. Sensitive species considered but not evaluated ........................................................................118
 

Table 33. Potential sensitive species ........................................................................................................119
 

Table 34. Habitat types, MIS, and existing forestwide habitat and population trends.............................120
 

Table 35. Migratory bird species evaluated in the analysis area..............................................................122
 

Table 36. Summary of effects determinations on Mexican spotted owl..................................................126
 

Table 37. Summary of effects determinations to sensitive species by alternative ...................................129
 

Table 38. Summary of alternative A effects on MIS ...............................................................................130
 

Table 39. Summary of alternative B effects on MIS ...............................................................................132
 

Table 40. Summary of alternative C effects on MIS ...............................................................................133
 

Table 41. Summary of effects on migratory birds ...................................................................................135
 

Table 42. David Canyon haul route summary (miles) .............................................................................149
 

Table 43. North Manzano Division haul route summary (miles) .............................................................150
 

Table 44. Maintenance summary (miles).................................................................................................150
 

iv EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

 

 

Contents 

Table 45. Transportation cost summary ...................................................................................................151
 

Table 46. Ethnicity by county, state and nation, 2010 .............................................................................155
 

Table 47. Poverty status by county, state, and nation, 2000 and 2009 .....................................................155
 

Table 48. Components of population change for the aggregated reporting area, 2000–2009..................156
 

Table 49. Population change, Bernalillo and Torrance Counties and the State, 2000–2010 ...................156
 

Table 50. Population trends for land grant communities .........................................................................156
 

Table 51. Components of personal income change, 2000–2009 for the aggregated counties 

(Bernalillo and Torrance) .........................................................................................................157
 

Table 52. Employment by industry 2001–2009 for the aggregated counties (Bernalillo and 

Torrance)..................................................................................................................................157
 

Table 53. TREAT summary table, average annual impacts .....................................................................159
 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project v 
 

 

 

Contents 

List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 

°C degrees Celsius 

°F degrees Fahrenheit 

BMP(s) best management practice(s) 

BIA Bureau of Indian Affairs 

c.b.d crown bulk density 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality 

CFR Code of Federal Regulations 

Chilili Chilili Land Grant 

Cibola NF&Gs Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

CWPP community wildfire protection plan 

d.b.h. diameter at breast height 

d.r.c. diameter at root collar 

DOD Department of Defense 

DOE Department of Energy 

EA environmental assessment 

EMS emergency medical services 

EPA Environmental Protection Agency 

FRI Fire return interval 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FM fuel model 

forest plan “Cibola National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan” 1985 

FRCC Fire Regime Condition Class 

FONSI finding of no significant impact 

Kirtland Kirtland Air Force Base 

MIS management indicator species 

MSO Mexican spotted owl 

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NAD North American Datum 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act 

NF&G national forest and grasslands 

NMCRIS New Mexico Cultural Resource Information System 

NMED New Mexico Environment Department 

vi EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Contents 

NMEMNRD New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department 

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

PFA post-fledging area 

Pueblo Pueblo of Isleta 

RD ranger district 

SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer 

SMZ streamside management zones 

SPA Southern Pueblo Agency 

SWCA SWCA Environmental Consultants 

SWCD Soil and Water Conservation District 

SWPPP stormwater pollution prevention plan 

TPA trees per acre 

USDA-NRCS U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

USGS United States Geological Service 

UTM Universal Transverse Mercator 

VSS vegetative structural stage 

WUI wildland-urban interface 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project vii 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

Document Structure 

The Pueblo of Isleta (Pueblo), Chilili Land Grant (Chilili), and Sandia and Mountainair Ranger 

Districts (RDs) of the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands (Cibola NF&Gs) have prepared this 

environmental assessment (EA) in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act 

(NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and regulations. This EA discloses the direct, 

indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and 

alternatives. The document is organized into several parts: 

1.	 Introduction: This section includes information on the history of the project proposal, 

the purpose and need for the project, and the project partner’s proposal for achieving that 

purpose and need. This section also details how the public was informed of the proposal 

and how the public responded. 

2.	 Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action: This section provides a more detailed 

description of the project partner’s proposed action as well as the no action alternative 

and alternative methods for achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were 

developed based on issues raised during scoping. This section also includes proposed 

mitigation measures and a summary of possible environmental consequences associated 

with each alternative. 

3.	 Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This section describes the 

environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other alternatives. This 

analysis is organized by resource area. Within each section, the affected environment is 

described first, followed by the effects of the no action alternative that provides a baseline 

for evaluation and comparison of the proposed action that follows and other alternatives. 

4.	 Consultation and Coordination: This section provides a list of agencies and persons 

consulted and/or contacted during development of the EA, as well as those persons who 

assisted in preparation of this document. 

5.	 Literature Cited 

6.	 Appendix: Additional information and documentation is provided in the appendix. 

Background 

Because of the proximity of large-scale fires to reservation boundaries during the 2008 fire season 

and in response to requests from the Pueblo of Isleta Tribal Council, the Bureau of Indian Affairs 

(BIA) assisted the Pueblo in making initial contact with concerned land management agencies 

and owners adjacent to the Pueblo to explore the possibility of conducting mutually beneficial, 

cross-jurisdictional fuels treatments in the Manzano and Manzanita Mountains. The purpose of 

these treatments would be to reduce the potential of uncharacteristic wildfires and protect 

community, cultural, and natural resources at a landscape scale. 

Approximate proposed treatment acres by jurisdiction are as follows: 2,000 acres on the Pueblo, 

620 acres on Chilili, 5,700 acres on the Mountainair RD, and 2,100 acres on the Sandia RD of the 

Cibola NF&G. For locations of proposed treatment areas, refer to Figure 1. 

In addition to the land managed by the three project partners, numerous small communities 

adjacent to the project area are rated as high risk in the 2007 “New Mexico Communities at Risk 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 1 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

Assessment Plan” (New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (EMNRD) 

2007) and would benefit from the fuels reduction treatments being proposed. 

According to historic records, there were approximately 250 lightning caused and 100 humancaused fires in the project area between 1970 and 2011. Fire occurrence, an increase in human 

activity, and high stand densities have created a higher potential for uncharacteristic fire activity 

potentially affecting the vegetation and residents in nearby communities. The Manzano and 

Manzanita Mountains have been identified as high wildfire risk within their respective 

community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs). 

Fire no longer plays its natural role in maintaining ecosystem structure and function within the 

project area. The increase in tree density has reduced the structural diversity of the forest and 

increased potential for uncharacteristic fire. These kinds of fires, such as those that occurred on 

the Mountainair RD in 2007 and 2008, as well as on the Sandia RD military withdrawal lands in 

2009, can result in the destruction of large areas of forest vegetation. Increased diversity can help 

reduce the potential for loss of vegetation due to destructive wildfires. 

The existing forest conditions throughout the entire project area include closed and continuous 

canopies, high stocking of trees per acre, high densities of small diameter timber generating 

ladder fuels, low understory productivity and diversity, and heavy fuel loading on the ground. In 

addition, the topography in the project area is made up of high elevation, steep, inaccessible 

terrain that facilitates rapid and intense fire spread creating unsafe conditions for firefighting 

personnel. 

Two CWPPs have been completed in the last 5 years, the “East Mountain Area CWPP” (SWCA 

Environmental Consultants (SWCA) 2006) and the “Torrance County CWPP” (SWCA 2008). 

Fire modeling efforts from both CWPPs indicate that the boundary area across Pueblo, Chilili, 

and Cibola NF&Gs lands are at high to extreme potential for future uncharacteristic wildfires 

(appendix A). The “East Mountain Area CWPP” (SWCA 2006) shows the area directly east and 

north of the project area as being classified with high wildfire hazard, with patches of extreme 

hazard. The “Torrance County CWPP” (SWCA 2008) shows the project area to be classified with 

extreme and high potential for uncharacteristic fire interspersed with some patches of low and 

moderate potential for uncharacteristic fire that would represent rock outcropping and bare 

ground. The most extreme hazard is found along the Pueblo’s eastern boundaries with Chilili and 

the Cibola NF&Gs. The “Torrance County CWPP” (SWCA 2008) recommends enacting the 

NEPA process to develop a firebreak along the boundary between the Pueblo, Kirtland Air Force 

Base (Kirtland), and Cibola NF&Gs, extending eastward to include Chilili. This project is given a 

high priority rating in the “Torrance County CWPP.” 

As a result of the 2007 and 2008 wildfires (Ojo Peak, Trigo, and Big Springs) and the continued 

threat to the area, as identified in the CWPPs, the Pueblo initiated a collaborative planning effort 

with its neighbors to address the remaining high wildfire risk in the region. The parties held a 

series of meetings to begin scoping discussions, identify potential treatment areas, and develop 

multiparty support for cross-jurisdictional activities. This collaborative planning effort 

incorporated a number of additional partners including: the BIA Southern Pueblo Agency (SPA); 

three Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs): Claunch-Pinto, Edgewood, and Ciudad; 

Kirtland; the New Mexico State Forestry Division; the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS); and the 

New Mexico Wild Turkey Federation (NMWTF). This multijurisdictional planning effort, funded 

by the Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP), requires coordination and cooperation 

2 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

among Federal, tribal, and private landowners. This multijurisdictional planning process is further 

supported by the Tribal Forest Protection Act of 2004. 

In addition to ongoing planning efforts, all parties have been engaged in on-the-ground treatments 

in and adjacent to the project area. The Pueblo completed 420 acres of firebreak along the Pueblo 

and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) eastern boundary in June through October 2008. The firebreak 

work followed BIA NEPA guidelines and the “Isleta Pueblo Fire Management Plan” (Ecosystem 

Management, Inc. (EMI) 2005). The firebreak project was funded by the Pueblo. 

Chilili received CFRP funding in 2008 to complete the appropriate environmental compliance for 

269 acres of piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa) forest that borders the “landlocked” USFS portion of the project area. Chilili were successful in securing 2010 CFRP funding 

to carry out implementation of treatment actions for this project throughout the summer and fall 

of 2010. 

Much of the active forest management on the Cibola NF&Gs portion of the project area has 

occurred in the last 10 years under the Thunderbird Ecosystem Management Project, approved in 

2004 and ongoing. This management includes approximately 1,400 acres of wildlife habitat 

improvement comprising meadow restoration, rehabilitation of openings and other 

structural/nonstructural habitat improvement, approximately 8,400 acres of thinning and selection 

harvests, implementation of northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) management guidelines, and 

fuels management (prescribed burning, burning of piles, rearrangement of fuels, etc.) on an 

estimated 10,000 acres. Wildfire activity during the last 10 years has also affected approximately 

16,700 acres within the Ecosystem Management Area. The remaining Thunderbird Ecosystem 

Management Project area was implemented in 2012. These activities primarily involve thinning 

and group selection treatments favoring habitat improvement for the northern goshawk. 

Since May 2008, 11 project partners have committed their time and resources to this multijurisdictional project engaging in project scoping and resource analysis. The three jurisdictions 

managing land in the project area have conducted stand exams, cultural resources surveys, and 

biological indicator measurements within their portions of the project area. The USFS is the lead 

agency in accordance §1508.16 of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA 

regulations. The Pueblo, Chilili, and BIA are cooperating agencies in accordance with §1508.5 

CEQ NEPA regulations. 

The Project Area 

The Pueblo is a federally recognized tribe located in New Mexico’s Middle Rio Grande valley, 

south of Albuquerque. The Pueblo encompasses approximately 211,890 acres, including a portion 

of the East Mountain area, and is located adjacent to lands under jurisdiction of multiple land 

management agencies. The Pueblo portion of the project area encompasses 2,000 acres. The legal 

description of the Pueblo portion of the project area is Section 1, Township 7 North, Range 5 

East; Sections 1, 2, 11–13, and 35, Township 8 North, Range 5 East; and Sections 4–9, 16, 18, 20, 

21, and 28–32, Township 8 North, Range 6 East. The project area is presented in Figure 1. 

Chilili is located on the Pueblo’s eastern border, with a portion of USFS lands “locked” between 

the Pueblo and Chilili. The project area encompasses 613 acres of Chilili land. The legal 

description of the Chilili portion of the project area is Chilili Land Grant. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 3 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

Figure 1. Project location (Source: Cibola National Forest 2011) 

4 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

The Cibola NF&Gs portion of the project area is split between the Mountainair and Sandia RDs. 

The Mountainair RD portion of the project area is located in the northern portion of the Manzano 

Mountains and begins directly south of the Pueblo and west of Chilili. The legal description of 

the Mountainair RD portion of the project area is Sections 24 and 25, Township 7 North, Range 5 

East; Sections 5, 6, 8, 18–20, 29, and 31–33, Township 7 North, Range 6 East; and Section 32, 

Township 8 North, Range 6 East. This area is located outside the Manzano Mountain Wilderness. 

This portion of the proposed project lies within Management Areas 11 and 15 as defined by the 

1985 “Cibola National Forest Land and Resources Management Plan” (forest plan, pages 140– 

173). 

The Sandia RD portion of the project area is located in David Canyon and begins directly west of 

the Tranquillo Pines subdivision located west of New Mexico Highway 337 and extends west to 

the U.S. Department of Defense Withdrawal Area and south to the Pueblo. The legal description 

for the project is Sections 6, 24, 25, and 36, Township 9 North, Range 6 East. This area is located 

outside the Sandia Mountain Wilderness and T’uf Shur Bien Preservation Trust area. This portion 

of the proposed project lies within Management Area 2 as defined by the forest plan (page 85). 

Purpose and Need for Action 

Purpose and Need for All Partners 

The purpose of the project for all partners is to reduce fuel loadings and structure on lands 

managed by the Pueblo, Chilili, and the Cibola NF&Gs Sandia and Mountainair RDs. These 

treatments are needed to reduce the potential of uncharacteristic wildfires that would threaten 

local communities (as identified in the East Mountain and Torrance County CWPPs), wildlife 

habitat and other natural and cultural resources in the area, and improve public and firefighter 

safety. 

Existing forest conditions, in all forest types, are described by: 

	 High tree densities ranging from 4 to 1,288 trees per acre; 

	 Continuous tree canopies and lack of openings; 

	 Reduced understory productivity and diversity; 

	 Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) (a classification of the amount of departure from 

the natural fire regime) of 3, which is characterized as “a significant departure from the 

natural range of variability and predisposed to a high risk of loss of key ecosystem 

components” (Hann and Bunnell 2001); 

	 Low crowning index (the wind speed in miles per hour necessary for a fire that reaches 

the forest canopy to continue as a crown fire) values meaning a crown fire would remain 

active even at relatively low wind speeds. 

Existing Conditions 

Existing Conditions Specific to the Pueblo 

The Pueblo project area is approximately 2,000 acres. The following is the breakdown by 

dominant forest types: 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 5 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

	 Piñon-Juniper Woodland – Approximately 608.7 acres. Total tree densities (trees 

greater than 5 inches diameter at root collar (d.r.c.) range from 23.7 to 305.1 trees per 

acre. Stands have 18.7 to 473.9 trees per acre from 2 to 5 inches d.r.c.. The average basal 

area (BA) is 114.8 square feet per acre. These areas are primarily even aged, lacking 

structural diversity, and many units have a thick understory of Gambel oak (Quercus 

gambelii) primarily with stems less than 5 inches d.r.c.. 

	 Ponderosa Pine – Approximately 1,236 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.)) range from 4.07 to 95.5 trees per acre. Stands 

have 0.0 to 74.8 trees per acre from 2 to 5 inches d.b.h.. The average BA is 100.5 square 

feet per acre. These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

	 Mixed Conifer – There were only two white fir (Abies concolor) and one Douglas-fir 

(Pseudotsuga menziesii) trees measured on all plots across the project area that were 

greater than 5 inches d.b.h.. There is very little regeneration of mixed conifer species. The 

understory is dominated by Gambel oak. 

Existing Conditions Specific to Chilili 

The Chilili project area is approximately 620 acres. The following is the breakdown by dominant 

forest types: 

	 Piñon-Juniper Woodland – Approximately 36.72 acres. Total tree densities (trees 

greater than 5 inches d.r.c.) range from 27.8 to 102.06 trees per acre. Stands have 51.8 to 

64.1 trees per acre from 2 to 5 inches d.r.c.. The average BA is 114.8 square feet per acre. 

These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity, and many units have a 

thick understory of Gambel oak with stems less than 5 inches d.r.c.. 

	 Ponderosa Pine – Approximately 572.9 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches d.b.h.) range from 52.6 to 127.1 trees per acre. Stands have 0.0 to 69.0 trees per 

acre from 2 to 5 inches d.b.h.. The average BA is 100.5 square feet per acre. These areas 

are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

Existing Conditions Specific to Sandia and Mountainair RDs 

Mountainair RD 

The Mountainair RD project area is approximately 5,700 acres. Following is the breakdown by 

dominant forest types based on stand exam data: 

	 Piñon-Juniper Woodland – Approximately 1,000 acres. Total tree densities (trees 

greater than 5 inches d.r.c.) range from 25 to 888 trees per acre. In addition, stands have 

an average of 1,890 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. Overall, canopy closure is 60 

percent. These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

	 Ponderosa Pine – Approximately 3,500 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches d.b.h.) range from 34 to 1,288 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an average 

of 1,758 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. Overall, canopy closure is 60 percent. 

These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

	 Oak Woodland – Approximately 1,100 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches d.r.c.) range from 0 to 656 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an average of 

6 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

2,503 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.r.c.. Overall, canopy closure is less than 40 

percent. These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

	 Mixed Conifer – Approximately 130 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches d.b.h.) range from 61 to 502 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an average of 

2,076 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. Overall, canopy closure is 60 percent. These 

areas are primarily even aged lacking structural diversity. 

Sandia RD 

The Sandia RD project area is approximately 2,100 acres. Following is the breakdown by 

dominant forest types based on stand exam data: 

	 Piñon-Juniper Woodland – Approximately 1,600 acres. Total tree densities (trees 

greater than 5 inches d.r.c.) range from 62 to 537 trees per acre. In addition, stands have 

an average of 2,294 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. Overall, canopy closure is 60 

percent. These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

	 Ponderosa Pine – Approximately 400 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches d.b.h.) range from 109 to 451 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an average of 

3,082 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. Overall, canopy closure is 60 percent. These 

areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

	 Oak Woodland – Approximately 60 acres. Total tree densities (trees greater than 5 

inches d.r.c.) range from 44 to 47 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an average of 

4,146 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.r.c.. Overall, canopy closure is less than 40 

percent. These areas are primarily even aged, lacking structural diversity. 

The existing condition for all of the dominant forest types on both ranger districts is deficient of 

trees greater than 16 inches d.b.h. and d.r.c. (based on stand exam data). This project does not 

propose to cut any trees over this diameter in order to move the area toward the desired condition. 

This project complies with Federal, state, and local laws or requirements for the protection of the 

environment 

Proposed Action 

The proposed action has been changed since USFS public scoping. Treatments on Kirtland have 

been removed from the proposed action. 

The proposed action for which Federal decisions will be made and for which NEPA is required 

are: 

	 Forest Service – application of a series of fuels reduction treatments within delineated 

units as shown in Figure 1 and described below. 

	 BIA – dependent upon funding availability, proposes (1) to implement treatments within 

the projects areas identified on Pueblo lands and/or (2) distribute funds through Public 

Law 93-638 contracts to the Pueblo for implementation of treatments. The treatments 

would include prescribed burning, mechanical treatments, biomass utilization, and 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 7 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

chemical and biological applications as defined in the BIA 2006 “Fuels Program Business 

Management Handbook.” 

Many of the proposed activities would be common to all units, regardless of land jurisdiction in 

order to maintain the landscape-scale approach described in chapter 2. However, some applied 

treatments would change based on the location of the unit. The proposed action is presented, first, 

by describing the activities that would be common to all units and then by describing the 

activities that would occur based on land management agency. 

Desired vegetation conditions for the entire project area are those that reduce the potential for 

active crown fires and provide for public and emergency personnel safety in the event of a 

wildfire. Within the ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper forest types, the desired condition would 

be to provide northern goshawk habitat that is consistent with the northern goshawk guidelines 

(forest plan 1985, pages 71-5 through 71-8.) Overall the desired conditions include: 

	 Managing for uneven-aged stand conditions for live trees to include tree groups and 

openings; 

	 Retaining live reserve trees, snags (2 per acre), large downed logs (3 per acre), and 

woody debris levels (5–7 tons per acre) throughout ponderosa pine woodland and 10 to 

15 tons per acre of woody debris in mixed conifer and spruce-fir forest cover types; 

	 Managing for old age trees such that as much old forest structure as possible is sustained 

over time across the landscape; 

	 Sustaining a mosaic of vegetation densities, age classes, canopy gaps, and species 

composition across the landscape; 

	 Maintaining a range of vegetation structural stages (VSS, or growth stages of living 

trees); treatments would strive to achieve, over time, a VSS distribution of 10 percent 

VSS 1 (grasses, forbs, and shrubs), 10 percent VSS 2 (seedlings and saplings), 20 percent 

VSS 3 (young forest), 20 percent VSS 4 (mid-aged forest), 20 percent VSS 5 (mature 

forest), and 20 percent VSS 6 (old forest) across the landscape; 

	 Keeping residual trees per acre and canopy cover slightly higher within northern goshawk 

post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) and dispersal PFAs due to habitat needs compared to 

foraging areas (lands outside PFAs); 

	 Maintaining a minimum of 30 to 40 trees per acre in nest areas and a size class 

distribution of VSS 5 and/or 6; 

	 Developing and maintaining old growth conditions for USFS lands on 20 percent of the 

3,900 ponderosa pine acres (approximately 780 acres) and 20 percent of 2,600 piñonjuniper acres (approximately 520 acres) the desired condition as defined in the forest plan 

(1985) “Forest Wide Standards and Guidelines” page 66, table “The Minimum Criteria 

for the Structural Attribute Used to Determine Old Growth.” These areas would be 

designated during the environmental analysis process; 

	 Reducing tree spacing for trees that are in groups with interlocking crowns, typically 0.25 

to 0.75 acre in size but ranging from a few trees to 2 acres. Scattered individual trees 

exist between groups. Residual spacing between groups would be irregular and would 

range from 40 to 80 feet with few, if any, trees in this “rooting zone;” and 

8 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 9 

 Maintaining temporary openings, for regeneration purposes, up to 4 acres with a 

maximum width of 200 feet existing on approximately 10 percent of the area. Three to 

five reserve trees per acre are maintained in these openings. Two large snags and three 

large logs per acre would exist and five to seven tons of woody debris would be retained. 

Figure 2 displays the arrangement of leave groups and rooting zones that would remain after 

treatment. Not shown are the temporary openings created for regeneration purposes. 

 

 

Figure 2. Illustration of desired spatial arrangement of leave groups

Group 1 Group 2

This image cannot currently be displayed.

Leave group area, typically 

should range 0.25 to 0.75 acre, 

and may range from a few trees 

up to 2 acres

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed.

This image cannot currently be displayed. This image cannot currently be displayed.

Group boundary 

(drip line of outermost 

leave tree) 

Group 3

Rooting zone spacing 40 to 80

feet between drip line of 

outermost leave tree

Mixed Conifer – Within the mixed conifer forest type, the desired condition would be to 

maintain the existing condition to meet threshold conditions for Mexican spotted owl (Strix 

occidentalis lucida) (MSO) restricted habitat as stated in the forest plan (pages 71-2 to 71-3).

Oak Woodland – Within the oak woodland forest type, the desired condition would be to 

develop and maintain a variety of wildlife habitat by having the area in the following seral stage: 

(1) 35 percent of the acreage in an early seral stage that would provide browse and forage; (2) 35 

percent in a mid-seral stage that would provide browse, forage, and cover; and (3) 30 percent in a 

late seral stage that would provide mast, forage, and cavities for cavity nesting birds. 

The existing condition for both ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland is deficient of trees 

greater than 16 inches d.b.h. and d.r.c.. This project proposes to not cut any trees over this 

diameter to assist in moving the area to desired condition. 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

In addition to the northern goshawk desired conditions, all land jurisdictions would also treat 

selected trees with chain saws, mastication, or treatment using other mechanical methods; Pueblo, 

Chilili, and contract crews would implement treatments. Woody material, not removed for 

firewood may be removed by permit or other authorization. Hand piles would average 10 feet in 

diameter and have an average height of 5 feet. Piles would be placed away from remaining trees 

to minimize scorch damage and outside drainages to mitigate against soil erosion and water 

quality effects. Piles would be burned 1 to 2 years after the initial treatment. Along drainage 

edges, scattered slash would be used to promote grass production, provide soil stability, and 

minimize erosion. Three slash piles per acre would be retained within the firebreak to provide 

wildlife cover. 

Decision Framework 

Given the purpose and need, the deciding official reviews the environmental consequences of the 

proposed action and the other alternatives in order to make the following decisions: 

 To implement the proposed action; 

 To implement an alternative action; or 

 To take no action. 

Public Involvement 

On September 9, 2011, a scoping letter and project location map was mailed to approximately 

1,500 different agencies, businesses, individuals, tribes, and organizations interested in or 

determined to be potentially impacted by the proposed project. Comments were accepted through 

October 10, 2011. In addition, the proposal was first listed in the “Schedule of Proposed Actions” 

on October 1, 2010. See the project record for a list of comments received. 

Comments received during scoping were used to develop a list of issues and these issues helped 

guide the development of alternative C. 

The Cibola NF&Gs currently consults with 13 Native American tribes and one Navajo Chapter 

that may have used or may continue to use Sandia and/or Mountainair RD lands for traditional 

cultural or religious activities, and that might attach religious or cultural significance to properties 

within the Sandia, Manzanita, and Manzano Mountains. These include the Pueblos of Acoma, 

Zuni, Isleta, Sandia, Santo Domingo, Santa Ana, San Felipe, San Ildefonso, Cochiti, Zia, and 

Jemez, as well as the Mescalero Apache tribe, the Navajo Nation, and the To’hajiilee Navajo 

Chapter. At the time the tribes were first introduced to the project in August 2008, the Cibola 

NF&Gs was still consulting with the Jicarilla Apache Nation concerning projects on Sandia RD 

land. 

Tribal consultation pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act was initiated 

in August 2008. The project was included in the Cibola NF&Gs’ annual consultation letter 

highlighting projects proposed for planning or implementation. Followup consultation meetings 

to discuss the projects were held in the fall of 2008 with the Pueblos of Sandia, Isleta, Acoma, 

Zuni, and Jemez, and the Navajo Nation. During these meetings, the Pueblo of Isleta indicated its 

support for the project, as did the Pueblo of Sandia, provided that the archaeological resources are 

protected during project implementation. None of the other tribes expressed any interest or 

10 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 1. Purpose and Need 

concern about the project. Consultation pursuant to NEPA was initiated in September 2011 when 

the Cibola NF&Gs mailed the 13 tribes a scoping letter. The Cibola NF&Gs did not receive any 

tribal responses. To date, no traditional cultural properties have been identified within the 

proposed project areas. The project would have no effect on sites of traditional cultural or 

religious significance 

Issues 

Through scoping, the interdisciplinary team identified the following issue: 

	 The establishment of rooting zones as described in the proposed action might reduce the 

quality of northern goshawk habitat and be inconsistent with Cibola forest plan direction 

for goshawk stand structure. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 11 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action 

This section describes the alternatives that have been considered in the development of this EA. 

The no action alternative must always be considered in the EA process. An EA often addresses 

two or more “action” alternatives; in this case one action alternative would result in the 

restoration of the project area. 

Alternative A – No Action 

Under the no action alternative, the current level of management would continue to guide 

management of the project area. No treatments would be implemented to address existing 

vegetation or fuel concerns. Suppression of wildfire would continue. 

The no action alternative would fail to address the existing conditions that favor uncharacteristic 

wildfires. 

Alternative B – The Proposed Action 

The proposed action has been changed since USFS public scoping. Following are the changes: 

1.	 Treatments on Kirtland have been removed from the proposed action. 

2.	 The term “risk” has been changed to “potential” in the purpose and need as originally 

scoped in referring to “reducing the potential of uncharacteristic wildfire.” 

3.	 The first sentence in the scoped purpose and need has changed to “the purpose of the 

project for all partners is to reduce fuel loadings and structure on lands managed by the 

Pueblo, Chilili, and the Cibola NF&Gs Sandia and Mountainair RDs” from “The purpose 

of the project for all partners is to complete a series of fuel reduction treatments on lands 

managed by the Pueblo, Chilili, and the Cibola NF&Gs Sandia and Mountainair RDs.” 

4.	 The desired fuel loading for mixed conifer areas has been changed from 5 to 7 tons per 

acre to 10 to 15 tons per acre to be consistent with forest plan direction. 

5.	 Under the “Transportation and Wood Hauling” section, the following were added: the 

Map 3 Haul Zone map was revised to display more existing roads, a “Roads Conditions 

Pre and Post Implementation” section was added with a high level of detail of the 

existing authorized and unauthorized roads, and map 4: NFS Road Designations Post 

Treatment was added that displays how the road would be post treatment. 

6.	 A site-specific forest plan amendment for this project to the “Cibola National Forest Land 

and Resource Management Plan” was added that explicitly provides for the establishment 

and retention of rooting zones on Cibola National Forest treatment areas. 

The Pueblo, Chilili, and Cibola NF&Gs would apply a series of fuels reduction treatments within 

delineated units as shown in Figure 3. Many of the proposed activities would be common to all 

units, regardless of land jurisdiction in order to maintain the landscape-scale approach described 

below. However, some applied treatments would change based on the location of the unit. The 

proposed action is presented first, by describing the activities that would be common to all units, 

and then by describing the activities that would occur based on land management agency. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 13 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

14 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

In order to achieve fuel reduction objectives while complimenting the northern goshawk desired 

conditions, each land management jurisdiction would also implement their own treatments, as 

described below.

Alternative C 

This alternative provides for treatments on the Cibola National Forest and Grasslands ranger 

districts of the proposed action but is modified to not include rooting zones. Alternative C was 

developed due to scoping comments received during the public scoping comment period initiated 

on October 10, 2011. This alternative is described in more detail in this chapter after the 

description of the “Proposed Action Specific to the Cibola NF&Gs” section below.

Proposed Action Specific to Isleta Pueblo 

There are 11 treatment units located on Pueblo lands. The exterior units, located along common 

boundaries with Chilili and the Cibola NF&Gs are known as the Bonito to David West, Bonito to 

David East, David to Carolino, Carolino Northeast, Northeast Corner to Tribal Road (TR) 207, 

and TR 207 to Fire Tower Road units. The interior units consist of the Carolino, David Canyon 

East, David Canyon West, Area 207/208, and Bonito units. Table 1 provides a summary of the 

size and location of the Pueblo treatment units. Refer to figure 3 for the map of these treatment 

units. 

Table 1. Summary of Pueblo treatment units

Size Unit Name Location (Acres)

Bonito to David West 29.4 Exterior unit sharing a boundary with Kirtland 

Bonito to David East 51.4 Exterior unit sharing a boundary with Kirtland 

David to Carolino 96.8 Exterior unit sharing a boundary with Cibola NF&Gs (Sandia RD)

Carolino Northeast 138.7 Exterior unit sharing a boundary with private land

Northeast Corner to TR 207 208.9 Exterior unit sharing a boundary with private land

TR 207 to Fire Tower Road 399.1 Exterior unit sharing a boundary with Chilili and Cibola NF&Gs

(Mountainair RD)

Carolino 181.2 Interior unit directly south of Carolino NE unit

David Canyon East 64.6 Interior unit directly south of the boundary between the David to 

Carolino and Carolino Northeast exterior units

David Canyon West 67.5 Interior unit directly south of the David to Carolino exterior unit

Area 207/208 507.7 Interior unit located south of TR 60, in the middle to the Pueblo 

treatment area

Bonito 218.7 Interior unit located on the west side of Pueblo treatment area, just 

south of the Bonito to David West exterior unit

Total 1,964.0 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 3. Pueblo treatment units 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 15 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

The existing condition for both ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland is deficient of trees 

greater than 16 inches d.b.h. and d.r.c.. This project proposes to not cut any trees over this 

diameter to assist in moving the area to desired condition. 

Treatment goals for all Pueblo units include increasing the canopy height by 35–40 percent and 

decreasing the fuel loading by 80–85 percent. Since thinning alone would only remove trees that 

act as ladder fuels, prescribed fire would be used in combination with thinning in some units in 

order to alter the surface fuels that have been found to heavily influence the incidence of high 

severity wildfire (Omi and Martinson 2007). Herbicides, including Roundup, Garlon 3A, and 

Garlon 4, would also be used by the Pueblo throughout the project area in order to control 

resprouts from treated Gambel oak, minimizing the need for repeated thinning treatment. No 

restricted herbicides would be used on the project. 

Piñon-Juniper Treatments 

Treatments in the piñon-juniper community type would follow an uneven-aged (where trees are 

found in three or more distinct age classes, either mixed or in small groups) group selection 

silviculture system (where trees are removed and new age classes are established in small groups; 

also, where regeneration, growth, and yield are regulated in an aggregation of groups). Within 

groups, designated trees would be thinned from below in order to increase the canopy base height 

by 30–40 percent. Spacing of groups would be irregular, and openings between groups would 

vary in size. Alligator juniper (Juniperus deppeana) would be retained throughout. Approximately 

10 percent of this forest type would be converted to temporary openings to encourage natural 

regeneration. Ponderosa pine, white fir, and Douglas-fir occurring in piñon-juniper woodlands 

would be maintained as groups or stringers. Piñon and juniper species 16 inches d.r.c. and larger 

would be retained. 

Ponderosa Pine Treatments 

Treatments in the ponderosa pine community type would follow an uneven-aged group selection 

system. Within groups, designated trees would be thinned from below in order to increase the 

canopy base height by 30–40 percent. Spacing of groups would be irregular and openings 

between groups would vary in size. Alligator juniper would be retained throughout. 

Approximately 10 percent of this forest type would be converted to temporary openings to 

encourage natural regeneration. On average at least two snags per acre would be retained for 

wildlife habitat. Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir that are 16 inches d.b.h. and larger 

would be retained. 

Exterior Units 

The Pueblo would prioritize treatment in the exterior units because these units would serve as 

firebreaks to protect from fire movement across boundaries. Thinning and pile burning would be 

used to treat the exterior units where reduction of hazardous fuels is a primary objective and 

where the threat of fire spread across landownership boundaries would prevent the use of a 

broadcast burn. The Pueblo proposes an average target basal area of 50 square feet per acre for 

the exterior treatment units. 

16 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Interior Units 

The interior units would be treated by tribal chain saw crews, and the treated timber would be 

removed by tribal members for firewood either through the established permitting process at 

staging areas established at the site or at a Pueblo wood yard for tribal member use only. Oak 

islands would be created within the interior treatment units in order to provide wildlife habitat for 

deer (Cervidae), turkey (Meleagris sp.), and elk (Cervus canadensis). As with the exterior 

treatment units, the treatment goals for the interior units include increasing the canopy height by 

35–40 percent and decreasing the fuel loading by 80–85 percent. Areas with a moderate to high 

incidence of dwarf mistletoe would be treated with stand-specific prescriptions to reduce longterm effects of the pathogen. The Pueblo proposes an average target basal area of 60 square feet 

per acre for the interior units. 

Prescribed Burning 

Following thinning treatments on interior units, a broadcast burn would be used to raise crown 

base height (c.b.h.) of residual trees and clear out undergrowth and remaining slash. Prescribed 

burning would proceed only after exterior fuel break units are cleared and provide secure 

firebreaks with adequate spacing to act as suppression areas to prevent fire spread across 

jurisdictional boundaries. All prescribed burning would be conducted only with an approved burn 

plan and concurrence of an approved tribal resolution as outlined in the “Pueblo Fire 

Management Plan” (2005). Prescribed fire implementation would be conducted in accordance 

with guidance issued in the local “Geographic and National Mobilization Guides” for the various 

preparedness levels. At National Level IV, concurrence by the regional fire management officer 

(FMO) must be obtained before implementing a prescribed fire. At National Preparedness Level 

V, a representative from the BIA, Branch of Fire Management must concur with the regional 

FMO’s approval of operations. At lower national levels of preparedness, the SPA Agency FMO 

has authority after coordinating with the SPA Superintendent, the BIA Southwest Regional Area 

Forester, and Pueblo tribal officials. Prescribed burning would be carried out by BIA fire crews in 

association with trained Pueblo crew members. Burn crews would strictly adhere to BIA and 

Pueblo safety policies and burn prescriptions established by a qualified burn boss. 

Meadow Areas 

Five meadow areas have been identified along the common boundary between the Pueblo and 

Chilili (Figure 4). These meadows would be expanded to historic boundaries by thinning and 

removal of piñon-juniper. 

Material Hauling 

Hauling of forest products associated with hazardous fuels reduction projects on neighboring 

properties in the Manzano Mountains would be allowed over Tribal Roads 12, 206, 207, and 210 

by written agreement and authorization of the Tribal Administration in coordination with the BIA. 

Appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and maintenance requirements would be 

incorporated in the agreement to minimize and/or prevent erosion from road surface runoff and 

stream crossings. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 17 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 4. Pueblo and Chilili meadow restoration areas 

18 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 19

Herbicide Application

After Gambel oak is removed from some portions of the project area, herbicides would be used to 

control resprouting and minimize the introduction of undesirable vegetation such as kochia 

(Kochia scoporia), Russian thistle (Salsola kali), and cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum). The use of 

herbicides within this project area is considered integral to the long-term success of the 

restoration efforts, especially since thick Gambel oak understory contributes significantly to the 

fire hazard in the project area. 

The herbicides to be used under the proposed action would be Garlon 3A, Garlon 4, and 

Roundup. The active ingredient of Garlon 3A and Garlon 4 is triclopyr. The active ingredient of 

Roundup is glyphosate. Herbicide treatments would follow Pueblo and BIA procedures.

Herbicides would be applied using low-pressure techniques with a backpack sprayer or spray 

bottle, wick (wiped on), or wand (sprayed on). Herbicides can be applied to a tree’s 

circumference of the trunk on the intact bark (basal bark application), to cuts in the trunk or stem 

(frill), to cut stems and stumps (cut stump), or injected into the inner bark. Aerial applications or 

broadcast applications are not proposed. All herbicide treatments would be supervised by licensed 

applicators trained in BMPs to minimize drift to nontarget species and avoid mishandling 

chemicals (table 2). Chemical treatment would include the application of registered herbicides 

according to their label instructions and according to Pueblo of Isleta, Department of Interior, 

BIA and Federal insecticide, fungicide, and rodenticide act requirements. 

Table 2. BMPs for herbicide use

Resource Herbicide BMPs

Vegetation, • Survey all proposed action areas within potential threatened, endangered, or proposed plant 

Including Wetland habitat to determine presence/absence of the species.

and Riparian Areas • Establish site-specific no activity buffers in areas of occupied habitat within the proposed 

project area. To protect occupied habitat, treatment activities would not occur within these 

buffers. 

• Collect baseline information on the existing condition of threatened, endangered, or 

proposed plant species and their habitats in the proposed project area.

• Assess the need for site revegetation post treatment to minimize the opportunity for 

noxious weed invasion and establishment.

• Review, understand, and conform to the “Environmental Hazards” section on herbicide 

labels. 

• Establish suitable buffer zones between treatment sites and populations (confirmed or 

suspected) of plant species to avoid negative effects to threatened, endangered, and 

proposed plant species from offsite drift, surface runoff, and/or wind erosion, and sitespecific precautions should be taken. 

• Follow all instructions and labels to avoid spill. Conduct manual spot treatment of 

undesirable vegetation within buffer zones if it is determined by biologists that this method 

of herbicide application would not pose risks to threatened, endangered, or proposed plant 

species in the area.

• Use a low boom or wand application during ground applications of glyphosate and 

triclopyr acid within 0.5 mile of terrestrial threatened, endangered, or proposed plant 

species.

• Do not apply by ground methods at the typical application rate for glyphosate within 50 

feet of threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species.

• Do not apply by ground methods at the typical application rate for triclopyr within 300 feet 

of threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species.

• Do not apply by ground methods at a maximum application rate for glyphosate of 300 feet 

of terrestrial threatened, endangered, or proposed plant species.

• In areas where wind erosion is likely, do not apply triclopyr within 0.5 mile of threatened, 

endangered, or proposed plant species.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

20 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Resource Herbicide BMPs

Terrestrial 

Organisms, 

Including Wildlife 

and Special Status 

Species

•

•

•

•

•

•

•

Conduct surveys prior to vegetation treatments within potential or suitable habitat. Where 

surveys detect birds, do not broadcast spray herbicides.

Do not conduct vegetation treatments within 0.5 mile (or further if deemed necessary) of 

known nest sites or unsurveyed suitable habitat during the breeding season.

Adjust spatial and temporal scales of treatments to avoid treating all suitable habitat in any 

given year.

Following treatments, replant or reseed treated areas with native species, if needed. 

Closely follow all application instructions and use restrictions on herbicide labels; in 

wetland habitats use only those herbicides that are approved for use in wetlands.

To minimize risks to terrestrial wildlife, do not exceed the typical application rate for 

herbicides. 

Where practical, limit glyphosate to spot applications in rangeland and wildlife habitat 

areas to avoid contamination of wildlife food items. 

Human Health and 

Safety

•

•

•

Use the typical application rate, where feasible, when applying triclopyr to reduce risk to 

occupational and public receptors. 

Wear personal protective equipment, such as long-sleeved shirts, long pants, protective 

eyewear, shoes plus socks, and chemical-resistant gloves.

Post signs of treated areas at main access points to notify the public of temporary restricted 

access for 48 hours.

Recreation • Post signs of treated areas 

access for 48 hours.

at main access points to notify the public of temporary restricted 

Cultural Resources • Do not exceed typical application rates when applying triclopyr in 

areas. 

known traditional use 

To minimize impacts to nesting birds and surrounding native vegetation, mechanical and 

herbicide treatment activities would occur in the fall and winter months. Treatments to occur 

outside of this time period would require a biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey prior to 

treatment and, if no nesting birds are found, treatments could be conducted during the nesting 

season. Herbicide applications on the cut stumps would be applied to the cut surface of individual 

trees within minutes after saw crews cut the larger diameter trees. Root sprouts emerging 

following treatments would be treated using basal bark treatments the following fall or winter 

after the initial treatment. 

Proposed Action Specific to Chilili

Chilili is currently implementing fuels reduction treatments on a 269-acre NEPA cleared parcel 

along the common boundary with the Mountainair RD of the Cibola NF&Gs. For this EA, the 

proposed Chilili treatment area covers approximately 620 acres and is broken into two units, one 

100-acre unit north of the existing treatment area and one 520-acre unit south of the existing 

treatment area (figure 5). Chilili would treat the north and south unit using chain saw crews. 

Both units of the project area comprise the ponderosa pine community type and would be treated 

to meet the northern goshawk desired conditions with treatments following an uneven-aged group 

selection system. Within groups, designated trees would be thinned from below, spacing of 

groups would be irregular, and openings between groups would vary in size. Alligator juniper 

would be retained throughout. Thinning would occur to an average target basal area of 60 square 

feet per acre. On average at least two snags per acre would be retained for wildlife habitat.

Ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir that are 16 inches d.b.h. and larger would be retained.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 5. Chilili treatment units 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 21 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Along the border between Chilili and other land jurisdictions (Cibola NF&Gs and the Pueblo), 

20-foot firebreaks would be established in order to protect from fire movement across boundaries 

and to allow for firefighter access. Along the common boundary with the Pueblo, Chilili would 

also treat the five meadow areas by thinning and removal of piñon-juniper. Once the hand 

thinning crews complete the treatment of the northern unit, Chilili would followup with a 

prescribed broadcast burn on the 620 acres. The burn would use Chilili crews as part of a wider 

cross-jurisdictional effort. 

Proposed Action Specific to Cibola NF&Gs 

The existing condition for both ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland is deficient of trees 

greater than 16 inches d.b.h. and d.r.c.. This project proposes to not cut any trees over this 

diameter to assist in moving the area to desired condition. 

To move these stands toward the desired condition as described above, an uneven-aged 

silvicultural system would be used. Specifically, a “group selection” treatment (where trees are 

removed and new age classes are established in small groups; also, where regeneration, growth, 

and yield are regulated in an aggregation of groups) would be implemented in all forest types 

except for the oak woodland and mixed conifer forest types. 

Piñon-Juniper Treatments 

Groups of trees would be established with interlocking crowns, typically 0.25–0.75 acre in size 

but ranging from a few trees to 2 acres. Spacing of groups would be irregular and openings 

between groups would vary from 40 to 80 feet with few, if any, trees in this area, which is 

referred to as the “rooting zone.” Temporary openings would be created for regeneration 

purposes, up to 4 acres with a maximum width of 200 feet on approximately 10 percent of the 

area. Three to five reserve trees per acre would be maintained in these openings. Temporary 

openings would be created away from roads and trails to maintain visual corridors and provide 

wildlife security. This would create a forest structure as illustrated in Figure 2 above. 

Within groups, designated trees would be thinned from below to a residual of 55–92 trees per acre 

on lands outside PFAs, 119–138 trees per acre in PFAs, and 60–100 trees per acre in nesting 

areas. All large alligator juniper is preferred for retention. The relative abundance of piñonjuniper within the groups would be maintained so that one species is not favored above another 

for removal. For example, if the area originally had a ratio of 70 percent piñon pine (Pinus edulis) 

and 30 percent juniper (Juniperus sp.), the same ratio would be retained after thinning. 

Ponderosa pine, white fir, and Douglas-fir occurring in piñon-juniper woodlands would be 

maintained as groups or stringers as appropriate to meet wildlife habitat improvement objectives. 

On average at least two snags and 5 to 7 tons of downed woody debris per acre (including large 

downed logs) would be retained. Thinning would be accomplished by hand, with mechanized 

equipment and/or mastication. Commercial contracts and personal use firewood permits would be 

offered to remove the wood. 

Ponderosa Pine Treatments 

Groups would be established in the same manner as described in the “Piñon-Juniper Treatments” 

section. 

22 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Within groups, designated trees would be thinned from below to a residual of 73–110 trees per 

acre on lands outside PFAs, 119–138 trees per acre in PFAs, and a minimum of 30–40 trees per 

acre in nesting areas. All large alligator juniper is preferred for retention. On average at least two 

snags and 5 to 7 tons of downed woody debris per acre (including three large logs per acre) would 

be retained. 

Thinning would be accomplished by mechanized harvesting equipment, by hand, and/or 

mastication. Commercial contracts and personal use firewood permits would be offered to 

remove the wood. 

Oak Woodland Treatments 

Prescribed fire would be used exclusively in these areas to develop and maintain a variety of 

wildlife food and cover habitat by managing the area for the following: (1) 35 percent of the 

acreage in an early seral stage that would provide browse and forage; (2) 35 percent in a midseral stage that would provide browse, forage, and cover; and (3) 30 percent in a late seral stage 

that would provide mast, forage, and cavities for cavity-nesting birds. 

Mixed Conifer Treatments 

An analysis was conducted to determine if MSO threshold conditions existed at a district-wide 

scale and it was determined that both ranger districts were deficient in these conditions. 

Therefore, all existing tree densities and canopy cover would be maintained in mixed conifer 

areas within this project. Prescribed fire would be used exclusively in these areas to maintain 10 

to 15 tons per acre fuel loading. 

Areas Over 40 Percent Slope 

Dispersed throughout the project area is approximately 35 acres over 40 percent slope. These 

areas would not be treated mechanically and would be treated by hand as required by the Cibola 

forest plan. Tree densities would be reduced by thinning designated trees onsite and prescribe 

burning or exclusively by prescribed burning. 

Slash Disposal 

Activity fuel such as bole wood, slash, hand piles, and mastication grindings would be treated as 

needed to meet fuels reduction objectives through prescribed burning and/or pile burning when 

conditions allow for safe and effective burning. All prescribed burning would comply with New 

Mexico State Air Quality Regulations and would be approved through appropriate permitting 

processes. 

Maintenance 

Maintenance would be implemented when monitoring data show that the area is beginning to 

exceed its threshold for desired condition. The treatment methods described above would 

continue to be used as needed to maintain the desired conditions. Prescribed fire would be the 

primary tool used to reduce tree densities and undesirable tree regeneration and promote grasses 

and forbs. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 23 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

24 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Table 3 describes proposed treatments to meet the desired condition for each forest type based on 

soil conditions, location, and slope. For location of treatment types as described in the table, refer 

to figure 6. 

Table 3. Proposed treatments to meet 

soil conditions, location, and slope 

the desired condition for ea

Tree Removal

Will cut trees be 

ch forest 

What happens

remains on the site after

type 

Slash Treatment

 to tree tops

and other material that 

based on 

Treatment Type

1 – Satisfactory soils, 

less than 40 percent 

slope; approximate 

acres by forest type: 

Cutting Methods

How will excess trees be 

cut or otherwise handled?

Mechanical mastication

removed from the 

areas?

None where mastication 

occurs. 

cutting?

Masticated material would be 

spread onsite to a depth of 2 

to 4 inches, other cut material 

Chain saws – contract or Commercial firewood, lopped and scattered or hand 

ponderosa pine 1,710 USFS service contracts, and/or piled; broadcast burning 

and piñon-juniper Mechanized feller timber sale contracts; and/or pile burning when 

woodlands 1,450. where good access exists, management prescription 

material removed under conditions are met. 

permits for personal use 

firewood. 

2 - Impaired soils with 

less than 40 percent 

slope and satisfactory 

soils with severe 

erosion hazard rating;

approximate acres by 

forest type: ponderosa 

pine 2,150 and piñonjuniper woodlands 

1,110. 

Mechanical mastication None where mastication 

occurs. 

Masticated material would be 

spread onsite to a depth of 2 

to 4 inches, other cut material 

lopped and scattered or hand 

piled; broadcast burning 

and/or pile burning when 

management prescription 

conditions are met. 

Chain saws – contract or 

USFS

Mechanized feller

Commercial firewood, 

service contracts, and/or 

timber sale contracts;

personal use firewood 

removal along authorized 

NFS roads—no crosscountry travel permitted.

3 – Oak woodland 

1,120 acres

None - these areas would be 

prescribe burned only. 

None None 

4 – All areas with Only hand cutting with chain None Cut material lopped and 

greater than 40 saws; some areas would not scattered or hand piled;

percent slope; be cut, such as the mixed broadcast burning and/or pile 

approximate acres by conifer acres. burning when management 

forest type: ponderosa prescription conditions are 

pine 5, piñon-juniper met.

woodlands 15, and 

mixed conifer 15. 

5 – Mixed conifer less None - these areas would be None None 

than 40 percent slope prescribe burned only. 

set aside as threshold 

conditions for MSO 

restricted habitat. 

Receipts generated from the sale of the harvested material and firewood permits would be 

retained by the USFS under authority in the Knutson-Vandenberg Act of 1930. These receipts 

would be used to pay contractors and/or USFS personnel within 1 to 2 years after the project is 

completed. The rehabilitation activities could include: (1) decommissioning of non-system roads 

(unauthorized roads) within the project area by ripping compacted soils, installing erosion control 

features, seeding the impacted areas with native grasses, and using slash to cover impacted 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

corridors to 80 percent coverage; (2) rehabilitating cross-country travel corridors by ripping 

compacted soils, installing erosion control features, seeding the impacted areas with native 

grasses, and using slash to cover impacted corridors to 80 percent coverage; (3) hand piling slash 

where needed to provide for manageable prescribed fire conditions; (4) lopping and scattering 

slash not collected through firewood gathering to 24 inches maximum height; and (5) conducting 

thinning within the project area. 

Connected Actions 

This project on the Sandia and Mountain RDs has been divided into three unique geographic 

areas: (1) David Canyon on the Sandia RD, (2) the Dog Head on the Mountainair RD, and (3) 

Northern Manzano on the Mountain RD. The rationale for recognizing the three unique 

geographic areas is to develop a defined implementation strategy for (1) mitigation for incidental 

take of migratory birds and (2) the designation of distinct haul zones, transportation routes, and 

proposed actions for maintenance and decommissioning of roads. 

Migratory Bird Recommendations 

This project proposes to develop implementation phases for the three geographic areas mentioned 

above so that fuel reduction activities and wood product removal can occur while providing 

mitigation for the incidental take of migratory birds. The recommended Cibola NF&Gs migratory 

bird timing restriction for no management activity is from April 1 to July 31. This timing 

restriction would be implemented annually on two-thirds of the project area, while activity would 

occur throughout the year on the remaining third. 

Communities adjacent to this project area are heavily dependent on forest products gathered from 

the Cibola NF&Gs for subsistence and livelihood. Due to the high demand for personal use 

firewood and annual operating restrictions through periods of shutdown caused by weather, the 

Cibola NF&Gs recognizes there is a need to have areas for these communities to work in 

throughout the year. In these areas it is recognized that unintentional take of migratory birds could 

occur. To minimize and mitigate this unintentional take, the Cibola NF&Gs proposes to divide 

each geographic area into three implementation phases. Mechanical management activities would 

occur annually only within one implementation phase for each geographic area during the 

migratory bird timing restriction. 

For location of implementation phases as described above, refer to Figure 7. 

Wood Hauling 

No new roads or temporary roads would be constructed for this project. All wood products 

generated from this project would be removed on National Forest System (NFS) roads or on 

existing non-NFS roads and trails. The road decommissioning would be coordinated with the 

implementation phase approach described in the migratory bird recommendations section above. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 25 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 6. Cibola NF&Gs proposed action treatment types 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

26 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 7. Cibola NF&Gs implementation phases 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 27 
 

 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

The transportation system for wood product removal has been separated into four haul zones: (1) 

David Canyon, (2) Dog Head, (3) Northern Manzano 1, and (4) Northern Manzano 2. The 

purpose of these haul zones is to clearly define primary routes and vehicle types permitted on 

these routes. For location of haul zones as described above, refer to Figure 8. This map also 

displays existing roads within the project area that would be used as access and for removing 

woody material generated from the fuels treatments. These roads were mapped in the field using 

global positioning systems (GPS) units by USFS personnel. 

David Canyon Haul Zone 

All material removed from David Canyon would be hauled from the Sandia RD onto Raven Road 

to New Mexico Highway 337. Due to the width, condition, and neighborhood location of Raven 

Road, the USFS would only allow pickup trucks and pickup trucks with trailers to access the area 

to remove woody material. No log trucks or chip vans would access this area. 

Dog Head Haul Zone 

Due to existing conditions on NFS Road 260, log trucks and public access is limited into the Dog 

Head Haul Zone from the Northern Manzano Haul Zone. For this reason access to remove forest 

products would be hauled from the Dog Head through Chilili to New Mexico Highway 337. This 

would only occur through collaboration and agreement with Chilili. The Cibola NF&Gs would 

work with Chilili in selecting a commercial logging company to access and remove the material. 

The selected contractor would be required to sign a road use agreement with Chilili prior to 

hauling. In addition to removing material commercially, the Cibola NF&Gs would allow Chilili 

members to access and remove forest products in the Dog Head Haul Zone through the purchase 

of Cibola NF&Gs permits. 

Northern Manzano 1 Haul Zone 

Due to existing conditions on NFS Road 260 and the eastern portion of NFS Road 321, this haul zone 

is set aside for public forest product gathering and removal. All NFS roads and unauthorized roads in 

this haul zone would be accessed by the public with pickup trucks and pickup trucks with trailers. 

Road conditions in this area can provide for these vehicles; however, to access it with log trucks 

would not be economical due to the need for road reconstruction. For this reason, access to remove 

forest products (primarily firewood) would be from NFS Road 260 and the east portion of NFS Road 

321 to New Mexico Highway 55. 

Northern Manzano 2 Haul Zone 

Due to existing conditions on NFS Road 55 and the western portion of NFS Road 321, this haul 

zone is set aside for public forest product removal and commercial forest product removal using 

pickup trucks and pickup trucks with trailers. Road conditions in this area can provide for these 

vehicles; however, to access it with log trucks would not be economical due to the need for road 

reconstruction. All forest products (primarily firewood) would be removed from NFS roads and 

existing unauthorized roads to NFS Road 321 and then to NFS Road 55 to New Mexico Highway 

55. 

28 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 8. Cibola NF&Gs proposed action haul zones 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 29 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

30 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Road Conditions Pre- and Post-Implementation

The project planning area contains approximately 45 miles of nonpaved NFS roads. These roads 

were field verified by USFS personnel using GPS data. After the GPS files were downloaded into 

ArcMap (mapping software used by the USFS), the files were cross referenced with the 

“Mountainair Ranger District Travel Analysis Process” (TAP) and the “Sandia Ranger District

Travel Management Decision.” Refer to the “Haul Zone” section above for descriptions of the 

primary access points into the project area. The only outlying issue using this primary access 

point would be the need to have USFS personnel or the contractor coordinate with Chilili prior to 

accessing the Dog Head Haul Zone via Chilili roads as described in the “Haul Zone” section 

above. Table 4 lists the NFS roads to be used for this project by ranger district, maintenance level, 

and length in miles (miles are approximate). 

Table 4. NFS roads 

NFS Road No. District Maintenance Level Length (miles)

335 Sandia 

106 Sandia 

530 Sandia 

321D3 Mountainair 

321D1A Mountainair 

321D1 Mountainair 

321C Mountainair 

321 Mountainair 

55 Mountainair 

321D2 Mountainair 

321D2A Mountainair 

321E Mountainair 

260 Mountainair 

260A Mountainair 

260A1 Mountainair 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

0.2

0.5

4 

3 

2 

1 

2 

2 

2 

8 

2 

1 

1 

3 

1 

The roads in table 5 would have the required maintenance accomplished at various times during 

implementation to mitigate resource damage and provide for safe use. NFS level 2 roads would 

have maintenance completed at levels to facilitate access for high-clearance vehicles such as 

pickup trucks and sport utility vehicles (SUVs). NFS level 3 roads would have maintenance 

performed at levels to facilitate access for passenger vehicles such as sedans. The level 3 

maintenance for this project would occur only on 2 miles of NFS Road 55. 

In addition to the roads listed above, there are 11 miles of GPS recorded unauthorized roads 

within the project area that would be used to facilitate access for fuels treatments, wood removal, 

and as prescribed burn control lines. During the project, these roads may receive maintenance 

work to mitigate resource damage and provide for safe use. 

At the conclusion of this project, unauthorized roads and other mechanized travel ways within the 

project and not part of the forest’s transportation system will be maintained, closed, 

decommissioned, or obliterated. Refer to figure 9 for locations of roads described above.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Figure 9. Cibola NF&Gs proposed action road designations post-treatment 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 31 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Heritage/Cultural Resources 

All proposed mechanical activities would avoid inventoried heritage resources and no disturbance 

of these resources would occur. Prescribed burning activities would avoid all inventoried heritage 

resources with structural attributes that could be compromised through fire. 

Northern Goshawk 

Implementation of any of the proposed activities within northern goshawk PFAs and nest areas 

would occur from October 1 to February 28. Through the environmental analysis process, 

dispersal PFAs would be designated based on forest plan direction (page 71-7). No timing 

restriction would apply in this area; however, the desired condition for PFAs would be created 

within the dispersal area. 

As proposed, this alternative would not meet forest plan direction for northern goshawk habitat as 

described on pages 71-5 through 71-8. This alternative includes a project specific plan 

amendment that provides for establishment of permanent rooting zones. The plan would be 

amended as follows: 

Standards and guidelines in the forest plan, as amended, are silent on the percentages of area 

within a stand that should be managed under tree cover and the percentages that should be 

managed as forest openings (grass/forb/shrub). 

The relevant standards and guidelines are: 

1.	 Manage for uneven-age stand conditions for live trees and retain live reserve trees, 

snags, downed logs, and woody debris levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, 

mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forest cover types. Manage for old age trees such that as 

much old forest structure as possible is sustained over time across the landscape. Sustain 

a mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and understory), age classes, and species 

composition across the landscape. Provide food and cover for goshawk prey. (Page 71-5) 

2.	 Landscapes outside (Goshawk post-fledging family areas) 

General: The distribution of vegetation structural stages for ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir forests is 10 percent grass/forb/shrub (VSS1), 10 percent seedlingsapling (VSS2), 20 percent young forest (VSS3), 20 percent mid-aged forest (VSS4), 20 

percent mature forest (VSS5), 20 percent old forest (VSS6). NOTE: The specified 

percentages are a guide and actual percentages are expected to vary + or - up to 3 

percent. (Page 71-7) 

Woodland: Manage for uneven-age conditions to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities 

(overstory and understory), age classes, and species composition well distributed across 

the landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and down woody debris. (Page 71-7) 

Because the above standards and guidelines are silent on the percentages of area within a stand 

that should be managed under tree cover, and the percentages that should be managed as forest 

openings (grass/forb/shrub), the following is proposed for the Isleta CFRP project: 

A range (20–60 percent of the area) of forest canopy gaps and openings would be 

maintained within each stand using terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory (TEUI) to guide 

32 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

percentage of gaps and openings (excluding MSO protected and restricted/threshold and 

northern goshawk nesting areas); the remainder of the stand would be managed for the 

forest structural stages (VSS classes) distribution of 10 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, 

20 percent, 20 percent, and 20 percent. 

This project deviation from the forest plan is needed to meet management objectives primarily in 

the area of achieving forest restoration objectives while at the same time addressing the other 

following resource objectives: 

1.	 Forest structure and density to preclude uncharacteristic wildfire; and 

2.	 Forest vegetation composition, structure, and function to provide for properly functioning 

hydrologic processes. 

Alternative C 

Treatment on Pueblo and Chilili lands would remain the same as described in alternative B. 

This alternative provides for treatments on the Cibola NF&Gs ranger districts of the proposed 

action but is modified to not include rooting zones. Alternative C was developed in response to 

scoping comments received during the public scoping comment period initiated on October 10, 

2011. 

Within the piñon-juniper woodland and ponderosa pine forest types, permanent openings (rooting 

zones, as shown in Figure 1) would not be created. Only temporary openings, for recruitment of 

Vegetative Structural Stages 1 and 2, would be created. 

Piñon-Juniper Treatments 

Between the openings described above, designated trees would be thinned from below while 

favoring trees with the healthiest crowns, to a residual of 55–92 trees per acre on lands outside 

PFAs, 119–138 trees per acre in PFAs, and 60–100 trees per acre in nesting areas. Approximately 

10 percent of this forest type would be converted to temporary openings, resulting in recruitment 

of the natural regeneration. Ponderosa pine, white fir, and Douglas-fir occurring in piñon-juniper 

woodlands would be maintained as groups or stringers as appropriate to meet wildlife habitat 

improvement objectives. On average at least two snags and about 3 tons of downed woody debris 

per acre would be retained. 

Ponderosa Pine Treatments 

Between the openings described above, designated trees would be thinned from below to 73–110 

trees per acre on lands outside PFAs, 119–138 trees per acre in PFAs, and 30–40 trees per acre in 

nesting areas. Approximately 10 percent of this forest type would be converted to temporary 

openings resulting in recruitment of the natural regeneration. On average at least two snags and 5 

to 7 tons of downed woody debris per acre would be retained. 

Treatment strategies in the mixed conifer and oak forest types would remain the same. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 33 
 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Mitigation Measures Common to Action Alternatives 

Mitigation measures were developed to ease some of the potential impacts the various 

alternatives may cause. The mitigation measures may be applied to any of the action alternatives. 

Monitoring would be conducted for all resources to ensure that mitigation measures are effective. 

Soils/Watershed 

1.	 Project crews should use BMPs outlined in the USFS “Soil and Water Conservation 

Practices Handbook” (FSH 2509.22) and further described in the BMP to the soil and 

watershed specialist report (appendix C) to limit impacts to watershed, soil, and riparian 

resources. The following BMPs will be implemented (see chapter 3 for a discussion of 

BMPs): 

a.	 Servicing and Refueling Equipment 

b.	 Prescribed Burning Treatments 

c.	 Wetland, Spring, Seep, and Meadow Protection during Tree Removal Activities 

d.	 Slash Treatments in Sensitive Areas 

e.	 Log Landing Location 

f.	 Treatment of Ephemeral and Intermittent Drainages 

g.	 SMZ Designation 

h.	 Stream Channel and Wetland Protection 

i.	 Use of Project Area Maps for Designating Stream Courses for Water Quality 

Protection 

2.	 Pile placement or jackpot burning (igniting concentrations of fuels on the forest floor, 

whether they are natural fuels or fuels resulting from treatment) should not be allowed in 

ephemeral, intermittent, or perennial channels. Soils/watershed specialists will determine 

appropriate buffers for these actions outside the stream channel. 

3.	 Water barring and other practices as needed would be used on the roads after completion 

to improve drainage and address related effects such as erosion. 

4.	 Downed woody material would be retained or returned to the sites after proposed 

activities to ensure appropriate levels to maintain soil quality are present. 

5.	 The areas where soil condition is less than satisfactory or where erosion hazard is severe 

would not be open to public firewood collecting to limit the amount of soil disturbance. 

Scenic Resources 

To meet visual quality objectives within the immediate foreground areas adjacent to area trails 

and residential areas (up to 300 feet), slash treatments would be as follows: 

1.	 Stumps would be cut to a 6-inch height throughout the project area. Within the immediate 

foreground areas of trails (up to 300 feet), the face cut of stumps would be directed away 

from the trail, where possible. 

34 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

2.	 Piles created in the immediate foreground would be burned to achieve 95 percent or more 

consumption, and following burning unconsumed slash will be scattered and the ground 

seeded with the approved seed mixture for this area. The burning of piles created within 

the immediate foreground between June and September of any year should be burned in 

September through November of that same year unless fuel or weather conditions are not 

conducive to attainment of the 95 percent consumption objective. These piles would be 

burned the following spring as soon as conditions permit. Piles created during a winter 

harvest operation would not be burned until the following September–November period. 

3.	 For alternative B, slash will be scattered within the foreground of area trails and 

residences to reduce visual impacts. 

Air Quality 

1.	 BMPs for smoke management and compliance with the New Mexico Environmental 

Department (NMED) Air Quality Bureau (AQB) would mitigate smoke impacts derived 

from fuel treatment activities. Compliance with the AQB would ensure that Clean Air Act 

requirements are met. 

2.	 Local area fire weather forecasts will be monitored daily before and during 

implementation of the prescribed burn. Spot weather forecasts will be obtained daily for 

the operational periods of the burn. Onsite weather readings will be monitored during 

operational periods as directed by the burn boss using a belt weather kit. The weather 

data recorded from the belt weather kit will be the primary weather readings that will be 

the determination factor for the go/no-go decision and the prescription parameters. 

3.	 The burn boss will ensure that the project complies with all local, county, state, and 

Federal air quality regulations. The project will be registered with the AQB at least 2 

weeks prior to implementation. Notification will be given 24 to 48 hours prior to ignition, 

and a copy of the spot weather forecast will be faxed to the Mountainair and Sandia RDs. 

A copy of the smoke monitoring report will also be faxed. Coordination between the 

Albuquerque Interagency Dispatch Center, the AQB, and neighboring agencies will be 

established. A burn will be terminated if the AQB or the National Weather Service issues 

an air stagnation alert. 

4.	 Smoke conditions will be monitored carefully to assess potential impacts to highway 

traffic and populated areas. Monitoring will be visual and may include instrument 

monitoring. Adequate ventilation or winds that carry smoke away from traffic or 

populated areas may be required to minimize impacts. The burn boss will determine if 

conditions are favorable at time of ignition. 

Prescribed Burning 

1.	 Some archaeological sites are located within the proposed project area and mitigation 

measures would need to be in place before burning. Fire and fuels personnel would 

coordinate with the district archaeologist prior to broadcast burning and prior to the 

development of piles so mitigation measures can be taken. 

2.	 The project area has one allotment and several pastures suitable for grazing and multiple 

range improvements. Fire personnel will coordinate with range staff prior to ignition to 

determine if the area is suitable for burning and if the permittee has moved off of the 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 35 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

pasture. Direct damage incurred by project implementation to a permittee’s fences or 

other range improvements would need to be repaired. It would be the responsibility of the 

burn boss and burn overhead to discuss protection requirements with the range staff prior 

to ignition. 

3.	 The analysis area consists of wildlife habitat that restricts burning, has timing restrictions, 

or has burning parameters associated. These mitigations are summarized below and are 

listed in more detail in the wildlife specialist report (in the project record). These actions 

would leave certain areas untreated and increase the potential for high intensity fire; 

however, these burn restrictions on a landscape level would not be significant. The 

actions will increase the cost of burning and complicate burning efforts. 

a.	 Snags greater than 18 inches and logs over 12 inches in diameter and longer/taller 

than 8 feet and hardwood species are recognized as habitat for several wildlife 

species, including the MSO. The proposed action would remove some snags and logs 

within firebreaks and adjacent areas to control lines for burning. Snags and logs 

adjacent to these areas can create holding issues for firefighters and compromise 

firefighter safety. Snags and logs that do not compromise firefighter safety are to be 

left. Lighting techniques that allow for the retention of large logs and snags should be 

used. 

b.	 No burning would be permitted in northern goshawk PFAs from March 1 to 

September 30. 

c.	 In mixed conifer stands, no mechanical treatment will be conducted. These areas will 

require light burning to maintain MSO habitat (see wildlife specialist report). 

d.	 Northern goshawk PFAs would be lightly burned to retain habitat. Prescription 

parameters are listed in the wildlife specialist report. 

Wildlife 

1.	 This project proposes to develop implementation phases for the three geographic areas 

mentioned above so that fuel reduction activities and wood product removal can occur 

while providing mitigation for the unintentional take of migratory birds. The 

recommended Cibola NF&Gs migratory bird timing restriction for no management 

activity is from April 1 to July 31. This timing restriction would be implemented annually 

on two-thirds of the project area, while activity would occur throughout the year on the 

remaining third. 

2.	 Two Abert’s squirrel (Sciurus aberti) sites per 100 acres would be maintained except 

where the basal area of trees over 8 inches d.b.h. is between 150 and 200 square feet per 

acre; in this case one Abert’s squirrel site per 100 acres would be maintained. Abert’s 

squirrel sites consist of at least six trees of 11 to 16 inches d.b.h. in a 0.05-acre group 

with interlocking crowns. 

3.	 Skid trails, landings and other intensely disturbed areas would be seeded with an 

approved native grass/forb/shrub seed mix. 

4.	 Large, downed woody materials (12-inch diameter midpoint and greater) and snags 

would be retained within riparian areas. 

36 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

5.	 The implementation of any of the proposed activities within northern goshawk PFAs and 

nest areas would occur from October 1 to February 28. 

6.	 A dispersal PFA will be designated based on forest plan direction (pg. 71-7). No timing 

restrictions would apply in this area; however, the desired condition for PFAs would be 

created within the dispersal area. 

7.	 An analysis determined that MSO threshold conditions (see U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (USFWS) 1995: 92; forest plan (1985), pg. 71-2) at a district-wide scale were 

deficient. Therefore, all existing tree densities and canopy cover would be maintained in 

mixed conifer areas within this project, and prescribed fire would be used exclusively in 

these areas to maintain fuel loading. 

Vegetation 

1.	 Native deciduous species (oak, mountain mahogany (Cercocarpus sp.), boxelder (Acer 

negundo), etc.) of 10 inches d.r.c. and larger would be retained. Species with less than 10 

inches d.r.c. would be retained within groups where retention would not compromise 

treatment objectives. 

2.	 Mature (flattened crowns, red/yellow plated bark, little taper) ponderosa pine would be 

retained, regardless of size. 

3.	 All native tree species with 16 inches or larger d.b.h./d.r.c. would be retained. 

4.	 Ips Beetles – Activity slash would be created only from July through December unless 

woody material greater than 3 inches in diameter can be removed within 30 days of being 

created, or unless the potential for Ips infestation is determined to be low. Creating 

activity slash would be avoided in the same area multiple years. As much woody material 

greater than 3 inches in diameter would be removed from the site as possible. Slash 

would be treated promptly through lop/scatter, chipping, hand pile burning, or prescribed 

burning. Chipping or masticating would be accomplished in the fall (after August) and 

early winter when beetles are not actively flying. Concentrations of chipped/masticated 

material would not be allowed to accumulate over 3 inches in depth or lie immediately 

adjacent to live standing trees. Chipped/masticated materials would be distributed on 

slopes where they would dry quickly. Burning of woody material would not be an 

effective treatment for piñon Ips unless accomplished before beetles emerge from the 

woody material. Mechanical damage would be avoided to residual trees and their root 

systems to reduce risk of attracting bark beetles. Slash would be monitored during and 

after treatment for Ips beetle infestation. If found, the district silviculturist would be 

contacted. 

5.	 Noxious Plants – Potential sources of introduction of noxious weeds into the project area 

would be monitored; included are rehabilitation of trails, roads, etc. through grass 

establishment. New introductions and infestations of weeds discovered in project areas 

would be minimized. Inspection and cleaning of equipment and vehicles involved in 

implementation of the project would be required. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 37 
 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Recreation (Cibola NF&Gs) 

David Canyon Division 

All NFS trails within the project area will be flagged prior to treatment to maintain vegetation 

buffers on the immediate (both) sides of the trail. Further, to reduce/eliminate potential damage 

from equipment or vehicles, sites suitable for crossing (low cross slope) will be marked. The West 

Boundary Trail (unauthorized) will be treated as a NFS trail for treatment purposes. Any other 

existing unauthorized trails will be removed by placement of slash or some minor ripping and 

seeding. 

Following treatment, trails and crossings will be rehabilitated to pre-project conditions through 

maintenance or minor trail relocation. 

Northern Manzano Division 

1.	 Place signs warning of logging traffic and operations: 

a.	 at the forest boundary on NFSR 55 west of Tajique; 

b.	 on NFSR 55 east and west of its intersection with NFSR 321; and 

c.	 at both ends of NFSR 321. 

2.	 Place warning signs on level 2 roads as needed. 

3.	 Issue and post press releases: 

a.	 prior to the start and stop of operations, and 

b.	 when specific roads will be closed to the public. 

4. If logging operations occur while Rocky Mountain maples are changing, consider: 

a.	 Posting traffic control devices, signs, and/or persons at strategic corners and blind 

spots along NFSR 55. 

b.	 Not hauling timber/firewood on NFSR 55 during high traffic hours, e.g. from 10:00 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. 

5.	 Use KV Funds and other resources to close roads and other routes to the conditions 

prescribed under the Travel Management Rule for the Mountainair Ranger District, to 

discourage illegal and/or public motor vehicle use 

New Mexico Forest Restoration Principles 

This project has considered all of the guidelines associated with the New Mexico Forest 

Restoration Principles. 

1.	 Collaborate. Landscape scale assessment and project design, analysis, implementation, 

and monitoring should be carried out collaboratively by actively engaging a balanced and 

diverse group of stakeholders. Collaboration has occurred during all phases of the 

analysis and continues with a varied group of stakeholders, including known interested 

38 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

individuals and organizations, environmental and tribal groups, and governmental 

agencies at local, state and Federal levels (EA, chapter 4, project record). 

2.	 Reduce the threat of unnatural crown fire. A key restoration priority must be moving 

stands toward a more natural restored condition and reduction of the risk of unnatural 

crown fires both within stands and across landscapes. Specific restoration strategies 

should vary based on forest vegetation type, fire regime, local conditions, and local 

management objectives. Forests and woodlands characterized by infrequent and mixed 

severity fire should be managed toward a stand structure consistent with their historical 

ranges of variation including, in some cases, high density, continuous stands. 

Discontinuous stand structure may be appropriate to meet community protection 

objectives in areas such as the wildland-urban interface for these forest and woodland 

types. Reducing the threat of unnatural crown fire is the purpose and need of this analysis 

(EA, chapter 2). 

3.	 Prioritize and strategically target treatment areas. Key considerations for prioritizing 

restoration treatment areas are: degree of unnatural crown fire risk, proximity to human 

developments and important watersheds, protection of old growth forests and habitats of 

federally threatened, endangered, or listed sensitive species, and strategic positioning to 

break up landscape-scale continuity of hazardous fuels. Treatments should be done at a 

landscape scale to decrease forest vulnerability to unnatural stand-replacing fire. This 

priority setting should take place during fire management planning, land management 

planning, and community wildfire protection planning. See discussion in “Background” 

and “Purpose and Need” sections (EA, chapter 2, fire/fuels report, appendix C). 

4.	 Develop site-specific reference conditions. Site specific historical ecological data can 

provide information on the natural range of variability for key forest attributes, such as 

tree age structure and fire regimes that furnish local “reference conditions” for restoration 

design. A variety of constraints, however, prevent the development of historical 

information on every hectare of land needing restoration. General goals should be to 

restore ecological integrity and function. The varied specialist reports and analyses are 

based on site-specific inventory information and were used as a basis to restore 

ecological integrity and function (EA, chapter 3). 

5.	 Use low-impact techniques. Restoration treatments should strive to use the least 

disruptive techniques and balance intensity and extensiveness of treatments. In many 

areas, conservative initial treatments would be the minimum necessary to adequately 

reduce the threat of unnatural crown fire. Wildland fire use or management-ignited fires 

may be sufficient to reestablish natural conditions in many locations. In the extensive 

areas where fire alone cannot safely reduce tree densities and hazardous ladder fuels, 

mechanical thinning of trees may be needed before the introduction of prescribed fire. 

Patient, effective treatments would provide more options for the future than aggressive 

attempts to restore 120 years of change at once. In certain areas, however, such as some 

wildland-urban interfaces (WUIs), tradeoffs with imminent crown fire risks require 

considerations of rapid, heavy thinning of mostly small diameter trees. A variety of tools, 

ranging from mechanical to prescribed fire, and mitigations would be used to meet 

treatment objectives (EA, chapter 2). 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 39 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

6.	 Utilize existing forest structure. Restoration efforts should incorporate and build upon 

valuable existing forest structures, such as large trees and groups of trees of any size with 

interlocking crowns, excluding aspen (Populus sp.). These features are important for 

some wildlife species, such as Abert’s squirrel and northern goshawk, and should not be 

removed completely just to recreate specific historical tree locations. Since evidence of 

long-term stability of precise tree locations is lacking, especially for piñon and juniper, 

the selection of “leave” trees and tree clusters in restoration treatments can be based on 

the contemporary spatial distribution of trees, rather than pre-1900 tree positions. 

Maximizing use of existing forest structure can restore historical forest structure 

conditions more quickly. Leaving some relatively dense within-stand patches of trees 

need not compromise efforts to reduce landscape-scale crown fire risk. The underlying 

successional processes of natural tree regeneration and mortality should be incorporated 

into restoration design. Southwestern conifer regeneration occurs in episodic, often 

regionwide pulses, linked to wet-warm climate conditions and reduced fire occurrence. 

Periods with major regeneration pulses in the Southwest occurred in the 1910s–1920 and 

1978–1998. Some of this regeneration would have survived under natural conditions. 

Restoration efforts should retain a proportion of these cohorts. Working with and 

retaining, to the extent possible commensurate with project objectives, existing forest 

structure (including large trees) is an integral part of the design of this project (EA, 

“Proposed Action and Desired Condition,” chapter 2). 

7.	 Restore ecosystem composition. Missing or diminished compositional elements, such as 

herbaceous understories, or extirpated species also require restoration attention. The 

forest understory, including shrubs, grasses, forbs, snags, and downed logs, is an 

important ecosystem component that directly affects tree regeneration patterns, fire 

behavior, watershed functioning, wildlife habitat, and overall patterns of biodiversity. 

Similarly, soil organisms—such as mycorrhizal fungi—are vital elements that can 

influence community composition and dynamics. A robust understory provides a restraint 

on tree regeneration and is essential for carrying surface fires. The establishment and 

maintenance of more natural patterns of understory vegetation diversity and abundance 

are integral to ecological restoration. Restoration planning should include the 

conservation of habitats for diminished or extirpated wildlife species. Comprehensive 

forest ecosystem restoration requires balancing fire risk reduction with retention of forest 

structures necessary for canopy dependent species. Recovery plans and conservation 

plans for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species should be incorporated to the 

fullest extent possible in planning for comprehensive forest restoration (EA, chapters 2 

and 3). 

8.	 Protect and maintain watershed and soil integrity. Low impact treatments would 

minimize sedimentation, disruption of surface runoff, and other detrimental ecosystem 

effects. Equipment and techniques should be managed according to soil and water 

conservation “best management practices” applicable to site-specific soil types, 

physiographic and hydrological functions. 

Reconstruction, maintenance, or decommissioning of existing roads to correct for poor 

hydrologic alignment and drainage condition can greatly reduce soil loss and 

sedimentation rates. Projects should strive for no net increase in road density. 

40 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

Managing forest density and fuels to avoid uncharacteristically intense wildfire events 

would reduce the likelihood of uncharacteristic post-fire soil erosion and nutrient 

depletion from forested landscapes. Soil productivity should be protected and maintained 

by avoiding soil loss and compaction, and managing for onsite nutrient retention. Avoid 

repeated whole tree biomass removal from the forest to maximize nutrient retention. 

Whenever feasible, green foliage should be recycled by scattering onsite followed by 

prescribed burning to release stored nutrients (EA, chapter 3 and soil and water resources 

specialist report). 

9.	 Preserve old or large trees while maintaining structural diversity and resilience. 

Large and old trees, especially those established before ecosystem disruption by EuroAmerican settlement, are important forest components and critical to functionality of 

ecosystem processes. Their size and structural complexity provide critical wildlife habitat 

by broadly contributing crown cover, influencing understory vegetation patterns, and 

providing future snags. Ecological restoration should manage to ensure the continuing 

presence of large and old trees, both at the stand and landscape levels. This includes 

preserving the largest and oldest trees from cutting and crown fires, focusing treatments 

on excess numbers of small young trees. 

Develop “desired” forest condition objectives that favor the presence of both abundant 

large diameter trees and an appropriate distribution of age classes on the landscape, with 

a wide distribution of older trees. It is generally advisable to maintain ponderosa pines 

larger than 16 inches d.b.h. and other trees with old growth morphology regardless of size 

(e.g., yellow-barked ponderosa pine or any species with large drooping limbs, twisted 

trunks, or flattened tops). 

Treatments should also focus on achievement of spatial forest diversity by managing for 

variable densities. Overall, forest densities should be managed to maintain tree vigor and 

stand resiliency to natural disturbances. Disease conditions are managed to retain some 

presence of native forest pathogens on the landscape, but constrained so that forest 

sustainability is not jeopardized. Guidelines must provide opportunities to apply differing 

site specific management strategies to work toward attainment of these goals and 

recognize that achievement may sometimes require more than one entry. 

Stand level even-aged management may be appropriate for some objectives, including 

disease management, post-wildfire tree regeneration, accelerating development of old 

growth characteristics, or for forest types for which even-aged stands are characteristic, 

such as spruce (Picea sp.) or aspen. Treatments should be identified through collaboration 

with key stakeholders. Some ponderosa pine forests contain extremely old trees and dead 

wood remnants that may be small but are important because they contain unique and rare 

scientific information in their growth rings. Such trees have become increasingly rare in 

the late 20th century, and the initial reintroduction of fire often consumes these tree ring 

resources. Restoration programs should preserve them where possible. The existing 

condition for both ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland is deficient of trees 

greater than 16 d.b.h. and d.r.c.. This project proposes to not cut any trees over this 

diameter to assist in moving the area to desired condition (EA, chapters 2 and 3). 

10. Manage to restore historic tree species composition. Forest density levels and the 

presence of fire in the ecosystem are key regulators of tree species composition. Where 

fire suppression has allowed fire-sensitive trees like junipers or shade-tolerant white fir or 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 41 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

spruce to become abundant in historical ponderosa pine forests, treatments should restore 

dominance of more fire-resistant ponderosa pines. However, fire intolerant species 

sometimes make up the only remaining large tree component in a stand. Retention of 

these large trees is important to canopy-dependent wildlife species. In mixed conifer 

forests, landscapes should be managed for composition and structure that approximates 

the natural range of variability (EA, chapters 2 and 3 and vegetation specialist report). 

11. Integrate process and structure. Ecological sustainability requires the restoration of 

process and structure. Natural disturbance processes, including fire, insect outbreaks, and 

droughts, are irreplaceable shapers of the forest. In particular, fire regimes and stand 

structures interact and must be restored in an integrated way; mechanical thinning alone 

would not reestablish necessary natural disturbance regimes. At the same time, fire alone 

may be too imprecise or unsafe in many settings, so a combination of treatments may 

often be the safest and most certain restoration approach. 

The single best indicator of whether a proposed approach should be considered as 

“ecological restoration” is to evaluate if the treatment would help successfully restore the 

fire regime that is natural for that forest type. Approaches that do not restore natural fire 

regimes would not achieve full ecological restoration (EA, chapter 3, vegetation and fuels 

specialist reports). 

12. Control and avoid using exotic species. Seeding of exotic grasses and forbs should be 

prohibited as ecologically incompatible with good restoration. Once established, exotic 

species can be extremely difficult or impossible to remove. Seeding should be conducted 

with certified or weed-free seeds to reduce the risk of contamination by nonnative species 

or varieties. In general, it is ecologically desirable to allow native herbaceous vegetation 

to recover incrementally unless there is potential for serious soil erosion or the potential 

for establishment of nonnative invasive plants. If enhancement of herbaceous vegetation 

is needed, especially for road closures and recovery, using locally sourced native seeds or 

transplanting individuals from nearby areas into treatments is ecologically desirable. 

Restoration treatments should also routinely incorporate early actions to control the 

establishment and spread of aggressive exotics that can be expected from restoration 

related site disturbance (EA, chapter 3). 

13. Foster regional heterogeneity. Biological communities vary at local, landscape, and 

regional scales, and so should restoration efforts. Ecological restoration should also 

incorporate the natural variability of disturbance regimes across heterogeneous 

landscapes. Heterogeneity should be fostered in planning and implementing ecological 

restoration and all spatial scales, including within and between stands, and across 

landscape and regional scales (EA, chapter 3, vegetation and wildlife specialist reports— 

specifically the analysis at the ecosystem management area scale and associated “Cibola 

National Forest and Grassland Land Management Plan” direction). 

14. Protect sensitive communities. Certain ecological communities embedded within 

ponderosa pine or other types of forests and some riparian areas, could be adversely 

affected by onsite prescribed burning or mechanical thinning. Restoration efforts should 

protect these and other rare or sensitive habitats, which are often hotspots of biological 

diversity, particularly those that are declining in abundance and quality in the region (EA, 

chapter 3). 

42 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

15. Plan for restoration using a landscape perspective that recognizes cumulative 

effects. Forest restoration projects should be linked to landscape assessments that identify 

historical range of variation (reference condition), current condition, restoration targets, 

and cumulative effects of management. Ecosystems are hierarchical; changing conditions 

at one level arise from processes occurring at lower levels and are constrained, in turn, by 

higher levels. The landscape perspective captures these complex relationships by linking 

resources and processes to the larger forest ecosystem. Forest restoration projects should 

incorporate plans for long-term maintenance of ecological processes (EA, chapters 2 and 

3, specifically the “Purpose and Need” and “Proposed Action” which includes 

maintenance as monitoring data show that desired conditions are surpassing thresholds). 

16. Manage grazing. Grass, forbs, and shrub understories are essential to plant and animal 

diversity and soil stability. Robust understories are also necessary to restore natural fire 

regimes and to limit excessive tree seedling establishment. Where possible, livestock 

grazing after treatment should be deferred until the herbaceous layer has established its 

current potential structure, composition, and function. (Livestock grazing only occurs on 

Chilili land and the Mountainair RD; the Pueblo and Sandia RD do not have grazing. 

Where grazing occurs on the Mountainair RD portion of this project is within one 

allotment, the Tajique Allotment, with multiple pastures. There is a single permittee that 

works cooperatively with the ranger district. This allotment is permitted to be grazed 

from June through October, so year-round grazing does not occur. The district range staff 

will work with the permittee prior to and during restoration activities to move the herd to 

pastures where restoration activity is not occurring. Once the restoration activities have 

occurred, the district staff will monitor the treated areas to determine changes to the area 

and work with the permittee to rest the pasture until the monitoring data show if the 

pasture has recovered and is viable for grazing.) 

17. Establish monitoring and research programs and implement adaptive management. 

Well designed monitoring, research, and documentation are essential to evaluate and 

adapt ongoing restoration efforts. Monitoring programs must be in place prior to 

treatment and must evaluate responses of key ecosystem components and processes at 

multiple scales. Use research and monitoring results from a variety of sources to adjust 

and develop future restoration treatments. When possible, restoration projects should be 

set up as experiments with replicates and controls to test alternative hypotheses. The 

locations and prescriptions for all restoration treatments should be archived in a 

geographic information system (GIS), so that land managers and researchers have access 

to site-specific records of restoration treatments. (Monitoring would occur during all 

phases of project implementation. In addition the Cibola NF&Gs will actively seek out 

partners with an interest in restoration to assist with monitoring. This protocol has been 

established using the CFRP.) 

18. Exercise caution and use site-specific knowledge in restoring or managing piñonjuniper ecosystems and other woodlands and savannas. These systems are diverse and 

complex. Knowledge of local reference structure, composition, processes, and 

disturbance regimes is lacking or uncertain for many piñon-juniper ecosystem types. 

Given the diversity, variability, and complexity of piñon-juniper systems, identification of 

local reference conditions is critical to the development of restoration objectives. 

Exercise caution and use best available science and site-specific knowledge in planning 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 43 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 

and implementing ecological restoration projects. Active management may be appropriate 

to mitigate soil erosion, community wildland fire hazard, or degraded hydrologic function 

in cases where historical ecological dynamics are insufficiently understood to justify 

ecological restoration. Piñon-juniper sites may be particularly susceptible to ecological 

damage from treatments; for example, soil erosion and invasion by nonnative plants. The 

varied specialist reports and analyses are based on site specific inventory information 

and were used as a basis to restore ecological integrity and function (EA, chapter 3). 

Comparison of Alternatives 

Table 5 serves as an executive summary of the effects of implementing each alternative and 

references the detailed information included in chapters 1, 2, and 3. Information in the table is 

focused on the main resources that would be affected by project activities. 

44 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
EA for the Isleta Collaborative Analysis Project

45

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 5. Comparison of alternatives

Alternative A Alternative B Topic Alternative C (No Action) (Proposed Action)

Stand structure Conditions that support crown fires This action alternative is based on a fuels reduction This alternative would also create a stand 

modified to (high tree densities, “ladder fuels,” prescription and would have fewer trees, especially structure reducing the potential for crown fire, 

reduce crown fire homogeneous vertical/horizontal stand small diameter trees that act as ladder fuels and although the potential for fine fuels such as 

potential structures) would continue. The increase the risk of torching, and an open canopy with grasses increases. Fine fuels could create an 

crowning index, the potential for a fire lower crown bulk density, which reduces the risk of environment where ground fire moves faster, but 

that reaches the canopy to continue as a sustained crown fire. The ecosystem should be resilient fires would illustrate low to moderate fire 

crown fire would remain low, meaning to natural disturbance events including fire, drought, behavior with low resistance to control.

crown fires would be sustained at disease, and insect infestations. A desired future Wildfires within the Isleta CFRP area would 

relatively low wind speeds. The condition would allow fire to play its natural role in the more likely be contained before they entered

potential for large and uncharacteristic environment and be maintained in a manner to either private land or wilderness. 

fire growth would still exist. alleviate resistance to control. Desired future The tree removal prescription would create an conditions would mimic natural ecosystem traits, open stand structure with a much lower stand 

having a diverse mosaic of fuels that are arranged in a density index. This open stand structure would 

fashion not subject to uncharacteristic wildfire. also create a much lower crown bulk density due 

This alternative would create a stand structure reducing to the increase in canopy spacing and lowering in 

the potential for crown fire although the potential for trees per acre. In the open thinned areas, the trees 

fine fuels such as grasses increases. Fine fuels could would also be limbed up to remove the ladder 

create an environment where ground fire moves faster, fuels resulting in a much higher c.b.h. This type 

but fires would demonstrate low to moderate fire of canopy spacing and limbing would result in an 

behavior with low resistance to control. This condition environment much less likely to support crown 

would be the case in the majority of the rooting zones fire initiation or sustainment of a crown fire 

and temporary openings. burning into the area. 

Firefighter/ Areas to safely control fire with Fine fuels (grasses) could create an environment where Fine fuels (grasses) could create an environment 

public safety and emergency response would remain ground fire moves faster, but fires would show low to where ground fire moves faster, but fires would 

private property extremely limited and a defensive moderate fire behavior with low resistance to control. show low to moderate fire behavior with low 

tactical approach may become Wildfires within the Isleta CFRP project area are more resistance to control. Wildfires within the Isleta 

necessary. Flame lengths, even during likely to be contained before they entered either private CFRP area would more likely be contained 

normal conditions, would preclude land or wilderness. Crown fires entering the Isleta before they entered either private land or 

direct attack with ground forces. This CFRP project area from either private land or wilderness. Crown fires entering the Isleta CFRP 

would greatly increase the resistance to wilderness could potentially go back to a surface fire, area from either private land or wilderness could 

control. Areas to safely control fire with giving emergency personnel a chance to safely contain potentially go back to a ground fire giving 

emergency response would remain the fire. emergency personnel a chance to safely contain 

extremely limited. This could result in the fire. This would be a direct result from the 

delayed tactical implementation and the reduction in canopy bulk density, increase in 

potential for larger fire growth with canopy base height, and an overall lowering of 
46

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Topic Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) Alternative C

high resistance to control. the stand density index. Maintenance of the 

Isleta CFRP through selected removal of 

understory and low intensity prescribed fire 

would help ensure the effectiveness of this 

project. 

Effects to The potential exists for wildfire to Creation of fine particulate matter from prescribed and Creation of fine particulate matter from 

Resources – Air spread beyond the analysis area, pile burning would occur. This would be mitigated by prescribed and pile burning would occur. This 

Quality resulting in increased emissions from 

wildfire and impaired air quality.

following mitigations described in the fire/fuels report 

and public notification of Bernalillo and Torrance 

County requirements for air quality management.

would be mitigated by following mitigations 

described in the fire/fuels report and public 

notification of Bernalillo and Torrance County 

requirements for air quality management.

Effects to 

Resources – 

Scenic Resources

Little perceived change is expected.

Uncharacteristic wildfire potential 

remains a greater risk; if this occurs, 

views of a fire altered landscape may 

dominate. 

Reduced vegetation density, arrangement, and 

temporary openings (overall, a more open forest 

appearance) would be visible from Tranquillo Pines 

and area subdivisions. The difference between treated 

(project area) and untreated (wilderness/private lands) 

would provide a linear contrast between those areas.

Stumps, slash, and ground disturbance would dominate 

the view in the immediate foreground of area trails. A 

decrease in the sense of solitude and diminished scenic 

quality would occur in those same areas. The landscape 

would exhibit a managed appearance at least in the 

short term (up to 10 years). Visual impacts from 

prescribed and pile burning would be apparent for 

many years.

There may be perceived as diminished scenic 

quality for residents and travelers who are 

familiar with the area. However, the proposed 

action under alternative C would be a thinning 

from below while favoring trees with the 

healthiest crowns so the residual stand structure 

would appear less unchanged than alternative B 

that would create large openings between clumps 

of trees. For the casual observer, they would 

likely not notice the changes as viewed from a 

distance. 

Effects to 

Resources – 

Vegetation

Forest vegetation would continue to 

grow but at reduced rates due to high 

tree densities, overcrowding, and 

competition for limited nutrients, water, 

and sunlight. Trees, both on an 

individual and landscape basis, would 

continue to be stressed and more 

susceptible to drought and 

insect/disease attack. Higher rates of 

mortality resulting from these causes 

could be expected. Vertical and 

horizontal stand structure would remain 

The forest would move toward a more sustainable 

condition through reduction in tree densities, improved 

vertical and horizontal structure, and overall more open 

growing conditions. Tree growth/vigor would be 

improved. Recruitment of understory grasses, forbs, 

and shrubs would be enhanced. Desired VSS class 

distribution would be enhanced through the 

recruitment of seedlings and saplings over 

approximately 10 percent of the piñon-juniper and 

ponderosa forest types, and further development of the 

mature and old forest classes in all forest types. The 

potential for insect/disease outbreaks would be 

The environmental consequences of 

implementing alternative C are similar to those 

discussed for alternative B with the following 

differences: 

a. In the forested areas between the 10 percent 

of the area to be placed in temporary 

openings, stand structure would be more 

uniform and continuous.

b. Re-entry, to maintain desired conditions, 

would occur at more frequent intervals 

(estimated 15–20 years) as tree crowns 

close upon one another and tree densities 
EA for the Isleta Collaborative Analysis Project

47

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Topic Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) Alternative C

homogeneous. Recruitment and 

enhancement of old growth conditions 

would occur at a slower pace. No 

perceptible changes in existing 

vegetative structural class distribution 

would occur in the near term unless 

caused by natural events (wildfire, etc). 

reduced. Stand structure would move towards unevenaged conditions and away from homogenous, evenaged conditions. This alternative includes a projectspecific plan amendment that provides for 

establishment of permanent rooting zones.

increase.

Attainment of desired conditions, specifically 

managing for uneven-aged stand conditions for 

live trees to include tree groups and openings, 

would occur at a slower rate as groups would be 

recruited on only 10 percent of the area in each 

entry.

Effects to 

Resources – 

Wildlife: 

Threatened and 

Endangered 

Species

Continuation of fuels buildup and small

diameter (ladder) trees, leading to a 

potential crown fire if wildfire occurs in 

the area. Important habitat features such 

as large diameter trees, snags, and large 

downed logs could be burned. 

This alternative would reduce ladder fuels; maintain 

snags, downed logs, and residual basal area on 131 

acres of mixed conifer habitat. No tree cutting would 

occur in mixed conifer, and prescribed burns would 

only occur outside of the MSO breeding season (Mar. 

1 – Aug. 31). 

This alternative would reduce ladder fuels; 

maintain snags, downed logs and residual basal 

area on 131 acres of mixed conifer habitat. No 

tree cutting would occur in mixed conifer, and 

prescribed burns would only occur outside of the 

MSO breeding season (Mar. 1 – Aug. 31). 

Effects to 

Resources – 

Wildlife: 

Sensitive Species

This alternative would allow fuels to 

build up, leading to a potential crown 

fire if wildfire occurs in the area.

Crown fires could remove habitat 

components (large diameter trees) 

important to sensitive species.

Implementation of this alternative would improve 

habitat conditions for northern goshawk prey species 

and reduce potential for a crown fire if wildfire occurs 

in the area. This alternative proposes permanent 

openings surrounding rooting zone which will cause

fragmentation that could reach levels decreasing 

goshawk prey availability and increasing inter-specific 

competition, as well as direct predation of goshawk 

young. This alternative does not meet forest plan 

direction for the northern goshawk.

This alternative would treat the dense, 

overstocked stands of ponderosa pine in the 

project boundary to the standards set forth in the 

Cibola forest plan. Implementation of this 

alternative would improve habitat conditions for 

both the northern goshawk and its prey species 

and meet forest plan direction for the northern 

goshawk. 

Effects to Habitat would not be improved since In general there would be no change in the population In general there would be no change in the 

Resources – there would be no change to tree age or habitat trend of MIS at the forest level. population or habitat trend of MIS at the forest 

Wildlife: and class structure, and the existing Implementation of this alternative would result in level. Implementation of this alternative would 

Management dense forest would not provide short-term displacement due to treatment activity result in short-term displacement due to 

Indicator Species understory forage. Large trees would (noise and human presence). Snags used by cavity treatment activity (noise and human presence). 

(MIS) not be protected from drought and fire 

effects. Project-level populations of 

MIS are not expected to change. In the 

long term, not taking any action would 

not affect the forest-level population or 

habitat trend of MIS unless cover and 

forage habitat were completely 

removed as a result of a 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

nesting MIS birds would be retained. In the long term, 

forage condition and availability would improve for all 

species due to reduced canopy cover and retention of 

oaks and other shrubs. The risk of stand-replacing 

wildfire would be reduced. 

Snags used by cavity nesting MIS birds would be 

retained. In the long term, forage condition and 

availability would improve for all species due to 

reduced canopy cover and retention of oaks and 

other shrubs. The risk of stand-replacing wildfire 

would be somewhat reduced.
48

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Topic Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) Alternative C

Effects to No change in habitat condition in the This alternative would result in unintentional take of This alternative would result in unintentional 

Resources – short term. This alternative would not migratory birds on potentially one-third of the project take of migratory birds on potentially one-third 

Wildlife: result in unintentional take of migratory area due to tree cutting during the breeding season. of the project area due to tree cutting during the 

Migratory Birds birds due to treatment activities. There Mitigation would be provided to eliminate this effect breeding season. Mitigation would be provided 

would be a decrease in habitat annually on the remaining two-thirds of the treatment to eliminate this effect annually on the remaining 

condition in the long term due to area substantially benefitting migratory birds. This two-thirds of the treatment area substantially 

continuing habitat loss associated with alternative would decrease habitat condition in the benefitting migratory birds. This alternative

fire suppression and the potential for short term due to disturbance of adult birds resulting in would decrease habitat condition in the short 

uncharacteristic fires. nest abandonment and direct loss of young in nests, but term due to disturbance of adult birds resulting in 

habitat condition would improve in the long term due nest abandonment and direct loss of young in 

to increased foraging potential and decreased nests, but improves habitat condition in the long 

disturbance due to wildfire risk. Mechanical treatments term due to increased foraging potential and 

would result in high quality older growth forest with a decreased disturbance due to wildfire risk. 

relatively open understory. Taller, older trees in mature Mechanical treatments would result in high 

habitat would be retained, benefitting these species. quality older growth forest with a relatively open 

understory. Taller, older trees in mature habitat 

would be retained, benefitting these species.

Effects to Soil and Watershed Condition Soil and Watershed Condition Soil and Watershed Condition—Alternative C 

Resources – Soils Direct Effects – No changes in current Direct Effects – Localized increased erosion/sediment is similar to alternative B, except that no 

and Watershed conditions. 

Indirect Effects – Continued risk of 

uncharacteristic wildfire would have an 

adverse effect on soils in the project 

area, should a large intense fire occur.

Uncharacteristic wildfire would result 

in adverse effects in soil 

hydrophobicity, altered infiltration, 

increased runoff, sedimentation/erosion 

and nutrient recycling.

delivery resulting from removal of ground cover.

Changes in runoff rates and water yield would not be 

considerable since the watershed is being treated in 

implementation phases. Soil moisture would be 

reduced by exposure to evaporation. 

Indirect Effects – Overall watershed health, including 

soil function, would show a steady improvement to 

desired conditions. These portions of the watershed 

would be protected from wildfire. Herbaceous ground 

cover would increase.

permanent openings would be created in the 

piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine vegetation 

types. Temporary openings would be created on 

10 percent of these two vegetation types. Except 

for steep slopes, soil disturbance could occur on 

the soils below these two vegetation types as a 

result of the proposed thinning activities. Using 

the same assumptions to calculate acres of 

ground disturbance, proposed activities relating 

to this alternative would lead to less soil 

disturbance than alternative B. 

Water Quality 

Direct Effects – No changes. 

Indirect Effects – Uncharacteristic 

wildfire would result in increased 

sedimentation and associated effects 

decreasing to undetectable levels in 10 

years.

Water Quality 

Direct and Indirect Effects – There would be little 

direct or indirect effects on surface water quality from 

alternative B. There may be some increased 

sedimentation during runoff events from soil 

disturbance and road use within the project area. Since 

storm runoff waters often include sediment, it is not 

Water Quality—There would be little direct or 

indirect effects on surface water quality from 

alternative C. There may be some increased 

sedimentation during runoff events from soil 

disturbance and road use within the project area.

Since storm runoff waters often include 

sediment, it is not likely to be detectable in these 
EA for the Isleta Collaborative Analysis Project

49

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Topic Alternative A 

(No Action)

Alternative B 

(Proposed Action) Alternative C

Riparian Resources and Spring 

Flows 

Direct Effects – In the absence of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, riparian 

resources would remain stable. 

Indirect Effects – Uncharacteristic 

wildfire would decrease watershed 

stability and increase debris flows and 

soil movement. Recovery of vegetation 

would vary by fire intensity. 

likely to be detectable in these flows. The creation of 

permanent and temporary openings across up to 60

percent of the project area would increase water 

reaching the surface, leading to more runoff. 

Riparian Resources and Spring Flows 

Direct Effects – None due to utilization of buffers.

Indirect Effects – Protection of riparian areas by 

reducing the risk of wildfire.

flows. The creation of temporary openings on 10

percent of the project area would increase water 

reaching the surface, leading to more runoff.

Riparian Resources and Spring Flows

Similar to alternative B.

Effects to Direct Effects – Little perceived Direct Effects – Temporary closure of roads or trails to Direct Effects – Same as alternative B.

Resources – change. No immediate impact on recreation use. Some recreation visitors would shift Indirect Effects – Same as alternative B.

Recreation recreational visitors would be noticed.

Indirect Effects – Uncharacteristic

wildfire is a greater risk in the no action 

alternative. A wildland fire in the area 

would displace users, possibly for many 

years. Without fire or treatment, fuel 

loads would likely increase, increasing 

the risk of wildfire. 

their use to trail and recreation site locations outside 

the project boundary. Some unofficial trails would be 

eliminated due to slash debris. People using designated 

trails and the wilderness near the project boundary 

would likely hear chain saws running, and may 

encounter other noise, dust, and smoke related to 

treatments. This may decrease the quality of their 

hiking experience for the duration of the project.

Residents on adjacent lands are likely to hear chain

saws, and may observe noise, dust, and smoke during 

project treatments. This could be a concern to area 

residents. 

Indirect Effects – Effects include displacement of 

recreational visitors because of noise, dust, slash, and 

other harvest related effects in the vicinity of recreation 

sites and trails. Short-term reduction in visitation may 

also result from publicity through local and regional 

media about project area issues and actions. Some 

recreational visitors would shift their use to trail and 

recreation site locations outside the project boundary.

Increased tread width and additional user trails are 

possible. 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences 

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

affected project area and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of 

the alternatives. Complete USFS specialist reports for the USFS portions of the project area are 

available in appendix C. 

Fuels and Fire Behavior 

Historic Conditions of Forest Types and Fire 

Historically, frequent, low intensity surface fires burned throughout the majority of the Middle 

Rio Grande valley encompassing the Sandia and Manzano Mountains, creating a mosaic of 

different stages of vegetative structure across the landscape (Baisan and Swetnam 1997). Patterns 

of widespread and frequent (every 5 to 10 years) surface fires in these areas have been 

documented by a number of authors (Cooper 1960; Dietrich and Swetnam 1984) to have occurred 

prior to 1880 when increased land use and grazing became a dominant force in these areas. 

Beginning in the early 1900s, the Federal policy for handling wildland fire leaned heavily toward 

suppression, and over the years many Federal agencies have adopted fire suppression as the 

proper means for protecting the Nation from wildfire. As a result, many areas now have excessive 

fuel buildups, dense and continuous vegetative cover, and tree and shrub encroachment into open 

grasslands. In addition, contemporary population growth has led to increased development close 

to the WUI and increased the number of residents and structures at risk from wildfire. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest 

In a study of the Manzano Mountains, Baisan and Swetnam (1997) found that in the late 

eighteenth to early nineteenth centuries, the mean fire return interval (FRI) for this area (around 

Capilla Peak and Canyon de Turrieta), as recorded in tree ring surveys, was 7.4 years. From the 

synchrony and spatial pattern of scarred trees on these ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer 

sites, the authors hypothesized that fires were largely surface fires covering large areas. Generally, 

estimates of FRI in ponderosa pine forests range from a minimum of about 2 years to a maximum 

of nearly 40 years, and many agree that fires were frequent and generally of low severity (Cooper 

1960; Covington and Moore 1994; Richardson 1998). According to Cooper (1960), crown fires 

were not a component of the historical fire regime. The majority of fires occurred in late spring 

and early summer, before the onset of the summer monsoons (Hunter et al. 2007). Local 

deviations from this general rule are also recorded (Hunter et al. 2007) and on a landscape scale a 

mixture of open woodlands, meadows, and more dense forests are typical of this forest type 

(Savage 1991). The effects of fire exclusion on forest structure are thought to be most profound in 

forests that previously sustained frequent, low intensity surface fires (Westerling et al. 2006), and 

it is likely that fire exclusion was a primary cause of departure from historical conditions in 

ponderosa pine forests. For the most part, frequent fire consumed fuels on the ground surface and 

culled young trees to maintain an uneven age distribution and mosaic pattern throughout the 

forest (Allen et al. 2002). Frequent fire disturbance maintained an open, park-like forest structure 

with canopy openings and an abundant herbaceous and shrubby understory (Weaver 1947; 

Cooper 1960; Biswell 1973). 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 51 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mixed Conifer Forests 

Often forest patches affected by low- and high-severity fire are closely juxtaposed in a transition 

zone made up of a forest type known as mixed conifer (Fulé et al. 2003). Fire histories in mixed 

conifer forests vary with forest composition, landscape characteristics, and human intervention, 

but tend to exhibit mixed-severity fire regimes, with both low intensity surface fires and patchy 

crown fires (Touchan et al. 1996). Mixed-severity fire regimes are the most complex fire regimes 

in the western United States because of their extreme variability (Agee 1998). A mixed-severity 

fire regime exists where the typical fire, or combination of fires over time, results in a complex 

mix of patches of different severity, including unburned, low severity, moderate severity, and high 

severity (Agee 2003). 

Ponderosa pine was once more prevalent in many mixed conifer forests with relatively open stand 

structures, but fire suppression has allowed the development of dense sapling understories, with 

regeneration dominated by the more fire sensitive Douglas-fir, white fir, and Engelmann spruce 

(Picea engelmannii). Herbaceous understories have been reduced by denser canopies and needle 

litter, and nutrient cycles have been disrupted. Heavy surface fuels and a vertically continuous 

ladder of dead branches have developed, resulting in increased risks of crown fires (Touchan et 

al. 1996). 

Grasslands 

Many authors have suggested that the historical fire return intervals for grasslands throughout the 

17th to early 19th centuries may have been every 5 to 10 years (Leopold 1924; Swetnam et al. 

1992; McPherson 1995). Fire suppression policies may have contributed to declining fire 

frequency in this cover type as well, but other factors may have contributed. Intensive livestock 

grazing around the time of the Civil War is thought to have been responsible for a decline in 

grassland fires (West 1984). Heavy grazing reduced the fuel available to propagate fire spread and 

also reduced competition with herbaceous plants, tipping the balance in favor of the woody 

species. Woodland encroachment, increased tree density, and altered fire behavior characterize 

many former grasslands in the project area. Much of what is now piñon-juniper woodland in the 

project area may once have been juniper savanna, dominated by grasses and forbs and containing 

no more than 10 to 15 trees per ha (Brockway et al. 2002). Once woody plants become dominant, 

their long lifespans and their ability to extract both shallow and deep soil moisture can maintain a 

woodland condition indefinitely (Burgess 1995). Frequent fire plays a significant role in 

grassland nutrient cycling and successional processes, and long-term exclusion may produce 

irreversible changes in ecosystem structure and function (McPherson 1995). 

Piñon-Juniper Woodlands 

One of the most common vegetative communities in the project area is piñon-juniper woodland. 

These woodlands are some of the most poorly understood ecosystems in terms of fire regimes, 

but recent research suggests that fire may have been a less common and less important 

disturbance agent in piñon-juniper woodlands as compared with adjacent ponderosa pine and 

grassland ecosystems. In a recent review of piñon-juniper disturbance regimes, Romme et al. 

(2007) subdivided the piñon-juniper cover type into three subtypes: areas of potential woodland 

expansion and contraction, piñon-juniper savannas, and persistent woodlands. These categories 

are helpful in separating the broad piñon-juniper cover type into distinct communities, which are 

subject to different climatic, topographic, and disturbance conditions. 

52 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

As mentioned previously, several grasslands in the project area have been colonized by trees as a 

result of a complex interplay of environmental factors. It is believed that greater landscape 

heterogeneity existed previously in many of these areas that are now uniformly covered with 

relatively young trees (Romme et al. 2007). 

Persistent woodlands, characteristic of rugged upland sites with shallow, coarse soils tend to have 

older and denser trees. Herbaceous vegetation within this community was typically sparse. 

Research from persistent woodlands provides strong evidence to support the theory that the 

natural fire regime of piñon-juniper woodlands was dominated by infrequent but high-severity 

fires and that FRIs may have been on the order of 400 years (Baker and Shinneman 2004; 

Romme et al. 2007). 

In contrast to ponderosa pine, piñon pines and junipers produce relatively small volumes of litter. 

Understory fuels, either living or dead, must be sufficiently contiguous to carry a low intensity 

surface fire. In the absence of fine surface fuels, fires that spread beyond individual trees were 

most likely wind driven and spread from crown to crown (Romme et al. 2007). Fire extent was 

greatest in higher density woodlands and was limited by both fuels and topography in sparse, low 

productivity stands on rocky terrain. These hypotheses are supported by the fact that wind-driven 

crown fire was observed locally in some areas of dense piñon-juniper woodland during the Ojo 

Peak Fire in November 2007. Most scientists agree that fire was more common in savannas and 

areas of expansion and contraction than it was in persistent woodlands, but debate remains on the 

exact range of fire frequency. Overall, frequent, low intensity surface fires were not the 

predominant fire regime in piñon-juniper woodlands. Therefore, fire exclusion may not have 

altered forest structure as dramatically in this forest type. 

Fire Regimes and Fire Regime Condition Classes 

In order to classify, prioritize, and plan for fuels treatments across a fire management region, 

methods have been developed to stratify the landscape based on physiographic and ecological 

characteristics. 

Fire Regime Classifications 

A natural, or historical, fire regime (FR) is a general classification describing the role fire would 

play throughout a landscape in the absence of modern human intervention but including the 

influence of burning by Native American groups (Agee 1993; Brown 1995; Hann et al. 2003). 

FR classes are based on the average number of years between fires (also known as fire frequency 

or mean FRI) combined with the severity (i.e., the amount of vegetation replacement) of the fire 

and its effect on the dominant overstory vegetation (Hann et al. 2003). 

The five FR classes are: 

Fire Regime I – This system includes the lower and mid-elevation forested plant associations, 

ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. These regimes historically had a high FRI (0–35 years) 

preventing high fuel loadings and produced limited layers within the system. The net result 

was more frequent and less severe fire occurrence. 

Fire Regime II – This system is also in the lower to mid-elevation range; however, it includes 

grassland plant associations. These regimes have a high FRI (0–35 years) with a mix of lowEA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 53 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

and high-severity fires. This system includes piñon-juniper, mountain mahogany, and other 

dry mountain shrub species. 

Fire Regime III – This system consists of forest plant associations located at mid-elevation. 

Species found there are consistent with higher moisture availability such as Douglas-fir and 

higher elevation bunch type grasses and forbs. The FRI is 35 to 100+ years with a mix in fire 

severity. Stand replacement fire may occur but are usually rare events. This regime is 

typically a heterogeneous landscape. 

Fire Regime IV – This system is characterized by forested species at mid to high elevation. 

Spruce and subalpine fir plant associations are included within this group. This regime is 

generally considered as having a fire free period of 100+ years. This usually results in a stand 

replacement, high-intensity fire occurrence. 

Fire Regime V – This is a high elevation system, and the plant associations depend on high 

local moisture availability. Due to the very long FRI in excess of 200 years, this regime is 

generally considered fire free. Rock and lack of fuels and other combinations of the 

physiographic setting typically inhibit propagation of fire. 

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 

The FRCC is a measure of the degree of departure from reference conditions, possibly resulting 

in changes to key ecosystem components, such as vegetation characteristics (e.g., species 

composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; 

fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated disturbances, such as insect and disease 

mortality, grazing, and drought (Hann et al. 2003). Several factors, such as fire suppression, 

timber harvesting, livestock overgrazing, introduction and establishment of nonnative species, 

introduced disease and insects, and other management activities are all possible causes of this 

departure from historical conditions (Schmidt et al. 2002; Hann et al. 2003). 

The three FRCC rankings are: 

1.	 FRCC 1 areas are generally within or near the historical range and do not predispose the 

system to risk of loss of key ecosystem components. Vegetation groups are intact and 

functioning within the natural range of variability. 

2.	 FRCC 2 areas develop as one or more FRIs are missed, resulting in continued growth of 

understory and species reproduction. Vegetation composition and structure have a 

moderate departure from the natural range of variability and are predisposed to risk or 

loss of key ecosystem components. Fires will burn with greater intensity making them 

difficult to suppress and will result in changes in biodiversity, soil productivity, and water 

quality. 

3.	 FRCC 3 can be described as a significant departure from the natural range of variability 

and predispose the system to a high risk of losing key ecosystem components. Largescale insect damage and disease are usually present and may become uncharacteristic 

while increasing available fuels. Extreme fire behavior is typical with this departure state 

and usually will result in a complete stand replacement occurrence. 

54 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
             

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

19701972197419761978198019821984198619881990199219941996199820002002200420062008

Number of Fires

Year

Wildfires Occuring in the Proposed Project Area: 1970–2009

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

FRCC describes the overall vegetative condition of the ecosystem comparing the current 

condition to historical condition. In addition to describing the FRCC, fire regimes categorize 

major fuel types and the natural FRI. 

Wildland Fire Hazard, Risk, and Occurrence 

In the wildland fire vernacular, “hazard” generally refers to wildland fuel in terms of its 

contribution to fire behavior and its resistance to control when combined with terrain and weather 

features. Fire “risk” refers to the chance of a wildfire starting, as determined by the presence and 

activity of causative agents (National Wildfire Coordinating Group 1998) and other variables that 

may impact people living in these areas such as dead end roads and proximity to fire response 

facilities. 

Lightning ignition is historically the most common cause of fires within the project area. 

Lightning is widespread throughout monsoon season, which usually takes place from June 

through August. Most fires are detected early and suppressed before they gain acreage; however, 

given the right conditions, some fires may grow large and become difficult to suppress, as was 

seen with the Ojo Peak, Trigo, and Big Springs Fires of 2007 and 2008. Fire occurrence within 

the project area has fluctuated over the last 40 years with high frequency years recorded in 1974, 

1976, 1990, 2000, and 2005 (Figure 10). 

Figure 10. Annual fire occurrences within the proposed project area and 5 miles 

from the project boundary from 1970 to 2009 (Source: Bureau of Indian Affairs, 

State of New Mexico and Cibola National Forest wildfire records). 

From 1970 to 2009, there were 165 fires that occurred in the proposed project area or within 5 

miles of its boundary. The majority of the fires have taken place in the piñon-juniper and 

ponderosa pine communities. The highest incidence of fire occurrence is along the WUI corridor 

of the Manzano Mountains where a large number of communities and structures exist. The Ojo 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 55 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Peak Fire that burned 7,500 acres in November 2007 forced the evacuation of approximately 100 

families and eventually burned 7 structures, including 3 homes. The fires also impacted local 

watershed values as drainages were choked with ash. The Trigo Fire in May 2008 burned 13,709 

acres and destroyed 59 homes and 40 other structures. In June 2008, the Big Springs Fire was 

ignited by lightning and burned 5,478 acres and destroyed six homes in the Manzano Mountains 

just north of the final Trigo burn perimeter. All fires occurred in the Cibola NF&Gs, and 

surrounding private land and exhibited extreme fire behavior including crown fire spread, 

spotting, and torching. 

A primary concern of residents in the WUI is the growing number of human-caused ignitions, 

particularly with the development and improvement of roads, residences, and recreational 

opportunities in wildland areas. Human-caused fires account for approximately 58 percent of the 

wildfires recorded in Torrance and Bernalillo Counties from 1970 to 2009, and approximately 82 

percent of the human-caused fires within that time period have taken place within the last 15 

years (Famweb 2010). Although the majority of fires take place during the summer months, the 

recent increase in the number of human-caused ignitions has resulted in an increase in fire 

numbers throughout the year. 

Priority treatment areas for this project were developed with the aid of a fire risk/hazard 

assessment that was developed as part of the Torrance County, East Mountains, and Middle Rio 

Grande Bosque CWPPs (SWCA 2006, 2008a, 2008b). The risk/hazard assessment illustrates the 

extreme risk associated with the project area, particularly around the Pueblo’s eastern boundary, 

the Chilili western boundary, and USFS lands in the Dog Head region and along the southern 

boundary of the Pueblo (see appendix A). This extreme risk is associated with the potential for 

uncharacteristic fire behavior such as crown fire runs, heightened spot fires, extreme fire line 

intensity and flame lengths, and rapid rates of fire spread. This kind of extreme fire behavior was 

demonstrated during the 2007 and 2008 fire season as described above. In order to mitigate the 

potential for extreme fire, the Torrance County and East Mountain CWPPs recommended 

hazardous fuels reduction treatments across all jurisdictions involved in this collaborative effort. 

These recommendations are incorporated into the treatments proposed in this project. 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions 

For the modeling of existing conditions, as well as modeling the alternatives in terms of potential 

fire behavior, two different fuel model sets were used. Rothermel’s (1972) guide to fire spread 

uses a 13-fuel model set, while Scott and Burgan (2005) have developed a 40-fuel model set. 

Appropriate models were chosen from both sets that most closely match the conditions on the 

ground both pre- and post-treatment. 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 

The piñon-juniper woodland type occupies approximately 572.6 acres of the analysis area. This 

forest type is typically a mix of piñon pine and one-seed/Rocky Mountain juniper (Juniperus 

scopulorum) with scattered ponderosa pine, alligator juniper, wavyleaf oak (Quercus undulata), 

and Gambel oak. The dominant habitat type is piñon pine/blue grama (Bouteloua gracilis). Scott 

and Burgan (2005) Fuel model SH7 (equivalent to the original Rothermel (1972) Fuel Model 

(FM) 6) is best representative of this piñon-juniper fuel in the project area. The primary carrier of 

fire in SH7 is woody shrubs and shrub litter with a heavy shrub load with depths of 4 to 6 feet. 

56 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Spread rates are high and flame lengths are very high in this fuel type particularly with higher 

wind speeds over 8 miles per hour. The piñon-juniper throughout the project area is thick with 

continuous canopies with potential for extreme fire behavior. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest 

The ponderosa pine forest type occupies approximately 1,895 acres of the analysis area. Typically 

this is the “dry” end of the ponderosa pine forest type and has scattered piñon pine and oneseed/alligator juniper, as well as Gambel/wavyleaf oak. The dominant habitat type is ponderosa 

pine/Gambel oak. Timber Understory 5 (TU5) (equivalent to the original Rothermel (1972) FM 9) 

is best representative of the ponderosa pine forest type. The primary carrier of fire in TU5 is 

heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree understory, in this case made primarily of Gambel 

oak and ponderosa pine regeneration and small diameter pole-sized trees. Spread rate is moderate; 

flame length is moderate. 

Mixed Conifer Forest Type 

The mixed conifer forest type occupies only 36.2 acres of the analysis area and is made up of 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and white fir with a Gambel oak understory. The natural fire regime, 

which created a mosaic of age classes across the landscape, has not been allowed to burn in this 

type since the early 1900s. The type, therefore, is becoming dense and homogenous across the 

landscape. Downed woody fuel loadings are unnaturally high. Current conditions are such that 

susceptibility to insects and diseases is increasing. The probability of an uncharacteristic, standreplacing fire in the mixed conifer forest type is high. Fuel model TL9 (equivalent to the original 

Rothermel (1972) FM 10) is best representative of the mixed conifer forest type in the project 

area. The primary carrier of fire in the TL9 model is heavy needle drape. Spread rate is moderate 

and flame lengths are moderate. 

Fire Regime Condition Class 

LANDFIRE data collected as part of the “Torrance County CWPP” (SWCA 2008b) suggest that 

lands within the Pueblo and Chilili portions of the project area fall almost entirely into FRCC 3. 

FRCC 3 lands are considered to be an extreme departure from historic reference conditions, 

possibly resulting in changes to key ecosystem components, such as species composition, 

structural stage, canopy closure, fuel composition, fire frequency and severity, and other 

associated disturbances. 

Crown Fire Potential 

Wildland fire is classified into ground (subsurface), surface, or crown categories based on where 

the fuel strata burning occurs (Pyne et al. 1996). Crown fire is further subdivided into passive, 

active, and independent (Van Wagner 1977). Passive crown fires occur when surface fire 

transitions into the crown, largely as a consequence of wind and crown base height (c.b.h) (Scott 

and Reinhardt 2001). Active crown fires burn the entire surface canopy fuel complex and are 

contingent upon the canopy bulk density of the stand—the density of the foliage and fine twigs in 

the canopy. Passive crown fire may not occur if the c.b.h. is high, but active crown fire could 

occur independently of passive crown fire if there is high crown bulk density (c.b.d.) and 

continuous canopy cover (Roccaforte et al. 2008). 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 57 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

The average c.b.h. and presence of ladder fuels can influence the transmission of surface fire into 

the canopy initiating crown fire. Crown base height is the vertical distance from the ground to the 

bottom of the live crown of an individual tree. When trees with low crown base heights are 

removed through fuels reduction treatments like thinning from below or prescribed burning, the 

potential for crown fire spread is reduced (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The average c.b.h. across 

the Pueblo and Chilili portions of the project area for all species is 15.1 feet (11.2 feet on Pueblo 

lands and 19 feet on Chilili lands). 

Ladder fuels are the arrangement of vegetation that provide a vertical structure allowing fire to 

move from the surface up into the canopy. Fuel reduction treatments that focus on the removal of 

small diameter trees help to reduce ladder fuels. When an overabundance of ladder fuels 

dominates the stand, the average c.b.h. is lowered increasing the likelihood for crown fire 

transmission. The project area has numerous pole-sized trees and shrubs and areas with abundant 

regeneration that contribute to heavy concentrations of ladder fuels, thus the risk of a crown fire 

is high. Following treatment, prolific regeneration that could produce future ladder fuels needs to 

be controlled. 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment 

Analysis Method 

In order to determine the existing conditions, common stand exams and Brown’s transects were 

used to collect vegetation and fuels data. This data and field reconnaissance was accomplished by 

professional foresters, fuel specialists, and fire management officers. Vegetation data within the 

project area were collected in 2011. Within the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management 

Area, inventory data were collected in 1997, 2003, 2005, and 2006 and are available over an 

estimated 60 percent of the area. Where inventory data were not available, information from the 

“midscale” analysis was used. 

The data were used to quantify the following existing conditions: (1) trees density, (2) tons of fuel 

loading per acre, (3) c.b.h., (4) c.b.d., and (5) tree species composition. All of these metrics were 

then used to define the current potential for fire behavior. 

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) and BehavePlus were used to simulate and model growing 

conditions and fire behavior over time. BehavePlus was also used to simulate fire behavior at the 

following three conditions: (1) 50th percentile or normal conditions, (2) 90th percentile or severe 

conditions, and (3) 97th percentile or extreme conditions. 

The BehavePlus fire modeling system is a program that is a collection of mathematical models 

that describe fire and the fire environment. This program is used to predict surface fire rate of 

spread, heat per unit area, fireline intensity, flame length, and crown fire transition ratio within 

the project area. 

FSVeg is where the Isleta CFRP existing stand data is stored. These data include, but are not 

limited to, location and site numeric identifiers, acres, basal area, stand density index, and fuel 

model. The data are taken from FSVeg and entered into FVS to create a treatment and prescribed 

fire simulation. 

FVS is an individual tree, distance independent, growth and yield model (Dixon 2002). It has 

been calibrated for specific geographic areas (variants) of the United States (Figure 11). FVS can 

58 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

simulate a wide range of silvicultural treatments for most major forest tree species, forest types, 

and stand conditions. 

Existing Conditions 

The Cibola NF&Gs lands in the Isleta CFRP have three primary stand types: piñon-juniper, 

ponderosa pine, and mixed conifer. District fire personnel and contractors have conducted fuel 

transects throughout the project area to gather an overall baseline of tons per acre fuel loading. 

The findings are that some mortality is occurring due to trees stressed from competition and 

drought, therefore, they are more susceptible to loss from insects and disease. As trees die and fall 

over, surface fuel loads increase. In these semiarid systems, where rates of biotic accumulation 

exceed the normal rate of decay, fire plays a critical role in recycling biomass (Baisan and 

Swetnam 1995). 

Figure 11. Piñon-juniper woodland, note high tree density and 

continuous vegetative cover 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 

The piñon-juniper woodland type occupies approximately 2,600 acres of the analysis area. This 

forest type is typically a mix of piñon pine and one-seed/Rocky Mountain juniper with scattered 

ponderosa pine, alligator juniper, wavyleaf oak, and Gambel oak. The dominant habitat type is 

piñon pine/blue grama. 

There is a high confidence that tree density and canopy coverage have increased in many or most 

persistent woodlands during the 20th century, although the precise magnitude of increase, causes, 

and geographic applicability are not adequately known. Some of these woodlands are sufficiently 

open to subdue a running crown fire but dense patches do exist that could sustain this type of fire 

behavior. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 59 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

FM 6 is best represented by the existing conditions of the piñon-juniper woodland type (Figure 

11). FM 6 is where fires carry through the shrub layer where the foliage is more flammable than 

FM 5, but this requires moderate winds, greater than 8 miles per hour at mid-flame height. Fire 

would drop to the ground at low wind speeds or at openings in the stand. The shrubs are older, but 

not as tall as shrub types of FM 4, nor do they contain as much fuel as FM 4. A broad range of 

shrub conditions is covered by this model. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest 

The ponderosa pine forest type occupies approximately 3,900 acres of the analysis area. Typically 

this is the “dry” end of the ponderosa pine type and has scattered piñon pine and oneseed/alligator juniper, as well as Gambel/wavyleaf oak. The dominant habitat type is ponderosa 

pine/Gambel oak. 

Past management activities and wildfire suppression activities have established unnaturally dense 

stands of suppressed young trees. This condition threatens any remaining legacy trees through 

competition and by fueling increasingly extensive crown fires due to vertical continuity of the 

stand (Covington and Moore 1994; Omi and Martinson 2002). There is a lack of herbaceous 

understory but plenty of dead pine needles, which are conducive to stand replacement wildfire 

under severe and extreme weather conditions. Crown fires in the ponderosa pine type are absent 

in the historic, local, and regional fire scar records (Touchan and Swetnam 1991), indicating that 

current stand conditions are an aberration attributable to past management and fire suppression 

activities. 

TU5 is best representative of the ponderosa pine forest type (Figure 12). The primary carrier of 

fire in TU5 is heavy forest litter with a shrub or small tree understory. Spread rate is moderate; 

flame length is moderate. 

Figure 12. Even-aged ponderosa pine stand; note dense tree 

stocking and lack of herbaceous understory 

60 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Mixed Conifer Forest 

The mixed conifer forest type (at least 40 percent composition of Douglas-fir and white fir) 

occupy approximately 131 acres of the analysis area (Figure 13). The natural fire regime, which 

created a mosaic of age classes across the landscape, has not been allowed to burn in this type 

since the early 1900s. The type, therefore, is becoming dense and homogenous across the 

landscape. Downed woody fuel loadings are unnaturally high. Current conditions are such that 

susceptibility to insects and diseases is increasing. The probability of an uncharacteristic, standreplacing fire in the mixed conifer forest type is high. 

Figure 13. Mixed conifer stand; note abundant regeneration creating 

ladder fuels 

The fuel model that best represents the mixed conifer forest type in the project area is dead and 

downed fuels, which include greater quantities of 3-inch or larger limbwood resulting from 

overmaturity or natural events that create a large load of dead material on the forest floor (see 

Figure 13). The fires burn in the surface and ground fuels with greater fire intensity than the other 

timber litter models. Crowning out, spotting, and torching of individual trees are more frequent in 

this fuel situation, leading to potential fire control difficulties. 

Fire Regime 

Potential vegetative groups have been mapped for the Cibola NF&Gs and are assimilated with 

fire regimes. The dry mixed conifer forest group including ponderosa pine sites and lower 

elevation conifer is most closely represented by FR I. The hot, dry shrublands and woodlands 

group including piñon-juniper is represented by FR II. The mid-elevation mixed conifer group is 

best represented by FR III. The mid to high elevation spruce-fir vegetative group is represented 

by FR IV. Finally, the high elevation shrub group including Gambel oak is represented by FR V. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 61 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Table 6 displays the fire regimes and existing condition class within the USFS portion of the 

project area.

T able 6. Fire reg imes and condition classes 

FR Group Historic Fire 

Return Interval FRCC Approximate Percentagewithin the Project Area

I 0–35 years 2 0 

I 0–35 years 3 5 

II 0–35 years 3 55 

III 35–100+ years 3 40 

IV 35–100+ years 3 0 

V >200 years 3 0 

Crown Base Height and Crown Bulk Density

Crown base height (c.b.h). and crown bulk density (c.b.d.) influence fire behavior and can be 

directly managed by thinning or similar forest treatments (Graham et al. 1999). 

Crown base height is the measurement in feet from the ground to the base of the crown. Often 

ladder fuels play an important role in establishing a crown fire. Ladder fuels are vegetation 

arrangements that allow fire to climb up vegetation into the crowns of the overstory. Thinning 

from below and prescribed burning often result in higher crown base heights, thus reducing the 

potential for crown fire initiation. The project area has numerous pole-sized trees and areas with 

abundant regeneration that contributes to heavy concentrations of ladder fuels, thus the risk of a 

crown fire is high. Using the modeling program BehavePlus, managers can view the possibility of 

a fire transitioning from the ground to the crowns called transition ratio. 

The transition ratio is the surface fire line intensity divided by the critical surface intensity. If the 

transition ratio is greater than or equal to 1, then the surface fire intensity is sufficient for a crown 

fire. This is important to analysis to show the potential for a crown fire. 

Crown bulk density (c.b.d) is an indicator of the incidence of interlocking crowns, which can tell 

managers how a crown fire can spread. Crown bulk density is the primary controlling factor of 

crown fire behavior and it depends on both species composition and stand density (Graham et al. 

1999). Crown bulk density is measured in kilograms per meter cubed (kg/m3) and is the amount 

of mass in the canopy of a stand. In general, the lower the c.b.d., the higher the wind speed has to 

be to sustain a crown fire. Crown bulk densities of 0.08 kg/m3 and above are considered high. 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, the potential for extreme wildfire would continue to increase due to 

increasing fuel loading and potential for disease and mortality. The lands would continue to be in 

a FRCC of 3, significantly departed from their historical condition. Stand structures that are 

conducive to crown fire initiation (dense stands with closed canopies, abundant ladder fuels, and 

low crown base heights) and spread would dominate, and the potential for large, uncharacteristic 

crown fire that poses a risk to local communities and firefighters would continue. Large fires 

could become resistant to control and containment within project and jurisdictional boundaries 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

would be difficult. Adverse impacts to local communities, public safety, and property would 

remain a constant threat. 

Under alternative A, meadow encroachment that has been observed on both Pueblo and Chilili 

lands would continue unabated. Herbaceous understory production is known to decline as crown 

cover increases in the overstory of piñon-juniper woodlands (Arnold et al. 1964; Brockway et al. 

2002). If meadow areas are continually encroached upon, herbaceous biomass, cover, and 

diversity would continue to decline, impacting grazing for both wildlife and domestic species. 

Furthermore a closed canopy of woodland species increases the threat of rapid crown fire spread. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Alternative B would create a stand structure that would reduce the potential for uncharacteristic 

wildfire, thereby reducing the risk that wildfire poses on local communities. By selectively 

removing trees, the project area would exhibit a stand structure with a lower stand density and 

lower canopy bulk density. The proposed treatment requires that trees be limbed up (through 

thinning or prescribed fire) and small trees removed to raise the c.b.h. and, therefore, limit 

transmission of fire through ladder fuels. This method has proven the most successful in reducing 

fire severity in other studies across the West (Cram et al. 2006; Omi and Martinson 2007; Strom 

and Fulé 2007) by reducing crown fire initiation and limiting the opportunity for sustained crown 

fire spread. 

The treatment provides a diversity of habitat types for wildlife by requiring the clumping of trees 

in groups across the landscape. By breaking up the continuous cover of trees, this also serves to 

slow wildfire spread. Areas where the canopy is removed may experience an increase in fine fuels 

through growth of the herbaceous layer; such conditions would support the spread of surface fire. 

However, by reducing tree density and raising crown base heights the potential for crown fire to 

be generated from surface fire is limited and fire severity and resistance to control is greatly 

reduced, thus maintaining firebreak integrity. 

The effectiveness of the treatment in reducing the potential for uncharacteristic crown fire is also 

dependent on slash treatment and management of residual materials; thin-only treatments where 

ground slash has not been treated are found to be ineffective in reducing fire severity (Omi and 

Martinson 2007). Thinning followed by pile burning and/or broadcast burning as proposed here 

should ensure that the treatment effectively reduces the buildup of hazardous fuels. Similarly 

wood utilization by Pueblo and Chilili residents would ensure that residual timber that could 

increase fuel loading is removed offsite. 

With a reduction in fire behavior, if wildfires are initiated in the project area, the probability of 

controlling them before they gain size is greatly increased and public and firefighter safety is, 

therefore, improved significantly. In order to ensure that the hazardous fuel reduction treatments 

are effective over the long term and the firebreak integrity ensured, regular maintenance would be 

needed to selectively remove regenerating trees and sprouts from the treatment area. Studies have 

shown that treatments that reduced surface fuels were effective for up to a decade in mixed 

conifer forests (Omi and Martinson 2007). Since Gambel oak is the dominant understory species 

on Pueblo lands, selective herbicide treatment of oak stumps would help to maintain treatment 

areas and mitigate regrowth of this species. Project partners should ensure that maintenance 

activities are dictated by constant monitoring of treatment areas; trigger points should be set 

beyond which maintenance activities should commence. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 63 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Meadow enhancement proposed under alternative B would remove degraded piñon-juniper cover 

and convert woodland habitat to a more open grassland ecosystem. Similar treatments in the 

Mountainair RD of the Cibola NF&Gs have shown that overstory removal produces an increase 

in foliar cover, biomass, and diversity through time (Brockway et al. 2002). Graminoid species 

would be expected to increase significantly within a year of treatment, reducing the degree of soil 

exposure and potential for erosion post treatment. Based on similar treatments, foliar nutrient 

status and soil chemical properties are expected to remain the same following treatment, and rates 

of soil erosion are expected to be low (Brockway et al. 2002). Removal of overstory piñonjuniper woodland also opens up the canopy and reduces the potential for woodland crown fire 

spread. Although understory herbaceous species would add to the fine fuel mix, fire behavior in 

grasslands is less intense in comparison to timber fuels, so meadow enhancement could provide 

tactical areas for suppression activities and firefighter safety zones. Managed roads and trails 

could also be effectively utilized for fire line construction during an emergency or during fuel 

treatment projects. During fuel treatments, there is increased human activity and equipment that 

could start fires. However, that can be mitigated by starting the project during favorable weather 

conditions and limiting it to certain times of the year. 

Alternative C

Alternative C is only proposed for USFS lands and is not analyzed for Pueblo and Chilili lands.

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would result in no treatment of the existing forest vegetation conditions. 

The forest ecosystem would remain susceptible to the adverse effects of uncharacteristic wildfires 

consistent with increased population, public use, and fuel loading, as well as vulnerable to 

insect/disease outbreaks.

Stand diversity would remain low and competition for water, nutrients, and space would remain 

high. All developments and resource values in this project area could be lost in a single burning 

period. Public and firefighter safety would not improve in situations where wildfire ignites.

The following tables (table 7–table 9) display fire behavior based on existing conditions through 

BehavePlus simulations for each forest type within the project area.

Table 7. Ponderosa pine, fuel model TU5

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 2.7 4.0 4.7 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 2,705 3,078 3,233 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 134 224 276 

Flame length (feet) 4.3 5.4 6.0 

Transition ratio 1.27 2.13 2.62 

BTU = British thermal units
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 65

Table 8. Piñon-juniper, fuel model 6

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 7.2 12.4 16.1 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 486 590 640 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 64 134 186 

Flame length (feet) 3.1 4.3 5.0

Transition ratio 0.77 1.60 2.26 

BTU = British thermal units

Table 9. Mixed conifer, fuel model 10

50th 90th 97th

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Attribute

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 2.2 3.2 3.8 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 1,365 1,571 1,656 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 55 93 114 

Flame length (feet) 2.9 3.6 4.0 

Transition ratio 0.36 0.61 0.74 

BTU = British thermal units

Alternative B

This action alternative is based on the fuels reduction prescription and would have fewer trees, 

especially small diameter trees that act as ladder fuels and increase the risk of torching, and an 

open canopy with lower c.b.d, which reduces the risk of sustained crown and overall fire 

behavior. The ecosystem should be resilient to natural disturbance events, including fire, drought, 

disease, and insect infestations. A desired future condition would allow fire to play its natural role 

in the environment and be maintained in a manner to alleviate resistance to control. Desired 

future conditions would mimic natural ecosystem traits, having a diverse mosaic of fuels that are 

arranged in a fashion not subject to uncharacteristic wildfire. 

The following tables (table 10–table 12) for each forest type with the project area display fire 

behavior based on the proposed action for alternative B and BehavePlus simulations.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Table 10. Ponderosa pine, fuel models TL8 (60 percent) and GR2 (40 percent) 

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 4.3 8.2 10.8 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 733 860 913 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 31 75 114 

Flame length (feet) 2.2 3.3 4.0 

Transition ratio 0.29 0.13 0.19 

BTU = British thermal units

Table 11. Piñon-juniper, fuel models 8 (60 percent) and GR1 (40 percent) 

50th 90th 97th 

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Attribute

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 2.6 4.7 6.6 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 195 233 250 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 7 16 26 

Flame length (feet) 1.1 1.6 2.0 

Transition ratio 0.02 0.04 0.06 

BTU = British thermal units

Table 12. Mixed conifer, fuel model TL5

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 1.0 1.6 2.0 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 357 434 471 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 7 13 17 

Flame length (feet) 1.1 1.4 1.6 

Transition ratio 0.02 0.04 0.06 

BTU = British thermal units

Alternative C

This action alternative is a traditional thin from below prescription. The specifics of the 

prescription can be found in greater detail in the “Water Resources” section, as well as the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 67

“Proposed Action.” This alternative would also create a stand structure, reducing the potential for 

crown fire and fire behavior.

The following tables (table 13–table 15) for each forest type within the project area display fire 

behavior based on the proposed action for alternative C and BehavePlus simulations.

Table 13. Ponderosa pine, fuel models TL8 (90 percent) and GR2 (10 percent) 

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 2.0 3.5 4.4 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 733 860 913 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 31 75 114 

Flame length (feet) 2.2 3.3 4.0 

Transition ratio 0.29 0.13 0.19 

BTU = British thermal units

Table 14. Piñon-juniper, fuel models 8 (90 percent) and GR1 (10 percent) 

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 1.0 1.6 2.2 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 195 233 250 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 7 16 26 

Flame length (feet) 1.1 1.6 2.0 

Transition ratio 0.02 0.04 0.06 

BTU = British thermal units

Table 15. Mixed conifer, fuel model TL 5

50th 90th 97th 

Attribute

Percentile Percentile Percentile

Normal Severe Extreme

Conditions Conditions Conditions

Rate of spread (chains/hr) 1.0 1.6 2.0 

Heat per unit area (BTU/square feet) 357 434 471 

Fireline intensity (BTU/square feet/second) 7 13 17 

Flame length (feet) 1.1 1.4 1.6 

Transition ratio 0.02 0.04 0.06 

BTU = British thermal units
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Cumulative Effects on All Jurisdictions 

For this project, the cumulative effects area was considered to be the project area and ongoing or 

reasonably foreseeable actions that could affect fire and fuels. These actions include the planning 

of the Isleta CFRP project that is surrounded by multiple jurisdictions such as the Pueblo, Chilili, 

private land, and the U.S. Department of Defense. 

Fuel break treatments along the eastern boundary of the Pueblo, as well as adjacent landscapescale treatments on the western boundary of Chilili (close to the USFS Dog Head area) as part of 

a previous CFRP project, have also reduced fuel loading along the common boundaries. These 

treatments have improved suppression capabilities on that land should a fire occur. 

Previous treatments on Cibola NF&Gs lands were implemented in 2001 within David Canyon. 

These treatments were never maintained and are no longer effective to accomplish the purpose 

and need of this project. Previous treatments were also implemented within the last 10 years in 

the northern Manzano portion of the project on Cibola NF&Gs lands; however, these treatments 

were small, isolated wildlife opening treatments that did not provide for landscape treatments and 

are not effective to accomplish the purpose and need of this project. 

In addition to the treatments being proposed under the Isleta CFRP on Cibola NF&Gs lands, the 

Cibola NF&Gs is currently in the initial phases of an environmental analysis on portions of the 

Sandia RD that would connect to the Isleta CFRP project area. This area is referred to as the 

Cedro project area and encompasses 13,500 acres. Once the environmental analysis is 

accomplished on the Cedro project area, this would allow contiguous treatments to occur. 

Soils 

The project area is located in the highland section of the Basin and Range Province physiographic 

zone along the eastern half of Bernalillo County and western portions of Torrance County, New 

Mexico. Specifically, the project area is on the eastern portions of the Manzano and Manzanita 

Mountains, just south and east of Albuquerque. 

Climate 

In the area covered by this analysis, precipitation seasonality varies due to the influence of the 

Arizona monsoon (a.k.a., the southwest monsoon). Areas affected by the southwest monsoon 

receive greater amounts of summer precipitation from moist air masses derived from the Gulf of 

Mexico and Gulf of California. Most of the annual precipitation comes in the form of rain 

originating from convective thunderstorms during the months of July through September. Higher 

elevations of the analysis area may also receive some cool season moisture in the form of snow. 

In addition to temporal variability of precipitation, spatial variability of precipitation is also a 

characteristic within the analysis area. Topography and storm type are two factors that control the 

spatial variability of precipitation. At the local scale, precipitation tends to increase with elevation 

due to the effects of orographic lifting. Summer precipitation tends to have more spatial 

variability than winter frontal storms. 

Within the analysis area, average annual precipitation is generally less than 14 inches per year. 

Precipitation intensity (amount of water per unit of time) tends to be very high in this part of the 

state due to the convective nature of the storms. For example, the intensity of precipitation at the 

nearby Sandia Park weather stations (35.2167 N 106.45W, 10,459 feet) shows that the 2-year, 1­

68 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 69

hour storm can produce upward of 0.85 inch of water. Antecedent soil and vegetation conditions 

can help determine whether this amount of precipitation results in beneficial infiltration or 

erosion generating runoff. 

Droughts are common in New Mexico due to the overall low amount of annual precipitation and 

the previously described spatial and temporal variability of that precipitation. Regional 

precipitation patterns are regulated by global-scale fluctuations in ocean surface temperatures.

Over the long term, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation tends to influence the precipitation regime in 

this part of New Mexico. Studies of 20th century precipitation patterns show that there have been 

three distinct precipitation regimes. The first was a relatively wet period from 1905 to 1941. Next 

was a dry period from 1942 through 1977. This was followed by a period of wet from 1978 

through 1998. The years since 1998 have marked a shift back to a dry period and suggest that 

New Mexico could be in for another 1 to 3 decades of drier than average conditions. This 

information has important implications on ecosystem management due to the influence of 

precipitation on disturbance regimes and the capacity of ecosystems to resist or recover from 

those disturbances. 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

Existing Conditions

The north-south oriented Manzano and Manzanita Mountains formed as part of the eastern flank 

of the Rio Grande Rift (McMillan et al. 2000). The soils within the project area are primarily 

loams and rock outcrops, with some deep, well drained soils and little clayey soils (table 16). 

Table 16. Soils in the project area

Acres of Soil Type Characteristics Project Area

Laporte-Rock outcrop 857.1 A 45 percent Laporte loam that has 15–30 percent slopes and 40 percent

complex (LBE) rock outcrop. Laporte series are characterized by shallow, well drained 

soils that form in residuum from weathered limestone bedrock and 

mountain foothills. This soil has rapid runoff and a moderate to severe 

hazard of water erosion. Native vegetation is primarily piñon pine, 

juniper, ponderosa pine, and blue grama. The rock outcrop is mainly 

limestone, but sandstone and granite may exist.

Rock outcrop-Laporte 226.32 A 55 percent rock outcrop and 30 percent Laporte loam with 20–45 

complex (RLF) percent slopes. This soil type is characteristic of the steeper slopes of the 

Manzano range and Pueblo. Rock outcrop is limestone bedrock with 

rapid runoff, while the Laporte loam is characteristic of areas where 

water erosion is moderate to severe.

Pino-Rock outcrop 831.31 A 40 percent Pino silt loam and 30 percent rock outcrop with 3–15

association (PR) percent slopes. Pino series consist of moderately deep, well drained soils 

that form from weather limestone and shale that occur on mountain 

ridges. These soils occur in areas where runoff is medium and hazards 

for water erosion are moderate. Native vegetation is piñon pine, juniper, 

ponderosa pine, blue grama, and sideoats grama (Bouteloua 

curtipendula). Rock outcrop is limestone with some sandstone.
 

 

 

 

 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Seis-Silver complex 

(SHF) 

27.34 A 50 percent Seis very stony loam that mainly has 30–60 percent slopes, 

and 35 percent very stony Orthids that have 40–80 percent slopes. The 

Seis series consists of moderately deep, well drained soils that formed 

from weathered limestone on the sides of the Manzano Mountains. 

Typically found near the Cibola NF&Gs, the surface layer of the soil is a 

very stony loam with rapid runoff with a severe hazard of water erosion. 

Native vegetation is mainly blue grama (Bouteloua eriopoda), black 

grama, piñon pine, one-seed juniper, Gambel oak, and small soapweed 

(Yucca glauca). 

Silver and Witt soils 

(SwC) 

1.66 A 55 percent Silver very fine sandy loam and 25 percent Witt very fine 

sandy loam. The silver series consists of deep, well drained soils that 

formed from sedimentary rocks on piedmonts in old alluvium. The Witt 

series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed from upland 

sediments. Typically found on the eastern sides of the Sandia and 

Manzano Mountains, runoff is rapid and water erosion hazard is 

moderate to severe. Native vegetation is mainly blue grama, ring muhly 

(Muhlenbergia torreyi), piñon pine, one-seed juniper, and western 

wheatgrass (Pascopyrum smithii). 

Crest stony loam (Ct) 4.19 Occurring on the eastern extents of the Manzano Mountain crest, this 

soil has moderate to steep slopes. Decomposing forest litter covers the 

surface of this soil and the top 6 inches are characterized by dark gray 

and light brown friable silt loam. Severe erosion results if fire destroys 

the vegetation (Torrance Soil Survey 1970). Native vegetation is 

primarily Gambel oak, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir, and an 

understory of maple (Acer sp.), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), and sedge 

(Carex sp.). Runoff is medium. 

Pino silt loam (Pw) 15.91 Pino series consist of moderately deep, well drained soils that form from 

weather limestone and shale that occur on mountain ridges. These soils 

occur in areas where runoff is a medium hazard for water erosion. Native 

vegetation is piñon pine, juniper, ponderosa pine, blue grama, and 

sideoats grama. Rock outcrop is limestone with some sandstone. 

Tampico loam (Ta) 10.16 This soil is characteristic of canyon bottoms and flood plains in the 

mountains. Soil is dark and clayey in the subsoil. This soil is subject to 

occasional or frequent overflow from flooding streams and from runoff 

of nearby steep soils. Head-cuts and gullies are the primary source of 

erosion in locations where the surface gets little protection from 

vegetation. Because of its organic compounds, this soil has a high 

potential for the production of commercial timber. Additionally, the soil 

is suited for recreational activities and facilities, as well as forage 

production for wildlife species. 

Wilcoxson stony loam 

(Wf) 

407.47 Occurring on the north- and east-facing slopes of ridges on the eastern 

extents of the Manzano Mountains, this soil is stony and forested, 

moderately deep, and brownish. Water erosion can be a serious hazard 

on this steep soil, especially when plant cover is destroyed by fire or 

excessive logging (Torrance Soil Survey 1970). The soil is primarily 

used for production of timber and wildlife habitats. Native vegetation is 

primarily ponderosa pine, piñon, juniper, Gambel oak, New Mexico 

locust (Robinia neomexicana), sideoats grama, and other cool season 

grasses. 

70 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Wilcoxson stony loam 

(Wg) 

0.11 Occurring on the south-facing slopes of ridges on the eastern extents of 

the Manzano Mountains, this soil is more shallow and stony than the 

north- and east-facing soils described above (Wf). Runoff is slow to 

medium and erosion is slight, but can become a serious hazard when 

plant cover is destroyed by fire or excessive logging (Torrance Soil 

Survey 1970). Native vegetation is primarily ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, piñon, one-seed and alligator juniper, Gambel oak, Oregon grape 

(Mahonia aquifolium), blue grama, Junegrass (Koeleria sp.), and 

squirreltail (Elymus elymoides). 

Witt loam (Wp) 22.15 The Witt series consists of deep, well drained soils that formed from 

upland sediments. Typically found on the eastern sides of the Sandia and 

Manzano Mountains, runoff is rapid and water erosion hazard is 

moderate to severe. The soil is moderately fertile and native vegetation 

includes blue grama, ring muhly, piñon pine, one-seed juniper, and 

western wheatgrass. Soil is used primarily for native forage and irrigated 

farming. 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment 

The following effects related to the proposed action were identified during internal and external 

scoping of this project. 

 Soil condition may be reduced. 

 Watershed conditions may be changed. 

 Water quality may be impacted. 

 Water quantities and timing may be affected. 

 Riparian areas conditions may be affected. 

These effects can be grouped in the categories of soil, water, and watershed condition. Each of 

these would be discussed in terms of existing condition and the potential effects of the proposed 

alternatives. 

Existing Conditions 

Soils and Terrestrial Ecosystem Units 

Soils on the Cibola NF&Gs portion of the project area were assessed using the Cibola TEUI 

(Strenger et al. 2007). The survey consisted of mapping and interpreting ecosystems through a 

systematic classification and integration of the primary ecosystem components, such as soil, 

vegetation, and climate. This TEUI information is part of the basis for developing this project. 

TEUI was used to evaluate and adjust land uses to the limitations, such as existing soil condition 

and erosion hazard. Canopy estimates provide an understanding of the tree densities that different 

ecosystems historically supported (Abella 2010). These densities are useful for assessing site 

capability and preparing prescriptions. 

Soil condition is an evaluation of soil quality based on the interrelationship between soil 

hydrology, soil stability, and nutrient cycling. Soil condition categories reflect soil disturbances 

resulting from both planned and unplanned events. Guidance for determining soil condition is 

given in the USFS Manual Supplement 2509.18-99-1. Soil condition ratings are tied to a given 

soil type found within terrestrial ecological units (TEUs) (Strenger et. al. 2007). These data are 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 71 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

further substantiated by field data provided by stand exams that provide information about woody 

material on the ground and site productivity. Figure 14 and Figure 15 illustrate the mapped 

locations of the TEUs in the project area. 

Terrestrial Ecosystem Units in the Project Area 

Map Unit 87 

This map unit is found in valley plains. This map unit makes up 4 percent of the project area. 

There is a slight limitation for roads and trails; however, the revegetation potential is high. Soil 

condition in this unit is satisfactory. Erosion hazard rating is slight. Trees in the potential natural 

community comprise about 16 percent canopy cover, largely made up of ponderosa pine with 

lesser amounts of juniper and piñon. Plant communities in this TEU are the result of a 

combination of microclimatic and soil conditions created by the topography—in this case, the 

bottom of David Canyon. 

Map Unit 267 

This map unit is found on steep south-facing slopes in the project area. This map unit has a high 

percentage of rock fragments and is shallow. This map unit makes up 1 percent of the project 

area. Soil condition in component 1 of this unit is impaired. Component 2 of this unit is in 

unsatisfactory condition. Erosion hazard rating is moderate. Trees in the potential natural 

community comprise about 40 percent canopy cover, equal amounts of juniper and piñon. Plant 

communities in this TEU differ from those related to climate largely due, in this case, to the 

parent material of limestone. 

Map Unit 268 

This map unit is located on steep slopes of all aspects. There is a high percentage of rock 

fragments. This unit is located on less than 1 percent of the project area. Soils are alkaline, 

thereby limiting productivity. Soil condition in this unit is impaired. Erosion hazard rating is 

severe. Trees in the potential natural community comprise about 40 percent canopy cover, with 

equal amounts of juniper and piñon. Plant communities in this TEU differ from those related to 

climate largely due, in this case, to the parent material of limestone material. 

Map Unit 269 

This map unit is found on elevated plains on less than 1 percent of the project area. Map unit 269 

has two major components. The soil condition for this unit is rated as impaired due to high 

percentage of bare soil and low amounts of ground cover. Erosion hazard rating in component 1 is 

moderate. Trees in the potential natural community comprise about 55 percent canopy cover of 

piñon and juniper with oak shrub. Plant communities in this TEU differ from those related to 

climate largely due, in this case, to the parent material and the resultant alkaline soils. The 

potential natural community for component 2 is 15 percent canopy cover of piñon and juniper 

with oak shrub. This community is influenced by the topography in addition to soil and microsite 

conditions. Erosion hazard is rated as slight for component 2; however, many areas have high 

amounts of bare soil and gullies. In the project area, this TEU occurs in the far southeast corner 

and is mostly made up of component 2 with pockets of component 1. 

72 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 14. TEUs in the Mountainair RD of the Isleta CFRP Project 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 73 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 15. TEUs within the Sandia RD of the Isleta CFRP Project 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

74 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Map Unit 270 

This map unit has a satisfactory rating for soil condition. It has a low potential for revegetation 

due to alkaline soil conditions. Map unit components 1 and 2 have a severe erosion hazard and 

severe plant competition from oak. This unit is located on 2.4 percent of the project area in the 

Sandia RD, with component 1 mostly found on the steeper slopes on the west side of the southern 

end of David Canyon. Trees in the potential natural community comprise about 50 to 75 percent 

canopy cover of piñon, juniper, with oak shrub. Plant communities in this TEU differ from those 

related to climate largely due, in this case, to the parent limestone material. 

Map Unit 273 

This map unit is located on gently sloping elevated plains with north-facing aspects. This unit 

occurs on 40.1 percent of the project area. Soils are moderately deep loams with very stony and 

fine sandy components. A low soil bearing strength is somewhat limiting. Soil condition in this 

unit is currently satisfactory, except for a few localized areas. Erosion hazard rating is moderate. 

Trees in the potential natural community comprise about 50 to 60 percent canopy cover with 

mostly ponderosa pine, lesser amounts of piñon and juniper, with oak shrub. Plant communities in 

this TEU differ from those related to climate largely due, in this case, to the parent limestone 

material. 

Map Unit 277 

This map unit is located on steep hill slopes of all aspects on 16 percent of the project area along 

both sides of David Canyon. It is also found in the south end of the project area along Cañon de 

Troncon Negro. Soils are moderately deep and include very gravelly clay loams, cobbly sandy 

clay loams, and cobbly loams. A low bearing soil strength is somewhat limiting. Soil condition in 

this unit is impaired. Erosion hazard rating is moderate. Trees in the potential natural community 

comprise about 50 to 60 percent canopy cover with mostly ponderosa pine, lesser amounts of 

piñon and juniper, and oak shrub. Plant communities in this TEU differ from those related to 

climate largely due, in this case, to the parent material, the San Andreas Limestone. 

Map Unit 280 

This map unit is located on east-facing slopes with moderate to steep slopes. Soils are deep loams 

with a moderately deep gravelly sandy clay loam component. A low bearing soil strength is 

somewhat limiting. Soil condition in this unit is satisfactory. Erosion hazard rating is severe. This 

unit is found on less than 1 percent of the project area. The potential natural community has a 

potential total canopy cover of 60 to 80 percent, dominated by oak. Trees make up 10 to 15 

percent of the canopy cover with mostly ponderosa pine, white fir, and juniper. Plant communities 

in this TEU are influenced by topography and the effect of fire. 

Map Unit 282 

This map unit is located on steep side slopes of all aspects on 2.2 percent of the project area at the 

north end of the Mountainair unit near the watershed divide. Soils are deep loams with 

components of very cobbly clay loam and sandy loam. The unit is productive but low soil bearing 

strength limits use. Soil condition in this unit is satisfactory. Erosion hazard rating is moderate. 

The potential natural community has a potential total canopy cover of 75 percent. Trees make up 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 75 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

most of this with Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, some juniper, and substantial amount of oak—the 

result of fire influences. Component 2 in this unit has little oak. 

Map Unit 291 

This map unit is unique to the Manzano Mountains. It is located on north-facing steep side slopes 

on 5 percent of the project area on the west side of the Mountainair RD. Soils are moderately 

deep loams with a small component of cobbly clay loams. The potential natural community has a 

potential total canopy cover of 75 percent. Trees make up most of this with big-tooth maple (Acer 

grandidentatum), Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, some juniper, and some oak. Soil condition in this 

unit is satisfactory. Erosion hazard rating is severe. 

Map Unit 295 

This map unit is located on 28.1 percent of the project area on steep, north-facing hill slopes 

making up a large part of the Mountainair RD. Soils are moderately deep stony loams and loams. 

Stones in the profile limit along with a low soil bearing strength. Soil condition in this unit is 

impaired. Erosion hazard rating is severe. The potential natural community has a potential total 

canopy cover of 75 percent. Trees would make up most of this with ponderosa pine, some juniper, 

including alligator juniper, and some oak. 

Soil Condition 

Soils were classified into three condition groups: satisfactory, impaired, and unsatisfactory. The 

definition of each category is given below. 

	 Satisfactory – Soil function is being maintained and is operating as expected. 

	 Impaired – Ability of the soil to function properly has been limited or it has less 

resistance to the forces of degradation. Changes in management or mitigation measures 

may be appropriate. 

	 Unsatisfactory – Loss or degradation of vital soil functions have occurred resulting in 

the inability to maintain resource values, sustain outputs, and recover from impacts. Soils 

rated in this category are candidates for improved management or active restoration 

designed to recover soil functions. 

Soil condition within the Cibola NF&Gs lands within the project area is displayed on Figure 16 

for the primary component in each TEU. Approximately 54 percent of these soils on the USFS 

lands in the project area have satisfactory soil condition; 46 percent are in impaired condition. 

There is variation in these numbers because smaller pockets of unsatisfactory soils, impaired, and 

satisfactory soils occur within the larger mapped areas. Many of the impaired soils are located on 

steeper slopes. Figure 17 and Figure 18 are maps of soil conditions across the project area. 

The causes of impaired soils within the analysis area generally stem from physical surface 

disturbances and the lack of woody material on the ground. This leads to an altered ecosystem 

state that has increased erosion/redistribution of soil (including organic matter and nutrients) by 

wind or water, lower cover/vigor of herbaceous vegetation, lower stability and protection of soil, 

and lower site resistance/resilience to extreme drought. All of the above mentioned effects can be 

found within the analysis area resulting in the present soil conditions. 

76 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 77

Figure 16. Soil condition of the primary 

TEUs in the project area

Where soils are currently impaired, high erosion rates and lack of woody material on the ground 

are the greatest causes. High erosion rates are related to the lack of ground cover and litter; in the 

piñon-juniper forest type, the loss of biotic crusts is widespread. The lack of woody material is 

largely the result of past management practices. In particular, large woody material greater than 

16 inches in diameter is lacking in many areas, including wood that is in an advanced state of 

decay. This type of wood provides nutrients to the soil and habitat for soil biota. 

There are woody material data on 37 percent of the area of the NFS lands in the project area.

These data are available for the Sandia RD and the north end of the Mountainair RD (Dog Head 

area). Table 17 shows the woody material information for the project area. These data show the 

mean for those areas with woody material data in the ponderosa pine-oak vegetation type are less 

than the amount needed for satisfactory soils. The mean woody material in piñon-juniper and oak 

vegetation types is enough for satisfactory soil condition. There are no data for woody material 

within mixed conifer stands in the project area. These data suggest that woody material is lacking 

in the ponderosa pine forest type. Overall, oak and piñon-juniper forest types appear to have 

adequate woody material.

Table 17. Available woody material information for the project area 

Vegetation Type

Ponderosa pine-oak 

Percent Acres Range of Woody 

Material for 

Acres with Mean of Woody 

Project Material 

Area with Data Satisfactory Soils

Satisfactory 

Levels (tons/acre)

50% 978 1 5–10 tons/acre 273 3.1 

Piñon-juniper 34% 1,817 2 2–8 tons/acre 1,245 6.6 

Oak 15% 57 3 3–10 tons/acre 23 8.0 

Mixed conifer 1% 0 1 8–16 tons/acre NA NA 

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA 1999) FSM 2509.18-99-1, Soil Condition Rating Guide. 2 Ernest et al. (1993). 

3

Inferred from USDA (2006) and Abella (2008). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 17. Soil condition in the Sandia RD 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

78 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 18. Soil condition in the Mountainair RD 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 79 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the no action alternative, the direct effect on soil resources would remain unchanged. 

Existing erosion and deposition processes would continue. Without treatment the risk of 

uncharacteristic fire remains high throughout the project area, the potential for adverse impacts to 

soils following high-severity wildfire, therefore, remain high. If a large, high-severity wildfire 

moved through the project area, soils would be exposed to increased runoff with resultant erosion 

and sedimentation, hydrophobicity (making soils water repellent), and reduced or altered 

infiltration and impacts to water quality. The organic composition of the soil could also be altered, 

impacting soil productivity and nutrient cycling. Furthermore, the no action alternative would 

perpetuate the lack of herbaceous cover in the project area, and areas soils would continue to 

exhibit limited integrity, low productivity, and high potential for erosion. 

Although the no action alternative would generate the least direct effect to soils and geology, the 

indirect effects of an uncharacteristic wildfire are greatly increased. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Under alternative B, direct and indirect effects to soils and geology include short-term impacts 

such as erosion and sedimentation related to removal of the ground cover surface and impacts to 

nutrient fluxes associated with vegetation removal. Impacts would be site specific depending on 

soil type and structure. 

Because some areas would undergo a basal area reduction of up to 50 percent, runoff rates and 

water yield would be expected to increase on a temporary basis until understory herbaceous 

layers are able to establish and protect the soil. During very wet periods, project area soils such as 

the Laporte-Rock outcrop complex and Seis-Silver complex could undergo severe erosion due to 

their shallow profiles and rapid runoff. The majority of soils throughout the project area are 

classified as having a moderate to severe erosion potential. Potential erosion could be mitigated 

by spreading slash throughout the treated area. Retaining slash also ensures that nutrients stored 

in the vegetation would not be fully lost from the system. Slash retention would also ameliorate 

some of the negative effects associated with exposed soil. Although project soils are at risk of 

immediate soil erosion following treatment, losses associated with vegetation removal are not 

expected to have any long-term adverse effects since regeneration of the herbaceous layer that 

would result from opening of the canopy is expected to be rapid and would stabilize the soil 

against future erosion. 

Beneficial effects of thinning on soils would also be expected. By exposing bare mineral soil to 

light, resultant soil surface heating can stimulate seed germination and nutrient cycling. This 

effect can only be achieved where slash is removed from the site. 

A careful balance is needed to ensure that slash provides positive benefits to the project area. 

Slash retention can enhance soil surface stability and reduce the potential for erosion, but can 

impinge upon plant regeneration and recovery of the herbaceous layer. Overriding the physical 

effects of slash on soils, however, is among the fire risk factors that are associated with leaving 

residual surface fuels in the project area. Strict guidelines regarding slash bed depth should, 

therefore, be followed following all treatments. 

80 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Prescribed burning proposed throughout the project area would cause some temporary effects to 

soils. The most important physical characteristic affected by fire is soil structure because the 

organic matter component can be lost at relatively low temperatures (Neary et al. 2005). This can 

reduce soil porosity making the soil more prone to postfire runoff and erosion. Crest stony loam 

and Wilcoxon stony loam soils found in the project area are at particular threat of erosion post fire 

because of their higher organic matter content. Soil heating and its impact on organic matter can 

also influence soil chemistry. When organic matter is combusted, the stored nutrients are either 

volatilized or changed into available forms that can be taken up by soil microbes and vegetation; 

the increased availability of stored nutrients, however, can make them susceptible to loss from the 

system through runoff. The greatest losses are associated with high and moderate severity fires 

and not with low severity prescribed fire, which have been shown to release nutrients making 

them available to germinating and resprouting plants (Boerner et al. 2006). Fire can also impact 

soil biology depending on the fire intensity and severity. Most soil microbes have been found to 

be highly resilient to fire, rapidly recolonizing to preburn levels. Prescriptions that consume 

extensive areas of litter and duff, however, are found to be more damaging to soil 

microorganisms. Low intensity burning that protects the forest floor and humus layers are 

recommended (Neary et al. 2005). 

Some short-term impacts to soil associated with increased activity in the project area are 

expected. The use of mechanized equipment and increased road traffic associated with access by 

crews and removal of timber may cause increased soil compaction along roads and staging areas. 

BMPs should be followed to reduce erosion related to heavy road use, such as water barring and 

appropriate selection of staging areas dependent on slope and soil vulnerability. Access should be 

restricted or limited in areas that are particularly vulnerable to soil erosion for a period sufficient 

for soil and surface vegetation recovery. 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences 

Soil Condition 

The analysis area for soil condition is the Cibola NF&Gs portion of the project area boundary. 

This is because the soils within the project area have the potential to be directly and indirectly 

affected by the proposed activities. The measures for soil condition are woody material on the 

ground, acres of disturbance, the transition ratio, an indicator of the susceptibility for crown fire, 

and the heat per unit area, as modeled at the surface. Crown fire is associated with severe 

wildfires that are very hard to control. Severe wildfires result in greater amounts of damaged soil. 

The heat per unit area at the surface provides information about the heat the soil would be subject 

to under the modeled scenarios of the alternatives. The amount of woody material on the ground 

is a useful measure since lack of woody material has been observed and measured across the 

project area. Soil disturbance is an indicator where the soil is disturbed, resulting in soil loss and 

erosion. Compaction quickly occurs during the first few passes across soil, and in the piñonjuniper zone cryptogamic crusts are destroyed. The time period for analysis is 10 years, since this 

time period allows time for soils to recover from the treatments. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under the no action alternative, none of the proposed activities would occur. The greatest effect 

of this, an indirect effect, is not implementing activities that would improve control opportunities 

for wildfire. Wildfires would be harder to control and burn hotter as indicated by the transition 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 81 
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

ratios and heat per unit area at the surface, summarized in Table 18. Susceptibility to crown fire is 

indicated by the model results for the no action alternative, with surface temperatures ranging 

from 590 to 3,078 British thermal units (BTU) per square feet. These temperatures are well above 

the values where organic matter is destroyed, amino acids are lost, and nitrogen is volatilized 

(Hungerford et al. 1990). Fire related effects include soil hydrophobicity, altered infiltration, 

increased runoff, sedimentation, and erosion. Nutrient cycling is also changed by heating of both 

organic and inorganic compounds. The effect would be dependent on fire behavior, but soils are 

likely to be heated, changing the physical and biotic characteristics of the soil. With high burn 

severity, soils may become water repellent, which increases runoff during storm events because 

water is not able to infiltrate. 

There would be no direct effects on soil resources, such as ground disturbance or loss of tree 

cover. Locations where erosion is occurring such as roads and trails, both designated and user 

created, would continue to contribute to soil loss. Areas where soil condition is less than 

satisfactory due to lack of woody material would remain in this condition. Recruitment of woody 

material is likely to occur as trees die. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

Under this alternative, the activities of removing trees, adding woody material to the ground, 

prescribed fire including the potential for pile burning, driving on soils, and using and 

maintaining roads cause direct effects to soil resources. These direct effects lead to indirect 

effects. Creating the proposed openings would result in soil disturbance from mechanized 

equipment, removal of trees, mastication, and prescribed fire. Removing trees and soil 

disturbance exposes soil to precipitation events leading to erosion and sediment transport. Soil 

disturbance would be mitigated as described in the proposed action and through BMPs as 

described in chapter 2 and appendix B of the soil and water specialist report. Erosion hazard and 

existing soil condition guide the method of vegetation removal and slash treatment. Changes in 

microclimate occur when canopy cover is removed. However, leaving woody material on the 

ground improves soil condition where woody material is lacking and provides protection to soil 

during rainfall, making up for the loss of vegetative cover. Subsequent prescribed burning would 

remove masticated material, while vegetation grows back in. Masticated material would be left in 

the openings and burned in later years. Downed woody material would be retained or returned to 

the sites after proposed activities to ensure appropriate levels to maintain soil quality are present. 

Driving on soils and the use and maintenance of roads related to the proposed action would cause 

compaction and increased sediment yields in these areas. Existing roads are already compacted; 

however, when masticators or other equipment are used off road to remove trees, compaction 

occurs quickly. The existing road system would be used, with no new roads planned. Some of 

these are currently in poor condition with limited drainage features. As part of the BMPs 

prescribed for this area, water barring and other practices as needed would be used on the roads 

after completion to improve drainage and related effects such as erosion. For the purposes of 

analysis, it is assumed that 100 percent of the openings in the piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine 

vegetation types could be subject to ground disturbance. Within the groups of trees, up to 50 

percent of soil disturbance is assumed. As a result, up to 5,147 acres could have grounddisturbing activities occur on them, including large equipment such as masticators, pickups, or 

ATVs. 

82 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Field observations reveal that public firewood collecting greatly disturbs soils. As a result, where 

soil condition is less than satisfactory and erosion hazard is severe, personal use firewood 

collecting through cross-country travel would not be used to remove wood. This project design 

feature would protect sensitive soils from these disturbance effects. 

Research suggests that thinning can increase nitrogen transformations into available nitrogen 

(Kaye and Hart 1998) but that repeated prescribed burning for maintenance may result in 

increased nitrogen mobility (Wright and Hart 1997), leading to nitrogen losses from soils. Results 

from research on mastication and soil suggest that masticated material can reduce soil 

temperatures and increase soil moisture (Owen et al. 2009). Over time, mastication may 

negatively affect nitrogen dynamics (Gottfried and Overby 2009). The same study showed that 

pile burning increases soil temperatures, reduces soil moisture, changes soil structure, and causes 

nitrogen to be leached away. 

Pile burning would only be used when wood loads are too great to be treated any other way. If 

pile burning occurs, several BMPs could be used to mitigate the effects to soil such as burning 

piles in the winter. 

The indirect effect of reducing uncharacteristic wildfire behavior as a result of the proposed 

vegetative treatment is a benefit to soil resources. Thinning activities are a preferable alternative 

to wildfire, resulting in less impact to watersheds (Dore et al. 2010; Ffolliott et al. 2011). As 

displayed in the tables in the “Fuels Environmental Consequences” section, the results of fire 

behavior model, BehavePlus, for this alternative show that when weather conditions are severe 

crown fire is less likely to occur in piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine as a result of the proposed 

action. The mixed conifer vegetation type would also have a decreased susceptibility to crown 

fire under this alternative. In the all vegetation types, the model results for heat per unit area at the 

surface are reduced. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to alternative B, except that no permanent openings would be created in 

the piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine vegetation types. Temporary openings would be created on 

10 percent of these two vegetation types. Except for steep slopes, soil disturbance could occur on 

the soils below these two vegetation types as a result of the proposed thinning activities. Using 

the same assumptions to calculate acres of ground disturbance, proposed activities relating to this 

alternative would lead to less soil disturbance than alternative B as shown in Table 18. Woody 

material would be retained and added, as needed, in the same manner as proposed in alternative 

B. Susceptibility to crown fire would also be improved under this alternative in all vegetation 

types to the same extent as alternative B. In addition, the range of heat during a potential wildfire 

is reduced by the proposed activities in this alternative to 233 to 860 BTU per square feet. This is 

more favorable for satisfactory soil condition than the no action alternative. 

Alternative Comparison for Soil Condition 

Table 18 shows the comparison of the alternatives for the measures for soil condition. There 

would be no ground disturbance under the no action alternative. This increases under the 

proposed action due to activity being concentrated in the created openings. Expanding the 

thinning activities to all of the piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine vegetation type outside of steep 

slopes increases the potential for ground disturbance by 40 percent. The susceptibility to crown 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 83 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

fire is high under the no action alternative, but is reduced to less susceptible under both action 

alternatives. Surface heating, as indicated by heat per unit area in BTU per square feet, decreases 

under both action alternatives to less impacting levels. 

Table 18. Comparison of alternatives for soil condition 

1

Transition Ratio Heat per Unit Area Potential (risk of crown fire Alter- (BTU under severe Woody Material Acres of likely if >1 under native weather conditions (tons per acre) Distur severe weather - per square feet) bance conditions)

P-J PP MC P-J PP MC P-J PP MC Oak

A 0 1.60 2.13 0.61 590 3,078 1,571 6.6 3.1 NA 8.0 

B 5,147 0.04 0.13 0.04 233 860 434 5–7 5–7 10–15 5–7 

C 3,538 0.04 0.13 0.04 233 860 434 5–7 5–7 10–15 5–7 

1 Transition ratios and heat per unit area information is in the Fire/Fuels Report.

P-J = piñon-juniper; PP = ponderosa pine; MC = mixed conifer; Oak = oak woodlands. 

Water Resources 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

The project area is divided between the Western Estancia and Rio Grande-Albuquerque 

watershed. Water resources on the eastern face of the Manzano and Manzanita Mountains flow 

from the many higher elevation subbasins (e.g., Torrean and Tajique) of the region east toward the 

Estancia subbasin, a subbasin of the Western Estancia watershed, located 62 miles southeast of 

Albuquerque. 

Existing Conditions

One recorded spring exists at Chilili but falls outside of the proposed project area. A spring is also 

present on Pueblo lands outside the project area, but below a steep slope that would be thinned 

during treatment. No perennial streams exist within the entire proposed project area. Accordingly, 

residents of the area depend mostly on the area’s groundwater resources. The region’s 

groundwater, a consequence of ancient water resources that deposited water-bearing fill over 

older bedrock, is extracted primarily for irrigated agriculture, the area’s largest economic activity.

The recharge for this groundwater depends almost exclusively on the upstream resources that 

originate in or near the project area as precipitation or snowmelt. 

The portions of the project area residing in the Western Estancia Basin are rural, with both 

minimal infrastructure and development. Along with being in or near the headwaters, this is likely 

the reason the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) lists no approved total maximum 

daily loads (TMDLs) or reported causes of impairment for these waters (EPA 2010). Any 

impairment to waters originating in the proposed project area is likely a result of vehicular and 

recreational activities.

The drainages in the project area are classified as intermittent or ephemeral and are not 

considered riparian. The riparian areas within the project area are not associated with the known 

spring at Chilili. There are no known riparian areas that fall within the Pueblo or Kirtland 

portions of the project area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Water resources on the western face of the Manzano and Manzanita Mountains, draining west, are 

a component of the Rio Grande-Albuquerque watershed. Much like the ephemeral streams of the 

Estancia basin mentioned above, the headwaters of the streams that drain into the Rio GrandeAlbuquerque watershed have their headwaters in the higher elevations of the Manzano and 

Manzanita Mountains and, thus, are located in or near the proposed project area. 

Ephemeral waters that could originate and/or flow through the project area are not any of the five 

named water bodies of the Rio Grande-Albuquerque watershed that are listed as impaired by the 

EPA (2010). The EPA listed causes of impairment of the Rio Grande-Albuquerque watershed are 

E. coli, benthic, eutrophication, aluminum, and ambient biomass. Because the proposed area has 

little development and minimal human impact, the waters originating in or flowing through the 

project area are not likely to contribute to these impairments. Additionally, the EPA lists the 

currently approved TMDLs as E. coli, fecal coliform, and aluminum (EPA 2010). Like the 

impairments to these water bodies, the waters originating in or flowing through the project area 

are not contributors to these approved TMDLs. 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions 

Surface water is scarce within the project area. There is one spring within the USFS proposed 

project boundary, Ojo Terreo in the Mountainair RD. Tajique Creek is perennial and drains off the 

east side of the Manzano Mountains into the Estancia Basin. Streamflow in Tajique Creek is 

variable with snowmelt dominating spring runoff, tapering off to summer low flows until the 

summer monsoons result in sudden high flows that drop off to low flows in the winter. There are 

additional small segments of perennial water that have not been mapped. 

Riparian areas are associated with Tajique Creek, springs, and in numerous intermittent streams 

where groundwater is close to the surface. There is only data for Tajique Creek outside of the 

project area. Tajique Creek was assessed using the T-Walk method (Ohlander 1998) in 2002 

(Cibola NF&Gs 2002). This assessment showed that Tajique Creek has been impacted by major 

sediment sources resulting in loss of productivity and diversity. Pools have been filled by 

sediment and the gravel/cobble bed of Tajique Creek has been changed to a streambed covered in 

fine sediment. In addition, a properly functioning condition (PFC) assessment was completed 

along Tajique Creek in 2002 (Cibola NF&Gs 2002). Entrenchment, bank destabilization, and 

head cutting were observed along several reaches. Both assessment methods, T-Walk and PFC, 

determined that the adjacent road, NFS Road 55, as well as dispersed and developed recreation 

sites are largely responsible for this condition. 

Water Quality 

A review of the 2008–2010 State of New Mexico’s Integrated Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) 

report indicates that no impaired streams or freshwater reservoirs are within the project’s analysis 

boundaries (NMED 2012). However, this is not a good indicator of water quality in the project 

area since the state has not assessed any streams in the project area. 

Basic water quality data are lacking in the project area. There are some data for downstream areas 

of Tajique Creek from the 1960s, 1970s, and 1990. Tajique Creek pH data varied from 7.4 to 

8.25. Sulfate levels were between 23 and 49 parts per million (ppm). Hardness varied from 208 to 

306 ppm. This is considered “very hard” using Dufor and Becker’s (1964) classification system. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 85 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

In 1975, specific conductivity (umbos/cm) was measured at 650 in May and 328 in December of 

1975. These values are within the ranges expected in this region.

Watersheds

Watersheds were used to assess the effects of the project on watershed condition, flow timing, and 

flow quantity. Watersheds are identified with numbers called the hydrologic unit code (HUC).

All of the sixth code watersheds across the forest have been classified using the Watershed 

Condition Framework (WCF) (U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 2011). The WCF allows 

an interdisciplinary team to assess the risks to the condition of NFS lands within each watershed 

using defined criteria, leading to a rating for each watershed. Watersheds with less than 10

percent of NFS lands are not rated. Twenty-four different criteria, including terrestrial physical 

and biological indicators and aquatic physical and biological indicators, were used to rate the 

watershed conditions. The resulting ratings indicate that the watershed condition on NFS lands 

are “functioning properly” (good), “functioning at risk” (fair), or “impaired” (poor). Of the seven 

watersheds in the project area, two were not rated; two rated as functioning at risk, while the 

remaining three rated as functioning properly as shown in table 19 and figure 19. 

Table 19. 12-digit Hydrologic Unit Code (sixth code) watersheds

HUC 6 Name HUC 6 Watershed Condition Class on NFS Lands

Arroyo de Chilili 130500010402 Properly functioning

Arroyo de Tajique 130500011102 Functioning at risk

Arroyo de Yrisam 130500010401 Not rated

Middle Hells Canyon 130202030402 Not rated

Milbourn Draw 130500011103 Properly functioning

Upper Hells Canyon Wash 130202030401 Properly functioning

Upper Tijeras Arroyo 130202030201 Functioning at risk

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be no direct effects to water quality. Indirect effects in the event 

of an uncharacteristic wildfire would increase sedimentation and produce short-term changes to 

turbidity and other chemical parameters. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 19. Sixth code watersheds, project watersheds, streams, and springs 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 87 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

There would be little direct or indirect effect to water quality as a result of alternative B (the 

proposed action). Water resources in the project area are limited and at a distance from treatment 

areas, so ephemeral, intermittent, and stream waters that are described in the affected 

environment would remain largely unchanged. Soil disturbance during and following vegetation 

removal may increase sedimentation following heavy runoff events but due to the small-scale and 

patchy nature of the proposed treatments, water resources in the project area would experience 

minimal impact. Areas around springs—for example, the spring located on Chilili lands and the 

spring that drains below a treatment area on Pueblo lands—would be avoided to prevent 

sedimentation of the water source. Treatment upstream from the spring would likely have 

beneficial effects to springs close to the project area by increasing groundwater recharge by 

removing dense canopy. BMPs are proposed below to limit impacts of treatment on water quality. 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences 

The potential water resource effects assessed are: 

 The condition of water resources features such as streams, springs, and riparian areas 

may be affected. 

 Water quality may be impacted. 

 Water quantities and timing may be affected. 

 Watershed conditions may be changed. This is a cumulative effect and is discussed in the 

“Cumulative Effects” section. 

The water resource features within the project area include stream channels, Ojo Terreo spring, 

and smaller unmapped riparian areas. The following BMPs would protect water resources 

features by avoiding direct effects to these features: 

1.	 Use of Project Area Maps for Designating Stream Courses for Water Quality 

Protection 

Locations of protected stream channels and filter strips (Streamside Management Zones 

(SMZs)) would be delineated on the project area and contract maps. Riparian areas 

designated for protection would also be delineated on the implementation documents 

such as contracts or permits. 

2.	 Stream Channel and Wetland Protection 

Stream channels and other water resources to be protected would be shown on the project 

maps, along with their associated SMZs, if applicable. SMZs would be designated along 

intermittent and perennial stream channels and selected ephemeral channels. Stream 

channels would be crossed at designated crossings only and would be preapproved by the 

USFS authorized officer. Unless approved otherwise by the authorized officer, SMZ 

BMPs may prohibit, limit, or constrain mechanized activities within all or part of the 

SMZ. There would be no skidding or road construction longitudinally within stream 

channels. There would be no decking and machine piling of slash within stream channels. 

Lead-out ditches or water bars would not be constructed in such a manner as to divert 

runoff into stream channels. Unless designated by the authorized officer, debris generated 

from treatment activities would be removed from stream channels. Trees designated for 

88 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

removal would be felled outside the stream channel. Trees in or on the banks of stream 

courses that are providing bank and stream channel stability are not to be removed. The 

authorized officer would identify exceptions where restoration or additional thinning is 

needed for resource concerns. The authorized officer would use his or her authority for 

skid trail and log landing location to protect, as needed, stream courses that were not 

designated on the project contract map. 

3.	 SMZ Designation 

SMZ width is based on the nature of resource values at risk (such as the presence of 

aquatic Endangered Species Act species or its potential introduction), special concerns for 

water quality degradation, erosion hazard, existing vegetative groundcover conditions, 

streambank and riparian conditions, natural geologic features, and flow regime. SMZ 

widths would be designated using the matrix at the end of this section as a guide. 

For SMZs along perennial and intermittent streams, directional falling of trees would be 

away from the stream channel. Ground skidding, decking of logs, and machine piling are 

permitted only on existing roadbeds that are located within SMZs. Road construction and 

burning of concentrated slash are prohibited within SMZs. Stream channels to be 

protected within SMZs would be identified on watershed and project area contract or 

permit maps. 

4.	 Treatment of Ephemeral and Intermittent Drainages 

Ephemeral drainages are recognized in the following ways. They form the lowest spot of 

the surrounding ground and obvious channel continuity along its length and join with 

more obvious channels downstream. Ephemeral drainages show evidence of having run 

water on previous occasions, i.e., litter and vegetation has moved or there is a lack of 

litter in the channel. 

The water quality objectives for harvest treatments within proximity to ephemeral 

drainages is to provide for or retain sufficient amounts of ground cover possible to 

mitigate sediment input to stream system, maintain channel stability, and minimize the 

number of crossings to retain streambank and stream bottom stability. No specific stream 

buffers are recommended; however, there are harvest techniques that aid in the retention 

of ground cover and are considered BMPs. The following are recommended BMPs for 

harvesting activities around ephemeral drainages, whether designated on a map or not: 

a.	 No skidding would be allowed up or down ephemeral and intermittent drainages. 

b.	 No road construction would be allowed in or immediately adjacent to ephemeral and 

intermittent drainages except at designated crossings. 

c.	 All skid trails crossing drainages would be designated and approved by the 

authorized officer prior to activity and would be at right angles to streambanks. 

d.	 The number of skid trail and road crossings would be minimized across these 

channels. 

e.	 An undisturbed filter strip of vegetation and litter would be maintained between skid 

trails/log decks/roads and the channel wide enough to prevent sediment from entering 

the channel. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 89 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

f.	 Water control features (water bars, lead-out ditches, etc.) would be constructed on 

these skid trails and roads. 

g.	 The amount of logging debris deposited in ephemeral and intermittent drainages 

would be minimized and excess debris would be removed by hand or end lining 

except where woody material is needed for watershed health identified by a 

watershed specialist. 

h.	 Trees would not be cut where the root system is important in maintaining the 

integrity of the bank. 

i.	 No log decks would be located within or immediately adjacent to the ephemeral and 

intermittent drainages. 

j.	 Slash can be placed to drive equipment over to reduce rutting and soil disturbance. 

k.	 Water control features would be placed so there is adequate filter distance between 

structure outlets and stream channel (minimum of 50 feet and increase width as slope 

steepness increases). 

5.	 Log Landing Location 

Log landings (or decking areas) would not be allowed in or within 300 feet of meadows, 

riparian areas, stream channels, or springs. 

6.	 Slash Treatments in Sensitive Areas 

Mechanical slash piling would not occur in meadows or water resource features such as 

stream channels, seeps, springs, and riparian areas. 

7.	 Wetland, Spring, Seep, and Meadow Protection During Tree Removal Activities 

A 300-foot buffer zone would be placed around Ojo Terreo to exclude mechanized 

equipment. Smaller riparian areas as found in the project area would also be protected. 

Nonnative vegetation may be removed in these areas using manual methods. 

8.	 Prescribed Burning Treatments 

For the retention of long-term soil productivity, to maintain the sediment filtering 

capacity of streamside management zones, and to reduce erosion, prescribed burns will 

allow for low to moderate burn intensities. 

Fire control lines on slopes greater than 40 percent or within designated areas would be 

constructed by hand. Exceptions would be approved by a local district ranger, and 

specific mitigations would be determined and documented at that time. Lines would be 

treated (water bars, seeding, etc.), preventing concentrated waterflows and sediment to 

streams. 

Ignition would be above slope breaks of channels. When adjacent upland zones have not 

recovered hydrologically from project entries, fire would be limited to 15 percent or less 

of the SMZ. 

The BMPs for prescribed fire are to schedule burning when the soil moisture conditions 

would minimize heat conductivity into the soils. SMZs or buffers along stream channels 

can provide shade for stream temperatures and provide filter strips for sediment and 

nutrients as described later. Streamside buffers are often difficult to exclude from a 

prescribed burn, but the soil and vegetation are usually moist and do not burn. 

90 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

9. Servicing and Refueling Equipment 

During servicing or refueling of equipment, pollutants would not be allowed to enter any 

waterway, riparian area, or stream course. Service and refueling areas would be selected 

well away from wet areas and surface water, and berms would be constructed around 

such sites to contain spills. Spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures plans are 

required if the fuel exceeds 660 gallons in a single container or if total storage at a site 

exceeds 1,320 gallons. The project contract administrator would designate the location, 

size, and allowable uses of service and refueling areas. The authorized officer would be 

aware of actions to be taken in case of a hazardous substance spill. 

The contractor would take all reasonable precautions to prevent pollution of all Cibola 

NF&Gs soil and water. Equipment operators would maximize the recovery and proper 

disposal of all fuels, fluids, lubricants, empty containers, and replacement parts. Refuse 

resulting from the contractor’s use, servicing, repair, or abandonment of equipment would 

be removed from NFS lands by the contractor to the appropriate disposal facilities. Any 

leaks originating from contractor equipment would be repaired or the equipment replaced 

in a timely manner. 

Through the implementation of these practices, water resource features would be 

undisturbed. In the case of stream channels, downcutting or aggradation would not occur, 

and streambanks and side slopes would remain stabilized. Ojo Terreo Spring would not 

be impacted by disturbance due to the buffer. Stream channels and the spring would be 

protected by BMPs to preserve their functions. 

Since these BMPs would be implemented regardless of the action alternative selected, 

there is no difference between the action alternatives in direct and indirect effects to 

water resources features. However, there is a difference between the alternatives in 

regards to the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. The transition ratio modeled in the fuels 

report is the measure used to assess the potential of wildfire effects on water resource 

features. The timeframe for analysis is 10 to 20 years since this is the length of time fuel 

treatments are expected to be effective, depending on the site characteristics. 

The analysis area for water quality is surface waters in the project area. This includes Ojo 

Terreo and seasonal waters in intermittent streams. The water quality components most 

likely to be affected by the proposed activities are dissolved nutrients such as nitrogen 

and sediment. Ecosystems accumulate and cycle large quantities of nutrients. Fire and 

loss of vegetation can disrupt this cycle and cause nutrient leaching, volatilization, and 

transformation (USFS 2010). Wildfire releases more nitrogen into surfaces waters than 

prescribed fire (Stednick 2000). If vegetation is quickly reestablished, nutrient exports are 

short lived and usually do not represent a threat to water quality (USFS 2010). Because of 

this, nitrogen effects are not carried through the analysis. 

Sediment is the result of soil disturbance, increased erosion, and subsequent transport to a 

stream channel or other water resource feature. Stream channels adjust to increased 

sediment loads. Fine sediment in channel bottoms can cause changes to 

microinvertebrates and changes in stream type. Increased site disturbance would result in 

increased soil erosion and subsequent sediment production (USFS 2010). The measures 

for the potential to change sediment are acres of ground disturbance. Roads are the source 

of much of the sediment related to harvest activities (USFS 2010). Increased traffic on 

roads related to tree removal activities leads to increased erosion and sediment from these 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 91 
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

roads and adjacent areas. The measurements for sediment area are acres of ground 

disturbance, miles of road used for vegetative treatment activities, and miles of 

unauthorized road to be obliterated. The timeframe for analysis is 10 years since projects 

should be implemented by then. 

Removing vegetation has the potential to increase water yields, change the timing of 

flow, and increase floods within a watershed (USFS 2010). Generally, at least 20 percent 

of the basal area needs to be removed before any change in annual water yield is 

observed (Stednick 1996). To assess this water quantity and timing, smaller project 

watersheds are delineated in the analysis area. The boundaries for these watersheds were 

delineated so that project activities are included within the boundaries. These watersheds 

are called project watersheds and are numbered from 1 to 12, shown in Figure 20. There 

were a few areas not carried through the analysis for watershed effects where project 

boundaries cross watershed boundaries at ridges. The small areas comprise less than 1 

percent of a watershed, which would be drawn to include their boundaries. This small 

amount is not enough to cause changes to water quantity (Bosch and Hewlett 1982; 

Stednick 1996), especially since they are located along ridges. Changes to peak flows can 

also be related to harvest levels within the project watersheds. These watersheds are 

mostly in the transition zone between rain and snow dominated precipitation. In this 

region, the mean of reported change in peak flows begins to be important when about 15 

to 20 percent of the watershed is harvested (Stednick 1996; Grant et al. 2008). These 

changes in peak flow are most evident during times of high soil moisture, such as spring 

and summer, and in flows of moderate frequency and magnitude. Extreme flood events 

are not affected measurably by timber harvest. The timeframe for changes to annual 

water yield and small to moderate peak flows is 10 years, since within this timeframe, 

most potential water resource effects become undetectable with natural variability. The 

measure is percent of each project watershed with proposed activities. This effect is 

analyzed using all proposed projects, including the Pueblo and Chilili, since it is a 

watershed effect. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

There would be no direct effects on water resources or watersheds from the no action alternative. 

This is because there would be no active activities occurring that would cause ground disturbance 

to water resource features or loss of vegetative cover. 

Water resource features such as ephemeral, intermittent streams, Ojo Terreo, and localized 

riparian areas would remain as described in the “Affected Environment” section. Under this 

alternative, existing forest conditions could lead to uncharacteristic wildfire with susceptibility to 

crown fire and high surface heating across large portions of the project area, as evidenced from 

recent wildfires in the area. The modeled transition ratio is above 1 for all vegetation types under 

the no action alternative as shown in Table 21 below. Wildfire removes vegetation and causes 

bare soil, leading to increased erosion, sedimentation, and runoff (USFS 2010). As a result, 

channels adjust and water quality changes depending on the severity and extent of the fire. Should 

this happen, most of these effects would decrease to undetectable levels within 10 years as 

revegetation occurs and water resource features such as channels and springs recover. 

92 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Figure 20. USFS project watersheds 

Source: Cibola National Forest and Grasslands 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 93 
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Water quality in the project area would remain much the same, with the continued susceptibility 

to uncharacteristic wildfire and sediment yield related to roads, including unauthorized roads. 

Unauthorized roads are not designed to a specification or maintained by the USFS. Because of 

this, they are a greater source of sediment and soil loss than maintained NFS roads. 

Under the no action alternative, none of the unauthorized roads in the project area would be 

obliterated after the project is completed. Since there would be no increase in road use related to 

the proposed activities, sediment yields from the 32.7 miles of NFS roads would remain the same. 

No additional maintenance would be done on these roads to improve them for project activities. 

However, regular maintenance activities would still occur. 

Change to water yields as a result of the no action alternative depend on whether a wildfire occurs 

within the timeframe of analysis—10 years. Tree densities are likely to increase in many areas. 

Since streams in the project area are already intermittent and ephemeral, streamflow patterns are 

unlikely to change. Increased trees further increase the risk of wildfire. As mentioned, the 

susceptibility to crown fire is greatest under this no action alternative in the project area. Control 

opportunities for fighting wildfire would not be created under this alternative, leading to less 

control opportunities which could lead to extensive wildfire that burns large percentages of 

watersheds. When large parts of watersheds are burned, flooding occurs in downstream areas 

(USFS 2010). 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

This alternative proposes to treat vegetation by creating large openings, both permanent and 

temporary, in 20 to 50 percent of the project area, dependent on site conditions. Remaining 

groups of trees would be thinned as described in the vegetation report. Removal of trees would 

occur using mechanized equipment including masticators and by hand. 

The direct effects to water resource features would be prevented and mitigated through the use of 

design features and BMPs as described in appendix B of the soil and water specialist report. 

Stream channels in the project area would not be used as pathways for motorized vehicles. Areas 

with riparian characteristics, including Ojo Terreo Spring, would be protected by buffer zones 

where trees would be retained and motorized vehicles would be excluded. Many stream channels 

contain stringers of ponderosa pine as described in the vegetation report. These areas would be 

retained as groups of trees. Openings would not be created where stream channels are present or 

on concave slopes. These practices are described in appendix B of the soil and water specialist 

report. 

The areas where impacts to ephemeral and intermittent stream channels are those within areas 

open to personal use firewood permits. These areas are on satisfactory soils with less than 40 

percent slopes, 1,710 acres of ponderosa pine and 1,450 acres of piñon-juniper woodlands. 

Personal firewood collecting can lead to a high degree of surface disturbance, including to 

streambanks and channels, directly through motorized cross-country travel and indirectly by 

mobilizing sediment. The effect is greatest in the piñon-juniper vegetation type. 

The reduced susceptibility to crown fire and increased control opportunities provided by this 

alternative could decrease the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire to burn water resource 

features and their watersheds. This protects these features from high intensity effects related to 

wildfires of this type. 

94 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 95

There would be little direct or indirect effects on surface water quality from alternative B. There 

may be some increased sedimentation during runoff events from soil disturbance and road use 

within the project area. Since storm runoff waters often include sediment, it is not likely to be 

detectable in these flows. The creation of permanent and temporary openings across up to 60

percent of the project area would increase water reaching the surface, leading to more runoff.

Snowmelt waters, however, are not naturally turbid, and increased sediment loads in these waters 

during early spring are likely if project activities occur during this time. In addition, watersheds 8, 

9, and 10 are upstream of the perennial portions of Tajique Creek. Tajique Creek is already 

impacted by elevated sediment levels related to roads and dispersed recreation. The areas around 

springs and designated riparian areas would not be treated; these buffer zones would prevent 

sediment from entering these areas, thereby protecting their water quality. 

Changes in runoff rates and water yield from area disturbance and vegetation removal in the 

project area and near stream channel bottoms could occur in some watersheds. The average 

percent of basal area removed within each project watershed was calculated to determine the 

potential effect on water balance, including annual water yield and peak flows. As shown in table 

20, more than 15 percent of the basal area is proposed for removal under the proposed alternative 

in watersheds 2, 6, 8, 9, and 12. In these watersheds, projects would occur at least a year apart 

due to migratory bird phasing. If less than 15 percent of each watershed is treated every 3 to 5 

years, it is unlikely that peak flows would be measurably changed during runoff events as long as 

roads are maintained and motorized cross-country travel for personal firewood removal is 

mitigated. 

Table 20. Average percent basal area reduction from each project watershed

Project Watershed Watershed

Acres of Projects Average Basal Average Basal 

Area Removed Area Removed Acres Number USFS Isleta Chilili

1 4,757 13 847 0 

2 2,620 1,803 184 0 

3 5,168 188 341 0 

4 5,722 20 520 12 

5 412 0 3 82 

6 2,976 1,221 1 519 

7 859 75 0 0 

8 4,010 3,518 0 0 

9 757 227 0 0 

10 4,116 137 0 0 

11 381 59 0 0 

12 586 249 0 0 

Alternative B Alternative C

10.0% 8.2% 

58.2% 40.9% 

6.5% 5.0% 

5.4% 4.4% 

11.3% 9.3% 

42.3% 30.4% 

5.7% 4.6% 

63.2% 47.1% 

21.1% 16.0% 

2.7% 1.8% 

11.9% 8.4% 

27.7% 22.3% 

Note: These numbers may vary slightly from totals found elsewhere due to GIS data. Shaded watersheds are above 15

percent.

Alternative C

This alternative proposes to treat vegetation by creating temporary openings in 10 percent of the 

project area, dependent on site conditions. Remaining trees would be thinned as described in the 
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

vegetation report. Removal of trees would occur using mechanized equipment including 

masticators and by hand. 

The direct effects to water resource features would be prevented and mitigated through the use of 

design features and BMPs as described in appendix B of the soil and water specialist report. 

Stream channels in the project area would not be used as pathways for motorized vehicles. Areas 

with riparian characteristics, including Ojo Terreo Spring, would be protected by buffer zones 

where trees would be retained and motorized vehicles would be excluded. These areas have some 

opportunities for site improvement as described in the wildlife report, which could include 

removal of nonnative plants and selected trees to promote desired species. These practices are 

described in appendix B of the soil and water specialist report. 

The areas where impacts to ephemeral and intermittent stream channels are those within areas 

open to personal use firewood permits. These areas are on satisfactory soils with less than 40 

percent slope, 1,710 acres of ponderosa pine and 1,450 acres of piñon-juniper woodlands. 

Personal firewood collecting can lead to a high degree of surface disturbance, including to 

streambanks and channels, directly through motorized cross-country travel and indirectly by 

mobilizing sediment. The effect is greatest in the piñon-juniper vegetation type. 

The reduced susceptibility to crown fire and increased control opportunities provided by this 

alternative could decrease the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire to burn water resource 

features and their watersheds. This protects these features from high intensity effects related to 

wildfires of this type. 

There would be little direct or indirect effects on surface water quality from alternative C. There 

may be some increased sedimentation during runoff events from soil disturbance and road use 

within the project area. Since storm runoff waters often include sediment, it is not likely to be 

detectable in these flows. The creation of temporary openings on 10 percent of the project area 

would increase water reaching the surface, leading to more runoff. Snowmelt waters, however, 

are not naturally turbid, and increased sediment loads in these waters during early spring are 

likely if project activities occur during this time. In addition, watersheds 8, 9, and 10 are upstream 

of the perennial portions of Tajique Creek. Tajique Creek is already impacted by elevated 

sediment levels related to roads and dispersed recreation. The areas around springs and 

designated riparian areas would not be treated; these buffer zones would prevent sediment from 

entering these areas, thereby protecting their water quality. 

Changes in runoff rates and water yield from area disturbance and vegetation removal in the 

project area and near stream channel bottoms could occur in some watersheds. As shown in Table 

20, more than 15 percent of the basal area is proposed for removal under the proposed alternative 

in watersheds 2, 6, 8, 9, and 12. In these watersheds, projects would occur at least a year apart 

due to migratory bird phasing. If less than 15 percent of each watershed is treated every 3 to 5 

years, it is unlikely that peak flows would be measurably changed during runoff events as long as 

roads are maintained and motorized cross-country travel for personal firewood removal is 

mitigated. 

Alternative Summary and Comparison 

Table 21 provides a summary of water resource measures. 

96 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 97

Table 21. Summary of water resource measures

Measure for Impact to Water Measure for Sediment Yield Resource Feature

Miles of Miles of 

Alternative Potential Road to be Unauthorized 1

Transition Ratio

Acres of Used for Roads to be 

Disturbance Project Obliterated 

Purposes Post Project P-J PP MC

A 0 0 0 1.60 2.13 0.61 

B 5,147 32.7 11 0.04 0.13 .04 

C 3,538 32.7 11 0.04 0.13 0.04 

1 Transition ratio = risk of crown fire likely if >1 under severe weather conditions.

P-J = piñon-juniper; PP = ponderosa pine; MC = mixed conifer; Oak = oak woodlands. 

Cumulative Effects

Actions occurring within the Cibola NF&Gs that could potentially combine with the effects of the 

proposed action and result in significant environmental impacts include vegetation treatment, 

thinning, prescribed fires, and grazing and wildlife habitat improvements. Past actions in the area 

have included recreation and livestock grazing. A list of activities is listed in the EA. The areas 

surrounding the project area were settled nearly 200 years ago. 

The cumulative effects boundary for watershed condition is the sixth code watersheds. This is the 

scale used by the Water Resource Sector Strategy (2011) to determine watershed condition. The 

no action alternative has the most potential for changing watershed condition, due to the 

susceptibility for large wildfires. A large wildfire has the potential to change watershed condition 

to impaired on any of the sixth code watersheds in the project area. Implementing one of the 

action alternatives could provide control opportunities, thereby reducing the size and severity of 

potential wildfires. This could prevent watershed condition moving to impaired.

Vegetation

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

Much like temperature and precipitation, vegetation is heavily influenced by the area’s elevation 

and topography. The project area consists of a total of 2,620 acres with an elevation range of 

6,000 to 8,000 feet. Vegetation communities within the project area consist of piñon-juniper 

woodlands at lower elevations and south-facing aspects, ponderosa pine forest and oak shrubland 

at middle elevations and north-facing aspects, and a small area of mixed conifer woodland at 

higher elevations. Varying age classes, densities, and health are present throughout the project 

area. Some small meadows are also present. Mixed conifer woodlands are transitional, with 

ponderosa pine becoming codominant with Douglas-fir as elevation increases. The full biological 

evaluation for Pueblo and Chilili lands (appendix B) includes a list of plant species identified 

during the field surveys.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Existing Conditions 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 

Approximately 57 acres of the analysis area consists of piñon-juniper woodland. The canopy is 

dominated by piñon pine and one-seed juniper. The understory associated with this land cover 

type is variable and may be dominated by shrubs and grasses, or may be absent. Common midstory shrubs in this ecosystem include sagebrush (Artemisia sp.), mountain mahogany, and 

Gambel oak. Common understory herbaceous species are blue grama and Arizona fescue 

(Festuca arizonica), as well as banana yucca (Yucca baccata) and prickly pear cactus (Opuntia 

polyacantha). Much of the piñon-juniper woodland in the project area exhibits dense closed 

canopy with a minimal understory of sparse grasses. Vegetation vigor is generally low with 

evidence of competition and high levels of mortality; individual trees have become susceptible to 

insect and mistletoe (Family: Viscaceae) infestation. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest Type 

Approximately 1,895 acres of the analysis area consists of ponderosa pine forest type. This forest 

type occurs at the ecotone between grasslands and shrublands and more mesic coniferous forests 

and ranges in elevation from 6,000 to 8,000 feet. Ponderosa pine is the dominant overstory 

species, transitioning to piñon pine, and one-seed and alligator juniper on the xeric end of its 

range, to Douglas-fir and Gambel oak in drainages and north-facing slopes. Understory shrubs are 

somewhat limited due to the ever increasing canopy cover and consist of mountain mahogany, 

Gambel oak, gray oak (Quercus grisea), western snowberry (Symphoricarpos occidentalis), 

Woods’ rose (Rosa woodsii), New Mexico locust (Robinia neomexicana), and kinnikinnick 

(Arctostaphylos uva-ursi). Common herbaceous understory components include needle and 

thread grass (Hesperostipa comata), fescue (Festuca sp.), muhly (Muhlenbergia capillaries), and 

grama (Bouteloua sp.) species. Understory vegetation in ponderosa stands tend to be sparse, 

primarily consisting of bladder pod (Lesqueralla sp.), woolly loco (Astragalus mollissimus), New 

Mexico groundsel (Senecio neomexicanus), perky sue (Tetraneuris argentea), dwarf lousewort 

(Pedicularis centranthera), slim-leaf mustard (Schoenocrambe linearifola), Fendler’s penstemon 

(Penstemon fendleri), spreading fleabane (Erigeron divergens), and creeping mahonia (Berberis 

repens). Trees in this ecosystem type tend to have a heavy parasitic plant load. Ponderosa, piñon, 

and juniper alike are heavily infested with mistletoe, while pinesap (Monotropa hypopithys) and 

squawroot (Conopholis alpina var. mexicana) attack pine and oak roots. 

Mixed Conifer Forest Type 

Approximately 40 acres of the analysis area consists of the mixed conifer forest type with 

elevations ranging from 7,500 to 10,500 feet. Because this habitat type occurs over such a wide 

elevation range, this ecological association is highly variable, depending especially on 

temperature and moisture relationships. At the lower end of the elevation range, the mixed conifer 

forest and woodland is found on steep, cool, north-facing slopes, while in the upper elevations it 

occurs on both north- and south-facing slopes and in drainages. Douglas-fir, white fir (Abies 

concolor), and ponderosa pine are the most common canopy dominants. Many cold tolerant 

deciduous shrub species are common in the understory, including kinnikinnick, creeping 

mahonia, western snowberry, Gambel oak, and common juniper (Juniperus communis). 

Herbaceous species included Arizona fescue, sedges (Carex sp.), and meadow rue (Thalictrum 

sp.). Understory vegetation changed as the elevation increases, with plants in the Family 

98 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Fabaceae becoming dominant, for example, Wright’s deervetch (Lotus wrightii) and purple 

locoweed (Oxytropis lambertii). 

Meadow Grasslands 

Montane and subalpine grassland habitats are scattered throughout the project area on southfacing slopes and plateau areas. These areas make up approximately 72 acres of the analysis area 

and are found primarily in the Pueblo and Chilili portions of the project. Soils in these areas 

resemble prairie soils, in that they are well drained and relatively high in organic matter, with a 

dark brown A-horizon. These areas typically support two to three dominant bunch grasses, 

including Arizona fescue, timber oat-grass (Danthonia intermedia), mountain muhly 

(Muhlenbergia montana), blue grama, and bluebunch wheatgrass (Pseudogoegneria spicata). 

Other herbaceous plants included Indian paintbrush (Castilleja minata), purple three-awn 

(Aristida purpurea), and squirreltail (Elymus longifolus). Many of the open meadows are 

becoming encroached upon by the piñon-juniper woodland type, reducing wildlife habitat and 

increasing fire risk and potential for crown fire spread. 

Riparian Forest Type 

Riparian forest does occur in the project area (characterized by wetland vegetation, such as 

boxelder (Acer negundo), New Mexico locust, Virgin’s bower (Clematis ligusticifolia), and 

narrowleaf cottonwood (Populus angustifolia)) but in very limited amounts and localized settings. 

Scattered ephemeral drainages are found throughout the project area, with understory vegetation 

composed of wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca var. americana), wild rose (Rosa sp.), wild 

bergamot (Monarda fistulosa), yarrow (Achillea millefolium var. lanulosa), mountain parsley 

(Pseudocymopterus montanus), and solitary sunflower (Helianthus pauciflorus). 

Old Growth 

Fuel reduction treatments, while targeting a change in forest structure to reduce the potential for 

crown fire, can also seek to retain large diameter trees and old growth. These older trees provide 

habitat for wildlife, perpetuate genetic diversity, and provide a record of disturbance events and 

past climates (Swetnam and Brown 1992). Because of their thick bark and higher crown base 

heights, old trees are better able to withstand wildfire and so would be protected from any 

damage that may result from a prescribed burn. Unlike dense stands of small diameter trees, large 

diameter trees do not pose a fire hazard so their retention does not undermine hazardous fuel 

reduction objectives. In this project area all trees over 16 inches in diameter would be retained. 

Invasive Species 

Guided by the New Mexico State-listed Noxious Weeds List (2009), no noxious weeds, or 

invasive plants species, were immediately identified in a SWCA biological field survey of Pueblo 

and Chilili lands conducted in May 2010 and USFS surveys conducted in 2010-2011. 

Although no invasive species were identified, noxious weeds such as spotted knapweed 

(Centaurea maculosa), Canadian thistle (Cirsium arvense), saltcedar (Tamarix sp.), and 

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) (all known to occur within the adjacent Sandia RD to the north of 

the proposed project, see USFS 2010) may increase and spread through human-induced activities 

(vehicles, grazing, etc.). 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 99 
 

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment 

Existing Conditions 

Overall (all forest types), trees larger than 16 inches in diameter (at either d.b.h. or d.r.c.) are 

deficient. 

Piñon-Juniper Woodland 

Approximately 2,600 acres of the analysis area consists of the piñon-juniper woodland forest 

type. This forest type is typically a mix of piñon pine and one-seed/Rocky Mountain juniper with 

scattered ponderosa pine, alligator juniper, wavyleaf oak, and Gambel oak. At the “wetter” end of 

this forest type, piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine are more evenly balanced resulting in an 

“ecotone” between the two forest types. The grass/forb/shrub component is lacking in both 

diversity and abundance. The dominant habitat type is piñon pine/blue grama. 

Basal areas per acre range from 21 to 246. Vegetative structural stages are weighted heavily to the 

VSS 4 and VSS 5 (>5–11 inches d.r.c.) classes and underrepresented in the VSS 1–3 classes. 

The percent of maximum stand diversity index (SDI) values tell the comprehensive story. While 

individual site SDI values range from 39 to 407, the weighted average value for percent of 

maximum SDI for this forest type is 63 percent of maximum SDI, indicating that tree growth has 

reached a “plateau” where tree-to-tree competition is severe. Overall vegetation vigor and health 

are at a low point making the vegetation susceptible to replacement through insect/disease 

activity and/or wildfire. Mortality is occurring, and susceptibility to bark beetle attack is high. 

Easterly/southeasterly drainages support localized ponderosa pine “stringers,” which provide 

additional species and structural diversity to the piñon-juniper woodlands. 

Dwarf mistletoe infections are generally light (less than 20 percent of the trees infected) and 

localized across most of the project area but are more continuous and severe in the Dog Head 

portion of the Mountainair RD. 

Oak Woodland 

Approximately 1,100 acres of the analysis area consists of the oak woodland forest type. This 

forest type is typically dominated by oak with scattered ponderosa pine and alligator/Rocky 

Mountain juniper. 

Basal areas per acre range from 17 to 240. Vegetative structural stages are heavily weighted (81 

percent) in the VSS 1 and 2 structural stages. 

The percent of maximum SDI values tell the comprehensive story. While individual site SDI 

values range from 44 to 529, the weighted average for this forest type is 34 percent of maximum 

SDI, indicating less than full site occupancy and relatively vigorous growing conditions for this 

forest type. 

Ponderosa Pine Forest 

Approximately 3,900 acres of the analysis area consists of the ponderosa pine forest type. 

Typically this is the “dry” end of the ponderosa pine type and has scattered piñon pine and oneseed/alligator juniper, as well as Gambel/wavyleaf oak. In moist sites (drainages, etc.) oaks tend 

100 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 

to be large and long lived. Also in the drainages and/or north slopes, Douglas-fir and white fir 

may be intermixed with ponderosa pine and may be actually increasing due to lack of fire in the 

pine ecosystem For the same reason, “ladder fuels” are more common, which can facilitate 

ground fires moving into the tree crowns. 

Basal areas per acre range from 18 to >300 square feet per acre. While vegetative structural 

stages are relatively balanced, most of the stocking occurs in the VSS 3 (5–11.9 inch diameter) 

class. The grass/forb/shrub component lacks diversity, abundance, and vigor. The dominant 

habitat type is ponderosa pine/Gambel oak. 

Again, percent of maximum SDI values tell the comprehensive story. While individual site SDI 

values range from 39 to >500, the weighted average for this forest type is 72 percent of maximum 

SDI, indicating that the forest type also has reached a “plateau” where tree-to-tree competition is 

extremely intense. Mortality is occurring and overall vegetation vigor and health are at a low 

point making the vegetation susceptible to replacement through insect/disease activity and/or 

wildfire. 

There is much within-stand species diversity that is not addressed within the overall forest type 

classification. Piñon-juniper, alligator/Rocky Mountain juniper, and Douglas-fir are commonly 

scattered, though at low densities, throughout the ponderosa pine forest type. 

Easterly/southeasterly drainages support localized, more concentrated Douglas-fir “stringers,” 

which provide additional species and structural diversity to the ponderosa pine forest type. 

Mixed Conifer Forest 

Approximately 131 acres of the analysis area consists of the mixed conifer forest type (at least 40 

percent composition of Douglas-fir and white fir). 

Basal area per acre ranges from 77 to 237. The vegetative structural stages are grouped into the 

VSS 3 (5–11.9 inches d.b.h.) and VSS 5 (18–23.9 inches d.b.h.) classes. Multistoried conditions, 

plus live branches near the ground, provide a ready avenue for ground fires to move into the tree 

crown. The dominant habitat type is white fir/Gambel oak. 

While individual site SDI values range from 147 to 421, the weighted percent of maximum SDI 

value is 61 percent of maximum SDI indicating that the stand also has reached that “plateau” 

where tree-to-tree competition is extremely intense. Mortality is occurring and overall vegetation 

vigor and health is declining making the vegetation susceptible to replacement through 

insect/disease activity and/or wildfire. Dwarf mistletoe infection is generally light (less than 20 

percent of the trees infected) and localized. 

Old Growth 

Fully developed old growth structural conditions, as defined on pages 65-66 of the forest plan 

(1985), do not exist in the project area. 

Old growth resources were analyzed at multiple scales, the first being the midscale 

Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area, which includes NFS lands in the Manzanita 

and Manzano Mountains outside Manzano Mountain Wilderness; one scale above, which includes 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 101 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area plus Manzano Mountain Wilderness; and 

at one scale below, at the Isleta CFRP project level. 

Midscale – The 90,549-acre (NFS lands) Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area is 

characterized by historical harvest activities and grazing over the last 300 to 400 years. Fire 

activity, especially over the last 150 years, has been minimal. 

Allocation of at least 20 percent, by the forested Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management 

Area, of old growth has been completed (forest plan, page 65). Table 22 shows the gross acreage 

and allocated areas for old growth management for each included forest type. Included are “de 

facto” old growth areas (forest plan, page 55) such as northern goshawk nesting areas.

Table 22. Old growth allocation within the Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Management Area

Forest Type Gross Acres Old Growth Allocation (acres)

Piñon-juniper woodland 49,056 

Ponderosa pine 22,912 

Mixed conifer 2,727 

13,703 (28%)

4,911 (21%)

545 (20%)

One scale above – The Manzano Mountain Wilderness supplements the Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Management Area described above to comprise a scale above the midscale area 

approximately 127,631 acres in size. Historic disturbance within the Manzano Mountain 

Wilderness is more limited than in the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area due to 

the lack of access, legislative withdrawal of the area as a wilderness, and lack of historic fire 

activity.

All forested areas within the Manzano Mountain Wilderness are considered “de facto” old growth 

(forest plan (1985), page 65). 

Table 23 displays the combined forest type and allocated old growth acres for both the 

Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area and Manzano Mountain Wilderness.

Table 23. Old growth allocation within the combined Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Management Area and Manzano Mountain Wilderness

Forest Type Gross Acres Old Growth Allocation (acres)

Piñon-juniper woodland 56,670 21,317 (37%)

Ponderosa pine 27,795 9,794 (35%)

Mixed conifer 10,406 8,224 (79%)

One scale below – The Isleta CFRP project area comprises the scale below the initially described 

Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area. This approximate 7,687-acre project area 

represents an area that was typically very accessible for wood harvest and grazing, resulting in 

disturbance related changes to stand structure over time. At least 20 percent (forest plan (1985), 

page 65) of each forest type representing those stands most closely meeting the minimum criteria 

for old growth structural attributes, has been set aside for management designed to achieve old 

growth status. Table 24 shows those selected areas by forest type.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 103

Sites with the most potential to reach old growth status have been allocated for each 

representative forest type in the project area. 

Table 24. Old growth allocation within the Isleta CFRP

Forest Type Gross Acres Old Growth Allocation (acres)

Piñon-juniper woodland1 2,582 860 (33%)

2 Ponderosa pine 3,852 780 (20%)

3 Mixed conifer 131 83 (63%)

1 Selected locations/sites allocated toward old growth in the piñon-juniper woodland include: 

004004/17; 004005/2; 004074/19; 004076/15; 004084/1,6,7; and 500001/3, 8, 16, 20, 22, 24, 

25, 32, 34, 36, 40, and 44–46. 2 Selected locations/sites allocated toward old growth in the ponderosa pine include: 004001/1, 

8, and 16; 004002/1; 004004/24 and 27; 004073/7, 10, 14, and 16; 004074/2; 004076/7; and 

500001/15 and 28.

3 Selected locations/sites allocated toward old growth in mixed conifer include: 4073/2.

Northern Goshawk Habitat Structures 

Distribution of habitat structures (forest plan, 1985 as amended) for the northern goshawk are 

analyzed at the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area scale, the Isleta CFRP project 

scale, and site (stand) scale. 

• VSS Classes

○ Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area Scale – Distribution by forest 

type and VSS class is shown in table 25. VSS classes 1 and 2 are more prevalent 

across this broad landscape due to recent severe wildfire activity and subsequent 

natural and artificial reforestation.

○ Isleta CFRP project scale – Distribution by forest type and VSS class is shown in 

table 26. 

○ Site (stand) scale – Stand density index distribution by VSS diameter groups is an 

indicator of within-stand variation and is shown in table 27. 

Table 25. Distribution by VSS class and forest type (percentage) 

the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area 

for forested areas within 

Forest Type VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Piñon-juniper woodland 0% <1% 1% 35% 63% – 

Oak woodland 31% 28% 8% 22% 11% – 

Ponderosa pine 9% 3% 55% 22% 11% <1% 

Mixed conifer 25% 3% 46% 15% 11% 0% 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Table 26. Distribution by VSS class and forest type (percentage) for forested areas within 

the Isleta CFRP Project area 

Forest Type VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Piñon-juniper woodland 3% 3% 6% 43% 45% – 

Oak woodland 38% 43% 3% 3% 13% – 

Ponderosa pine 12% 3% 48% 17% 18% 2% 

Mixed conifer 0% 0% 37% 0% 63% 0% 

Table 27. Distribution by VSS diameter groups (by site) at the site level 

Forest Type VSS 1/2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Piñon-juniper woodland 78% 11% 2% 9% – 

Oak woodland 99% 1% 0% 0% – 

Ponderosa pine 73% 20% 4% 3% 0% 

Mixed conifer 74% 10% 5% 5% 6% 

• Tree Densities 

○ Average tree densities (trees per acre) by forest type at the different scales are shown 

in table 28. Relatively high and consistent tree densities, at all scales, reflect the lack 

of disturbance over time, either naturally or through management. 

• Snags (standing dead trees)

○ Snag deficits in the piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine forest types at the site and 

Isleta CFRP analysis area levels reflect historical use and limited management 

(prescribed fire, etc.) due to better accessibility (table 29). Higher snag levels, at the 

Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management Area level, are a result of recent 

wildfire activity across the landscape.

• Downed Logs 

○ Relatively low downed log levels in the piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine forest 

types at the site and Isleta CFRP project area levels reflect accessibility and harvest 

activity. Downed logs at these scales are typically at higher stages of decay. 

○ Higher quantities of downed logs at the Manzanita/Manzano Ecosystem Management 

Area are reflective of fire damaged snags from recent wildfire activity deteriorating 

and falling to the ground.

○ Table 30 displays downed log distribution at all scales.

Table 28. Average tree densities (trees per acre) by forest type at the different scales 

Forest Type Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Management Area

Isleta CFRP 

Project Area Site Level

Piñon-juniper woodland 683 674 108–6,600 

Oak woodland 5,115 1,265 797–6,780 

Ponderosa pine 710 573 90–4,988 

Mixed conifer 3,201 1,799 311–4,201 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 105

Table 29. Average number of snags (standing dead trees) per acre at the different scales 

Forest Type Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Mgt Area

Isleta CFRP 

Project Area Site Level

Piñon-juniper woodland 9–12 <2 <2

Oak woodland 4–6 <2 <2

Ponderosa pine 14–20 <2 <2

Mixed conifer 6–8 <2 <2

Note: Piñon-juniper snags are at least 12 inches d.r.c./10 feet high; ponderosa pine snags are at least 9 inches d.b.h./15 

feet high.

Table 30. Average number of downed logs larger than 12 inches in midpoint diameter per 

acre at the different scales

Forest Type Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Management Area

Isleta CFRP 

Project Area Site Level

Piñon-juniper woodland 10–15 <2 <2

Oak woodland 1–3 <2 <2

Ponderosa pine 10–15 <2 <2

Mixed conifer 4–6 <2 <2

Note: Tentatively, a “dispersed” northern goshawk PFA area is planned for the portion of the project on the 

Mountainair RD.

• Climate Change and the Forested Environment

The forested landscape of the Isleta project plays a role in carbon sequestration. Carbon 

stored in live biomass, dead plant material, and soil represents the balance between CO2

absorbed from the atmosphere and its release through respiration, decomposition, and 

burning. Live tree vigor, both as individuals and on a landscape scale, is a factor in how 

efficiently carbon is sequestered. Based on current projections, the primary regional level 

effects of climate change include projected increases in the frequency of extreme weather 

events; wildfire risks; outbreaks of insects, diseases, and nonnative invasive species; 

demand for decreasing upland water supplies; and national forest socioeconomic uses and 

demands (USDA, 2010) 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences

General Plant Communities

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be no change to the current forest structure and plant community 

composition in the project area. The current unhealthy forest condition would be perpetuated over 

time and become more susceptible to disturbance by fire, drought, insects, and disease. The 

current homogenous stand age structure would be unchanged and habitat diversity would remain 

limited. Understory plant vigor would remain low continuing to perpetuate limited species 

diversity. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under alternative B, the proposed treatments would reduce vegetation density and create more 

varied structure in a manner that would restore the forest to a more sustainable condition. Forest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

health is expected to be improved with resultant increases in individual tree vigor and resilience 

to drought, disease, and insect infestation. The herbaceous plant community would benefit from 

increased sunlight and reduced competition from the overstory vegetation. Studies of similar 

treatments in the Southwest have found herbaceous biomass to increase significantly following 

thinning treatments compared to control plots (Covington et al. 1997; Griffis et al. 2001). 

Prescribed fire would have both immediate and long-term impacts on the general plant 

community. Removal of surface fuels due to wildfire would prepare the forest floor and seedbed 

promoting increased seed germination. Based on studies of similar treatments, herbaceous plant 

biomass and diversity of native species are expected to increase (Griffis et al. 2001). Prescribed 

fire would also remove ladder fuels and reduce the density of small diameter trees raising the 

average c.b.h. in a stand and making the residual trees more resilient in the event of an 

uncharacteristic crown fire. Many species are also dependent on fire for regeneration, including 

ponderosa pine (Biswell 1973). Because ponderosa pine is shade intolerant, regeneration is 

limited by continuous canopy cover; prescribed fire that opens up the canopy and increases 

sunlight to the ground surface can invigorate regeneration and recruitment of the species, and 

strategic and long-term management of regenerating seedlings and saplings can help create a 

more varied age structure.

Old Growth

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be no change to old growth habitat. Old growth could be 

impacted, however, in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire due to the higher severity fire 

behavior predicted given the current stand condition. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under alternative B, existing old growth would be protected from any canopy removal treatment 

unless it would compromise the effectiveness of a firebreak or pose a safety hazard to the public 

or firefighters. Old growth recruitment and enhancement would be expected to increase due to a 

reduction in tree densities and resultant improvement in vigor and growth. In the event of an 

uncharacteristic wildfire, treatments proposed in alternative B would reduce fire behavior 

intensity and protect old growth species from crown fire damage by removing ladder fuels and 

reducing the intensity of bole and basal charring and soil heating that could cause postfire 

mortality. 

Invasive Species

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be no change to the current distribution of noxious weeds. 

However, in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire, disturbed areas may become prone to weed 

infestations as native species are consumed by fire in the project area. Wildfire destruction of 

forest canopy and ground fuels has been significantly correlated with decreases in native species 

and increases in nonnative species, at least in the first year post fire (Omi and Martinson 2007). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 107

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Fuel treatments proposed under alternative B may give rise to an increase in nonnative species by 

thinning out the forest canopy and leaving more bare ground for establishment; however, the 

treatments reduce the risk of high-severity wildfire associated with higher risks of nonnative plant 

establishment (Omi and Martinson 2007). Measures will be implemented to reduce the spread of 

invasive species, including cleaning equipment before and after entering the site, periodic and 

thorough inspection of all apparatus and equipment, and minimization of soil disturbance through 

following BMPs.

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would result in no treatment of the existing unhealthy forest vegetation 

conditions. The forest ecosystem would remain susceptible to the adverse effects of 

uncharacteristic wildfire and insect/disease outbreaks. Both standing and downed fuel conditions 

would remain contiguous and susceptible to active and intense crown fire.

Forest vegetation would continue to grow but at reduced rates due to high tree densities, 

overcrowding, and competition for limited nutrients, water, and sunlight. Trees, both on an 

individual and landscape basis, would continue to be stressed and more susceptible to drought 

and insect and disease attack. Higher rates of mortality resulting from these causes could be 

expected. The dramatic increases in stand density and basal area over the last 80 to 90 years 

represent an increased susceptibility for bark beetle epidemics and stand-replacing wildfire 

(Moore et al. 2004). 

Stand structure (the horizontal and vertical distribution of forest components including the height, 

diameter, crown layers, and stems of trees, shrubs, snags, and downed woody debris) would 

remain homogeneous or uniform. 

Current conditions regarding the relatively low vegetation vigor and growth would continue.

These poor health and vigor conditions would contribute to long-term adverse forest health 

conditions across the broader landscape. Recruitment and enhancement of old growth at all scales 

would continue to occur, although at the current, slower pace. In addition, such areas would be 

susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire and/or insect/disease outbreaks.

Snag and downed log recruitment would continue to occur at current rates. Current inventories 

and future recruitment would be adversely affected by uncharacteristic wildfire.

Perceptible changes in distribution of vegetation components including structural stages, tree 

densities, snag and downed log distribution, and canopy cover would occur, at all scales, at slow 

rates in the near term unless affected by natural events (wildfire, insect/disease infestation, etc.). 

Invasive plant species would continue to be identified and mapped through random surveys in the 

area. Appropriate treatment strategies would continue to be developed based on these random 

findings.

Current poor vegetation productivity, as well as the potential for uncharacteristic wildfire and 

insect/disease outbreaks, will continue to adversely affect the resiliency and ability of the forested 

ecosystems in responding to projected climate change. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The proposed action effectively treats vegetation density, composition, and horizontal and vertical 

structure in the project area and in a manner that restores the forest types to a more sustainable 

condition (reduced tree densities, improved vertical and horizontal structure, and desired species 

composition). From a larger scale, this alternative treats only a minor portion of the total 

landscape in need of treatment. 

Both standing and downed fuel conditions would be less contiguous and lessen the probability of 

sustained active and intense crown fire. Forest vigor within the project area is improved by 

reducing tree densities. 

Desired structural conditions within the northern goshawk nesting, PFA, and foraging areas 

would not be completely achieved in this one entry, but would be placed on a trajectory toward

meeting those conditions in the future.

The Gambel oak component can be highly affected by fire. Gambel oak can resprout prolifically 

(USFS 1997). Maintenance of the area would be critical to continue meeting treatment objectives. 

Project objectives can be met by retaining all coniferous tree species that are larger than 16 inches 

d.b.h./d.r.c.. 

Tree densities within the piñon-juniper and ponderosa pine forest types would be reduced to 30 to 

70 square feet basal area per acre (approximately 55–138 trees per acre). Percent of maximum 

SDI levels would be decreased to 15–25 percent, providing for more open forest conditions, 

increased tree growth/vigor, and recruitment of understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Desired 

VSS class distribution would be enhanced through the recruitment of VSS classes 1 and 2 over 

approximately 10 percent of the forest type and further development of the mature and old forest 

classes through reduced competition and increased tree vigor. The potential for insect/disease 

outbreaks would be reduced. Stand structure would move toward uneven-aged management.

Retaining a mix of native species would further strengthen forest health. Canopy cover would be 

reduced across the analysis area as a whole; however, canopy cover would be maintained within 

groups. Outside the analysis area, canopy cover levels would remain at current levels and increase 

over time.

Snag recruitment would continue to occur at current rates. Downed log recruitment could be 

expedited by the retention of logs onsite after treatment. 

Percentage of canopy cover would be retained or would more quickly grow into the 45–60

percent level within the multiple tree groups spread across the project area in the piñon-juniper 

and ponderosa pine forest types. Within the mixed conifer forest type, canopy cover would 

remain unchanged unless affected by wildfire or insect/disease outbreaks.

Deficit vegetative structural stages would be recruited and horizontal/vertical diversity 

structure would be improved. 

Old growth recruitment at the project scale would be enhanced through reduction of tree densities 

and resultant improvement in tree vigor and growth as well as retention of the larger trees in each 

of the included forest types. Old growth recruitment at the two higher scales would occur at a 

slower rate.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 109

The proposal to burn natural and activity created woody material, either through prescribed or 

pile burning, within the project area would directly release carbon dioxide (CO2) during burning 

operations. This would contribute to increasing the atmospheric greenhouse gas (GHG) 

concentration. However, restoration (or maintenance) of the desired conditions would result in a 

lower risk of uncharacteristically severe wildfire for those treated acres. This reduced risk has a 

twofold effect on GHG emissions or the carbon cycle: 

1. There is a direct beneficial effect on climate change of decreased GHG emissions from 

these acres because the risk of acres being burned by uncharacteristically severe wildfires 

would be reduced; and 

2. There is an indirect beneficial effect by treating these acres because live stands of trees 

would retain higher capacity to sequester carbon dioxide compared to stands killed by 

uncharacteristically severe wildfires, especially if not immediately reforested. 

It would be difficult to determine the significance of effects of one project on GHGs directly and, 

therefore, climate change indirectly, as there are currently no Federal statutes, regulatory 

standards, or policy direction on the significance of such effects. Until meaningful, accepted 

thresholds are adopted against which to weigh any project related GHG emissions, it would not 

be possible to determine whether a specific project would have a significant effect under this 

factor.

Mechanized reentry to maintain desired conditions would occur at an estimated interval of 25 to 

30 years.

Alternative C

The environmental consequences of implementing alternative C are similar to those discussed for 

alternative B (proposed action) with the following differences:

• In the forested areas between the 10 percent of the area to be placed in temporary 

openings, stand structure would be more uniform and homogeneous.

• Reentry to maintain desired conditions would occur at more frequent intervals (estimated 

15–20 years) as tree crowns close upon one another and tree densities increase. 

• Attainment of desired conditions, specifically managing for uneven-age stand conditions 

for live trees to include tree groups and openings, would occur at a slower rate as groups 

would be recruited on only 10 percent of the area in each entry.

Cumulative Effects 

Pueblo and Chilili

Past Activities

The Pueblo and Chilili project areas have undergone very little management in the past century, 

with forest activities limited mainly to firewood collection, hunting, recreation, and grazing. In 

the last 2 decades, there has been increased forest management in both jurisdictions related to 

hazardous fuels reduction. This includes:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

• Isleta Fuel Break Project – Fuel break construction beginning June through October 2008 

using tribally owned mastication equipment to reduce the threat of uncharacteristic 

wildfire moving onto tribal lands from adjacent Federal, private, and state lands, and also 

to reduce the threat of wildfires originating on tribal lands to move outside reservation 

boundaries. The area treated was approximately 255 acres along TR 210 beginning at the 

Albuquerque Trail drainage and the Pueblo southern boundary fence extending eastward 

following the fence to the southeast corner, then northward to the junction of Nustar 

Petroleum Pipeline and NFS Road 321. The width of the fuel break varies from 2 chains 

up to 5 chains depending on terrain. Some parts of this area were initially cleared by the 

BIA in the mid 1990s.

• Tower Road Fuel Break – Originally initiated by the BIA in the late 1990s to create 

defensible space along TR 210 and the Isleta Lookout Tower road northward to the 

junction of TR 207 in Largo Canyon. The treatment consisted of hand crews using chain

saws to reduce ladder fuels, densities of less than 4 inches d.b.h. and d.r.c. material up to 

1 chain along TR 210. Material was then piled for burning at a later date, which never 

occurred due to funding issues. Vegetation has since grown back, causing the treatment to 

be ineffective at this time.

• North Fuel Break – Initiated by the BIA in the late 1980s or early 1990s to create 

defensible space along the Pueblo’s north boundary beginning at David Canyon 

extending east along the boundary fence to the northeast corner of the reservation 

boundary. Treatment consisted of hand crews using chain saws to reduce ladder fuels and 

densities of small diameter vegetation in the hopes of reducing the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire coming onto or moving off Pueblo lands. The treatment area was 

approximately 200 acres. 

• Northeast Fuel Break – Created by the BIA in the mid to late 1990s from the northeast 

corner of the Pueblo extending south to the junction of TR 207 at Gotera Canyon. 

Treatment was done using hand crews with chain saws ahead of BIA mastication 

equipment to reduce the densities of small diameter vegetation 1 to 2 chains wide along 

the reservation boundary. Total acreage is estimated to be about 40 to 70 acres in size. 

Some material was piled to be burned at a later time, but due to funding and personnel 

turnover this was never accomplished.

• Chilili 2008 CFRP Project – Hand thinning of 269 acres of ponderosa pine stands for 

fuels reduction purposes. Material was removed from the site for firewood. This action 

was located adjacent to the 2008 project area in order to benefit from landscape-level 

effects. 

• Jimmy Shack Project – From July to November 2011, hand thinning in established 

Douglas-fir stands to reduce competition, ladder fuels, overtopping, and the threat of 

wildfire establishing in the crowns resulting in stand-replacing fire. Material being 

thinned would be piled and burned at a later time when conditions permit. The size of the 

area is approximately 111 acres beginning at the westernmost junction of TR 210 and the 

Nustar Petroleum Pipeline extending east along TR 210 three chains wide at a distance of 

1 mile. 

All past and current projects on Pueblo and Chilili lands are designed to reduce uncharacteristic 

wildfire and provide benefit for forest health and other resources, including wildlife habitat, soils, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 111

and water quality. No adverse cumulative effects on vegetation resources would be sustained 

from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with the effects of the 

proposed action. The proposed action in conjunction with previous and current projects would 

provide cumulative benefits to the area by creating landscape-level hazardous fuels reduction. 

U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

Current vegetation conditions (the affected environment) in the 90,549-acre Manzanita/Manzano 

Ecosystem Management Area are a reflection of past and present treatments. 

Past Activities

The area has a long (since the 1500s) history of European influence, which includes intensive 

grazing and harvest of wood products. This, as well as several decades of fire suppression, has 

altered the natural fire regime (USFS 1999). 

Much of the active forest management has occurred in the last 10 years under the Thunderbird 

Ecosystem Management Area Project, approved in 2004 and ongoing. This management includes 

the following:

• Approximately 1,400 acres of wildlife habitat improvement. Activities include meadow 

restoration, rehabilitation of openings, and other structural/nonstructural habitat 

improvement.

• Approximately 8,400 acres of thinning and selection harvests. Most of these treatments 

have involved implementation of the northern goshawk management guidelines as a 

result of the 1996 amendment to the forest plan.

• Management of fuels (prescribed burning, burning of piles, rearrangement of fuels, etc.) 

has occurred on an estimated 10,000 acres. 

Wildfire activity during the last 10 years has affected approximately 16,700 acres within the 

Thunderbird Ecosystem Management Area. The recent (2007–2008) destructive wildfires in the 

Manzano Mountains alone eliminated existing forest cover on an estimated 7,000 acres. 

Approximately 1,500 acres, most conducive to planting, have been restored through reforestation 

activities. Oak has restored vegetation cover to all areas and natural regeneration of tree species is 

slowly occurring.

Current Activities 

Approximately 600 acres of the Thunderbird Ecosystem Management Area remained to be 

implemented in 2011 and 2012. These activities would primarily involve thinning and group 

selection treatments favoring habitat improvement for the northern goshawk.

Foreseeable Activities 

Projects currently in the NEPA analysis process within the Thunderbird Ecosystem Management 

Area include:
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

• The Espinoso Barranco Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project (approximately 2,500 

acres). This project was implemented in February 2012. This project involved 

thinning/group selection for northern goshawk habitat improvement.

• The Cedro Fuels Reduction Project (approximately 13,500 acres) which is anticipated to 

be implemented in 2012/2013. While the emphasis is on fuels management within the 

WUI, northern goshawk management guidelines would guide the treatments.

• The Red Canyon Fuels Reduction Project (approximately 540 acres) anticipated to be 

implemented in 2012. Treatments here would be similar to the Cedro Fuels Project 

previously described.

Global climate change may affect human health. There is uncertainty and unknown risks 

associated with global climate change, and the ultimate effects on climate change are indeed the 

results of incremental cumulative effects of many actions, most of which are outside the USFS’s 

control. The USFS cannot discern significant climate change effects of the Isleta CFRP project, 

given the context of projects and plans and the lack of effects that can be meaningfully evaluated 

under current science, modeling, and policies.

In summary, all projects are designed to improve habitat for both the northern goshawk and MSO 

but are also designed/implemented to improve other resources, such as soils and water quality, 

and include management mitigations to protect such resources from uncharacteristic wildfire and 

insect/disease outbreaks. No adverse cumulative effects on vegetation resources would be 

sustained from past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future actions in combination with the 

effects of the proposed action.

Wildlife

Reduction of natural processes such as low fire intervals in the piñon-juniper type have resulted 

in a tightly closed woodland canopy and a reduced grass, shrub, and forb understory. Wildlife 

species dependent on diverse habitat within the woodland system are limited due to lack of 

understory vegetation. Piñon-juniper woodlands are important to wildlife because they provide 

piñon nuts and juniper berries that are readily available forage for many wildlife species. Other 

habitat features include critical winter range for game mammals and birds, travel corridors, 

human created water sources, thermal cover, dead and downed woody materials used for nesting 

and resting, and snags used by cavity-nesting species. 

Ponderosa pine forests provide forage and cover for many species of wildlife. Habitat features 

common in ponderosa pine forest include roost and nest trees, snags and large downed logs, 

abundant needle litter, thermal cover, travel corridors, grassy forest openings, fawning areas for 

deer, and natural and human created water sources. Large areas of this habitat type within the 

project boundary are vegetated by even-aged stands. These ponderosa pine stands lack the 

understory vegetation necessary for wildlife species diversity. There are very few older age class 

ponderosa pine stands with large diameter trees, snags, and large downed logs. Management of 

habitat for the northern goshawk is an important consideration in this habitat type. 

The oak woodland or mountain shrub forest type is dominated by oak with scattered coniferous 

trees. Oak woodlands provide important habitat for many wildlife species, with understory 

vegetation providing browse species and mast crops, and thermal variation from surrounding 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 113

conifer forests. In general, areas of mountain shrub have decreased due to tree encroachment, 

largely resulting from fire suppression. 

In the mixed conifer forest, much of the habitat in the project area is in steep terrain, so trees have 

not been logged in recent years. Old growth trees with associated downed logs and woody debris 

are important habitat features. Springs, seeps, and other water sources are more common in the 

mixed conifer habitat type, as are rock outcrops and snags. Management of habitat for the MSO is 

an important consideration in this habitat type. 

Wildlife use riparian habitat types disproportionately more than the availability of these areas 

across the landscape. These areas provide essential components such as water and forage for 

many wildlife species. Some riparian areas have been degraded due to nonnative plant species 

invasion and conifer encroachment, as well as shading and crowding out of riparian vegetation, as 

a result of past management practices such as overgrazing and the exclusion of fire. In these areas

there is little shrub or herbaceous understory, and bank stability has been reduced allowing 

accelerated channel degradation and increases in sediment. Riparian areas are located near Ojo

Terreo and Troncon Negro where springs and seeps support sedges, rushes (Juncus sp.), and a few 

willow (Salix sp.) trees. Other springs and/or seeps occur on the Chilili and Isleta portions of this 

project.

Due to fire suppression, a gradual yet continual buildup of coniferous trees has increased tree 

density of all species in the project area, resulting in high potential for ladder fuels (smaller, dense 

stands of trees that allow wildfires to reach the canopy) to accumulate. This dense accumulation 

also shades the understory, reducing grass/forb and shrub components essential as wildlife forage 

and cover.

The proposed action was developed in conjunction with the National Wild Turkey Federation. 

Wild turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) are prevalent throughout the entire project area and, as such, 

the treatment was designed to benefit the species. Impacts to wild turkey are assessed below. 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment 

Habitat in the Pueblo and Chilili project areas include 572.6 acres of piñon-juniper woodland, 

1,895 acres of ponderosa pine forest, 36.2 of mixed conifer forest, and 72 acres of meadow 

grasslands. Riparian habitat is minimal with some ephemeral drainages scattered throughout the 

project area and some marginal wetland areas existing along roads just outside the project area, 

likely due to runoff. 

Existing Conditions 

General Wildlife 

The most common small mammals are red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus), Abert’s squirrel, 

ring-tail (Bassariscus astutus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus 

californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and several rat (Neotoma sp.) and mouse 

(Peremyscus sp.) species. Larger mammal species include mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), 

black bear (Ursus americanus), northern raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray fox (Urocyon 

cinereoargenteus), kit fox (Vulpes macrotis), coyote (Canis latrans), puma (Puma concolor), and 

bobcat (Lynx rufus). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Common reptile species include western diamondback rattlesnake (Crotalus atrox), found in 

lower elevation piñon-juniper woodlands; bullsnake (Pituophis melanoleucus), found in piñonjuniper woodland and ponderosa pine-Gambel oak dominated forests; and prairie lizard 

(Sceloporus undulatus) and short-horned lizard (Phrynosoma douglasii), both found in a range of 

habitats present in the project area. 

Migratory Birds 

The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (as amended) prohibits the taking, 

hunting, killing, selling, purchasing, etc., of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, or their 

eggs and nests. Most native bird species of North America are covered by the MBTA. In addition, 

the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940 prohibits the taking of bald (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) and golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), including their parts, nests, and eggs. 

Bird species observed during the biological survey include the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura),

red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), wild turkey, broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus 

platycercus), hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Steller’s jay (Cyanocitta stelleri), mountain 

chickadee (Parus gambeli), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis), dark-eyed junco (Junco 

hyemalis), western bluebird (Sialia mexicana), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), chipping 

sparrow (Spizella passerine), and American robin (Turdus migratorius). 

Many bird species use habitats found in the project area for shelter, nesting, and foraging. The 

mesic piñon-juniper woodland and dry mixed conifer community provides habitat for numerous 

species of birds, which may occur either as residents or as migrants/transients. In addition to the 

birds already mentioned, other birds protected by the MBTA that may occur in the project vicinity 

include piñon jay (Gymnorhinus cyanocephalus), Virginia’s warbler (Vermivora virginiae), and 

black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens) in the piñon-juniper vegetation classification; 

flammulated owl (Otus flammeolus) and Grace’s warbler (Dendroica graciae) in the ponderosa 

pine vegetation classification; and broad-tailed hummingbird (Selasphorus platycercus) in the 

mixed conifer vegetation classification. 

Golden eagles are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (USFWS 2010b) 

and the MBTA. In New Mexico the species nests in large trees, on rock ledges, or cliffs at 

elevations ranging from 4,000 to 10,000 feet and is typically found in mountainous regions of 

open country, prairies, arctic and alpine tundra, open wooded areas, and barren areas. Golden 

eagles are carnivores that forage in flight or on perch, feeding mainly on small mammals as well 

as invertebrates, carrion, and other wildlife (Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISONM) 2010). Activities in the project area are not expected to impact the population of golden 

eagles, and none were observed during field reconnaissance within the project area.

Threatened and Endangered Species 

The New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council (2010) Web site was reviewed for plant species. 

The BISON-M database was also consulted to determine which wildlife species are likely to 

occur within the project area. BISON-M provides information from the New Mexico Department 

of Game and Fish (NMDGF), the USFWS, and the USFS. 

Three of the 17 species listed by the USFWS and 2 of the 11 species listed by the State of New 

Mexico for Bernalillo and Torrance Counties have the potential to occur in the project area. For 

the rest of the listed species, the project area is either clearly beyond the known geographic or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 115

elevational range of these species or it does not contain vegetation or landscape features known to 

support these species, or both. Habitat requirements, potential for occurrence and possible effects 

on these species are summarized in the biological evaluation in appendix B. 

MSO, northern goshawk, Baird’s sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii), spotted bat (Euderma 

maculatum), and Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) have the potential to occur 

in the project area and are discussed further below. 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

Habitat and Range Requirements

The MSO is a USFWS listed threatened species in Bernalillo and Torrance Counties. The MSO 

occurs in mountainous regions of Arizona, New Mexico, and parts of Utah, Colorado, and Texas, 

as well as into Mexico. Their habitat includes primarily mixed conifer forest types, but it also 

includes pine-oak woodlands and riparian woodlands. Their preferred habitat has a multilayered 

canopy with large overstory trees, a moderate to high canopy closure, and uneven-aged stands.

They also require an abundance of large snags and downed woody debris within their habitat to 

attract prey species. They occur at elevations ranging from 2,700 to 10,000 feet, but generally are 

found between 5,000 and 9,000 feet. Other suitable habitat features include steep slopes, rocky 

outcrops, and riparian canyons with cool, humid environments.

Habitat Evaluation and Suitability 

No MSO habitat was found within the proposed treatment areas on Pueblo lands. MSOs were not 

observed during field reconnaissance. Surveys were conducted for the species in 2009 and 2010, 

and none were detected on Pueblo land.

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Habitat and Range Requirements 

The northern goshawk is a USFWS species of concern in Bernalillo and Torrance Counties.

Across the entire breeding range, goshawks nest in a broad range of vegetative communities.

Within their home ranges, goshawks use a diverse array of habitats for foraging, both in terms of 

vegetation type and open space. Goshawks tend to select nesting habitat in the densest stands 

available, given the capability of the forest type, and prefer high canopy closure on north-facing 

slopes. The size of forest patches used for nest areas appears to be highly variable across the 

species’ range (Woodbridge and Hargis 2006). 

Habitat Evaluation and Suitability 

There is marginal nesting habitat for northern goshawks in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forest types, in the areas of steep, north-facing hillsides. Suitable foraging habitat is available 

throughout the project area. No nests or northern goshawks were observed during the field survey. 

Surveys were conducted for the species in 2009 and 2010, and none were detected on Pueblo 

land.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Baird’s Sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) 

Habitat and Range Requirements 

The Baird’s sparrow is a New Mexico threatened species in Bernalillo and Torrance Counties. In 

New Mexico this species has been found in a variety of habitats, ranging from desert grasslands 

in the south to prairies in the northeast and mountain meadows in the San Juan and Sangre de 

Cristo Mountains. They breed in shortgrass prairies.

Habitat Evaluation and Suitability 

There is suitable nesting habitat in the shrubs and trees within the project area and suitable 

foraging habitat is present throughout the project area. Construction activities may negatively 

impact the breeding sites of the species if there is abundant tree and shrub removal during 

breeding months (April–August). 

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum) 

Habitat and Range Requirements 

The spotted bat is a New Mexico threatened species in Bernalillo County. The species has been 

captured in ponderosa pine of montane forests, piñon-juniper woodlands, and open semidesert 

shrublands. Rocky cliffs are necessary to provide suitable cracks and crevices for roosting, as is 

access to water. The bat shows apparent seasonal change in habitat, occupying ponderosa pine 

woodlands in the reproductive season and lower elevations at other times of the year (BISON-M 

2010). 

Habitat Evaluation and Suitability 

The project area contains piñon-juniper woodlands and rocky outcrops that may serve as potential 

roosting habitat for the species. Cattle ponds and meadow grasslands may provide foraging 

habitat for some individual species. Tree removal and burning activity may negatively impact the 

roosting sites of the species, especially if there is abundant tree removal. No bats were observed 

during the field survey. 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii)

Habitat and Range Requirements 

Townsend’s big-eared bat is a USFWS species of concern in Bernalillo County. The bats are 

frequently associated with caves and abandoned mines for day roosts and hibernacula but would 

also use abandoned buildings and crevices on rock cliffs for refuge. Townsend’s big-eared bats 

are relatively sedentary; they do not move long distances from hibernacula to summer roosts, nor 

do they move or forage far from their day roosts

Habitat Evaluation and Suitability 

The piñon-juniper woodlands that occur in the project area may serve as roosting habitat for the 

species, as well as any abandoned buildings in the project vicinity. Cattle ponds and meadow 

grasslands may provide foraging habitat for some individual species. Tree removal and burning 

activity may negatively impact the roosting sites of the species, especially if there is abundant tree 

removal. No bats were observed during the field survey. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 117

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment

Refer to the “Wildlife” section for a discussion on the vegetation types and wildlife habitat.

All wood generated from this project would be removed on existing NFS roads or on existing 

Non-NFS roads and trails (unauthorized roads and trails created by users). No new roads or 

temporary roads would be constructed. These existing motorized roads and trails are currently 

affecting wildlife by causing direct habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, direct mortality, 

interruption of travel corridors, displacement due to disturbance, and potential for harassment and 

illegal harvest. 

Existing Conditions

Threatened and Endangered Species

The USFWS list of threatened, endangered, and candidate species that may occur in Bernalillo 

and Torrance Counties (USFWS 2011) was reviewed to determine potential wildlife and plant 

species that may occur in the assessment area. The NMDGF’s 2010 “Biennial Review of the List 

of Threatened and Endangered Species of New Mexico” was also consulted (NMDGF 2010). The 

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council Web site was reviewed, but there are no known 

populations of rare or endangered plants in the analysis area (New Mexico Rare Plant Technical 

Council 1999). Refer to the project level biological assessment report in the project record for a 

more detailed description of threatened, endangered, and candidate wildlife species and critical 

habitat occurring in the project area. 

Threatened, endangered, or candidate wildlife species that may occur or have potential habitat in 

the project area include the MSO (table 31). No known protected activity centers or designated 

critical habitat occur within the project boundary; potential restricted habitat exists in the 131 

acres of mixed conifer forest. Species whose habitats do not occur in the project area were not 

considered further. 

Table 31. Potential threatened and endangered species for Bernalillo and Torrance 

Counties (species highlighted in gray will be considered in more detail)

Common Name Scientific Name Group Status Habitat Type

Black-footed ferret Mustela nigripes Mammal Endangered 

-extirpated

Plains grassland – Occurs only in 

association with prairie dog towns.

There are no prairie dog towns in 

the project area. 

Sensitive Species

The Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List for the Southwestern Region was reviewed to 

determine potential wildlife or plant species which may occur in the assessment area. The yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) was analyzed as a candidate species above, as was the bald 

eagle. Refer to the project level biological assessment report in the project record for a more 

detailed description of sensitive species. The following USFS Regional Forester’s sensitive 

species were considered but not evaluated due to the absence of suitable or potential habitat in the

analysis area (table 32).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Common Name Scientific Name Group Status Habitat Type

Rio Grande silvery 

minnow 

Hybognathus amarus Fish Endangered Aquatic – There is no link or 

association between the project area 

and the Rio Grande where the 

species occurs. 

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax traillii 

extimus

Bird Endangered Riparian – Occurs in lower elevation 

boggy riparian areas with an 

overstory of cottonwood and 

willows. This habitat type does not 

occur within the analysis area. 

Mexican spotted owl Strix occidentalis 

lucida 

Bird Threatened Mixed conifer – Occurs in mixed 

conifer and montane riparian habitat. 

There are 131 acres of mixed conifer 

(restricted habitat) in the analysis 

area. There are no known territories 

or designated critical habitat in the 

project area. This species will be 

considered further. 

Mountain plover Charadrius montanus Bird Proposed 

Threatened

Plains grassland – Occurs only in 

association with short-grass prairies. 

There is no habitat in the project 

area.

Yellow-billed cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Bird Candidate, R3 

Sensitive

Riparian – Occurs in lower elevation 

riparian habitat outside the analysis 

area. 

Bald eagle Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus 

Bird Delisted, R3 

Sensitive

Occurs only itinerantly in the project 

area.

Source: NMDGF (2010); USFWS (2011).

Table 32. Sensitive species considered but not evaluated

Common Name Status Condition in Project Area

Rocky Mountain 

bighorn sheep

R3 

Sensitive

Documented to occur on the Mountainair RD; habitat is unaffected. 

Western burrowing 

owl

R31

Sensitive

Associated with prairie dog towns, which are not found in the project area. 

Peregrine falcon R31

Sensitive

No preferred nest sites affected; no direct link to prey. 

Sandia alumroot R3 

Sensitive

Populations currently recorded from Sandia and Manzano Mountains crest 

areas, outside the project area. 

Plains leopard frog R3 

Sensitive

Requires dense aquatic emergent vegetation for breeding, larger streams for 

overwintering; no habitat in the project area. 

Gray-footed chipmunk R3 

Sensitive

Only occurs in the Gallinas Mountains of the Mountainair RD; does not 

occur in the project area. 

Gunnison’s prairie dog R3 

Sensitive

Found in montane grassland, juniper savanna habitat; occurs outside the 

project area. 

Tall bitterweed R3 

Sensitive

Occurs in the southern portion of the Manzano Mountains, outside the 

project area. 

1

USFWS species of concern for planning purposes.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 119

Sensitive wildlife species that may occur or have potential habitat in the project area include 

northern goshawk, loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), gray vireo (Vireo vicinior), 

Merriam’s shrew (Sorex merriami leucogenys), dwarf shrew (S. nanus), spotted bat (Euderma 

maculatum), and pale Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens) (table 3

Surveys were conducted to protocol in the project area for northern goshawk. A new territory 

located in David Canyon in the southern portion of the Sandia RD adjacent to the U.S. 

Department of Defense Withdrawal Area. A PFA and associated nest areas were established 

3). 

was 

within the project area. 

Table 33. Potential sensitive species

Common Name Scientific Name Group Habitat Type

Northern goshawk1 Accipiter gentilis Bird Found in ponderosa pine and oak habitat with open areas, 

and woody debris to support abundant prey. There is one 

known territory in the project area, and the ponderosa pine 

habitat is considered suitable for future occupancy. 

Surveys were conducted to protocol in the project area, but 

no other territories were located. “Management 

Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the 

Southwestern United States” (Reynolds 2006) outlines 

desired forest conditions for the 6,000-acre home range 

used by a breeding pair, including the viability of 14 

important prey species. 

Loggerhead shrike Lanius 

ludovicianus 

Bird Suitable habitat for the loggerhead shrike is located in 

open, shrubby grasslands usually with a scattering of trees 

or savannah pine-oak woodlands. It could be found in the 

lower elevation piñon-juniper woodlands.

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior Bird This species inhabits dry-shrub dominated landscapes 

mingled with networks of shallow arroyos. Elevations 

where it nests range from 5,000 to 6,500 feet. There is 

habitat available for this species in the project area.

Merriam’s shrew Sorex merriami 

leucogenys

Mammal This species is generally associated with dry habitats, 

usually near water. No surveys have been conducted for 

this species in the project area, but potential habitat is 

present. 

Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus Mammal The preferred habitat is talus and other rocky areas 

primarily in mixed conifer forest. No surveys have been 

conducted for this species in the project area, but potential 

habitat is present.

Spotted bat Euderma 

maculatum 

Mammal This species is a cliff dweller that roosts in cracks and 

crevices in rock in forested areas near open water. No 

surveys have been conducted for this species in the project 

area. 

Pale Townsend’s 

big-eared bat1

Corynorhinus 

townsendii 

pallescens 

Mammal Conifer forests strongly associated with the availability of 

caves or cave-like roosting habitat (mines, buildings, etc.) 

provide habitat for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. No 

surveys have been conducted for this species in the project 

area. 

1

USFWS species of concern for planning purposes.

Management Indicator Species

The forest plan identified 13 forestwide management indicator species (MIS) to estimate the 

effects planned activities may have on wildlife forestwide and project level habitat and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

populations. All 13 MIS were considered for this analysis, but only those species whose habitat 

occurs in the project area were considered further. 

Based on the habitat types that exist in the analysis area, the following MIS were selected for 

analysis: elk, mule deer, juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi), black bear, pygmy nuthatch 

(Sitta pygmaea), hairy woodpecker, wild turkey, and house wren (Troglodytes aedon). Only those 

MIS likely to occur in the project area were analyzed. Table 34 describes the habitat type, existing 

habitat trends, MIS, and existing MIS population trends. Refer to the forestwide MIS report in the 

project record for a more detailed description of MIS and their habitat associations, habitat trends, 

and population trends (USFS 2005). 

Table 34. Habitat types, MIS, and existing forestwide habitat and population trends 

Habitat Type Acres in 

Project Area

Existing Forestwide 

Habitat Trend

Management 

Indicator Species

Existing Forestwide 

Population Trend

Piñon-juniper 2,582 Stable Mule deer Downward

Juniper titmouse Downward

Ponderosa pine 3,852 Stable Pygmy nuthatch Stable

Wild turkey Upward

Mixed conifer

131 

Stable Hairy woodpecker Upward

Black bear Stable

Elk Upward

Oak woodland

Mountain shrub 1,122 Downward Mule deer Downward

Riparian * 490 Upward House wren Stable

* Not all the acres identified as riparian can be considered true riparian habitat. Some of these acres include dry washes 

and ephemeral drainages. 

MIS for piñon-juniper woodlands are mule deer and juniper titmouse. Mule deer can be found in 

the area yearlong. Mule deer numbers in general have decreased over the past decade, and midsuccessional habitats used by deer are being reduced due to a lack of disturbance from fire or 

mechanical treatments. The juniper titmouse is a woodland species that nests in cavities. Older 

age class piñon and juniper trees in open canopy stands are the primary nesting habitat. Existing 

population trend for the species is downward statewide in New Mexico due to conversion of 

woodland habitat to rangeland, removal of mature and senescent trees in piñon-juniper habitat, 

and overall decline of this habitat due to drought and beetle infestation. 

MIS for ponderosa pine forests are pygmy nuthatch and wild turkey. The pygmy nuthatch is a 

cavity nester and prefers old growth ponderosa pine. Wild turkey is a habitat generalist that 

occurs in ponderosa pine, pine-oak, and piñon-juniper woodlands. It was reestablished in the 

Manzano and Manzanita Mountains in the early 1990s and has continued to expand its range in 

the area. 

MIS for mixed conifer are black bear, elk, and hairy woodpecker. Black bears are found 

throughout the project area where they require woodland cover and food producing shrubs and 

trees such as oak, piñon, current, sumac, cactus fruit, and bear corn, which are all abundant in the 

project area. Bear populations appear to cycle in relationship to mast (acorn and piñon nut) crops, 

which are dependent on precipitation and absence of late freezes. Hairy woodpeckers are a 

primary cavity excavator found in several habitat types with larger diameter snags. Elk is not 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 121

common in the Manzanita and Manzano Mountains but is occasionally found in the project area. 

Elk prefer open grassy meadows located less than 0.5 mile from water. Sedges are most often 

selected as forage. Many of the grassy openings on the analysis area are being encroached upon 

by conifer trees. Hiding cover for elk occurs in stands 30 to 60 acres in size with 70 percent

canopy cover. Road density is also an important habitat consideration with optimum road spacing 

at less than 0.25 mile of primary road per section of land (640 acres).

MIS for oak woodland (mountain shrub) habitat is the mule deer. As discussed for piñon-juniper 

woodland, mule deer populations have been declining in the recent past. Oak woodland habitat 

would continue to show a downward trend unless there are large wildfires or prescribed burns 

implemented to improve the quality of habitat. The change in the amount of this habitat type is 

due primarily to fire suppression and the trend is expected to continue to decline. 

MIS for riparian habitat is the house wren. The house wren feeds on insects in the understory of 

riparian vegetation primarily at elevations from approximately 7,500 to 8,500 feet. The species is 

a summer resident of the project area and a neotropical migrant. Limiting factors for house wrens 

appear to be suitable snags and cavities in proximity to riparian areas. 

Migratory Birds

On January 10, 2001, Executive Order 13186 was signed placing emphasis on conservation of 

migratory birds. The Executive Order supplements the MBTA, which has been in effect since the 

early 1900s. Effects to migratory birds are analyzed in the following manner: (1) effects to 

highest priority birds listed by New Mexico Partners in Flight (2007), (2) effects to important bird 

areas (IBAs), and (3) effects to important overwintering areas. 

On the Cibola NF&Gs, populations of birds are monitored through the use of breeding bird 

surveys (BBS) on geographic areas to detect populations and trends during the breeding period. 

There are two types of BBS surveys done on the Cibola NF&Gs: USGS monitoring routes, which 

are 24.5 miles in length, and Cibola NF&Gs BBS routes. These latter surveys are from 1 to 2 

miles in length with either 6 to 11 points, respectively. Each point is surveyed for 10 minutes. The 

nearest Cibola NF&Gs BBS route on the Mountainair RD at Tajique Canyon is located just 

southwest of the southern boundary of the project. The Tajique Canyon route is in similar habitat 

and elevation (except it has much more riparian vegetation). The Fourth of July route is in similar 

proximity to the project area; it is also similar in elevation, but it has much more deciduous forest 

than is representative of the project area. The Perra BBS route is located just east of the southern 

portion of the project area in riparian habitat. On the Sandia RD, the Wilding Ridge BBS runs 

through the portion of the project area in David Canyon. Refer to the Cibola National Forest 

breeding bird report for 2010 and supplement for 2011 for additional details (USFS 2010). 

Priority birds identified for the Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau Conservation Region were 

reviewed for potential occurrence in the project area. Gray vireo and loggerhead shrike were 

considered as sensitive species. Year-round residents were excluded from the migratory bird 

analysis (juniper titmouse, scaled quail (Callipepla squamata), pinyon jay (Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus), and crissal thrasher (Toxostoma crissale)). Priority bird habitat in the project area 

is piñon-juniper, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, oak woodland, and riparian. Troncon Negro 

Canyon and Chilili Canyon provide some riparian habitat. One other small spring, Ojo Terreo, 

contains some riparian vegetation as well. All drainages in the project area are ephemeral 

(flowing only in response to precipitation). Different vegetation types provide habitat for a variety 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

of migratory birds. There are no IBAs within the project area. The nearest IBA is located along 

Tajique Canyon on the southwest side of the project’s southern boundary. The Perra Canyon IBA, 

also in the Manzano Mountains, is to the east. On the Sandia RD, the project borders the U.S. 

Department of Defense Withdrawal Area IBA. The Cedro and Otero Canyon IBAs are north of 

the project’s northern boundary. There are no overwintering areas identified in the project area. 

Migratory bird species evaluated are summarized in table 35. Population trends were determined 

according to New Mexico Partners in Flight assessments (New Mexico Partners in Flight 2007). 

Table 35. Migratory bird species evaluated in the analysis area 

Habitat Type Species Population 

Trend Comments

Piñon-juniper: 

2,582 acres

Virginia’s 

warbler 

Stable The species is common when Gambel oak understory is 

available from May through July and during dispersal and 

migration. 

Black-throated 

gray warbler

Downward The location of this species is generally in elevations lower 

than the project area, but it may occur uncommonly from 

May to September in mesic woodlands with a high canopy 

cover interspersed with shrubs. 

Ponderosa 

pine: 

3,852 acres

Flammulated 

owl

Unknown This cavity-nesting species occurs commonly from May to 

September where large, old ponderosa pine trees exist. 

Grace’s warbler Downward The area contains suitable habitat where it nests in the upper 

canopy of contiguous ponderosa pine stands. It is relatively 

common from May to September. 

Mixed conifer:

131 acres

Band-tailed 

pigeon 

Downward This species is probably not common within the project 

area, but occurs when there is an abundant mast crop from 

May to September. 

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird 

Stable There is suitable habitat that occurs from about 7,000 feet 

upward for this species where it occurs from May to 

September. 

Oak woodland:

1,122 acres

Black-chinned 

sparrow 

Unknown This species nests in shrub and chaparral in arroyos from 

5,500 to 8,000 feet from mid-April to late June. 

Riparian: 

490 acres

Red-naped 

sapsucker 

Stable This species feeds primarily in deciduous forest along 

riparian areas and requires hard snags for nesting cavities. 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences 

Wildlife

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would not reduce the tree densities in the project area; density and 

canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout the project area. Existing 

small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size and woodland 

species would continue to encroach on open meadow grassland. Fuels buildup would continue, 

leading to a crown fire if wildfire occurs in the area.

Currently undesirable structural conditions within northern goshawk nesting, PFAs, and foraging 

areas would remain essentially unchanged and would change slowly for an extended period of 

time.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 123

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposed action would provide reduced potential of stand-replacing wildfire since fuels 

would be reduced throughout the area. Implementation of the proposed action would result in 

long-term benefits to wildlife species by providing essential habitat components such as diverse 

structural stages, snags, downed logs, and varied canopy cover. There would be no change in the 

population or habitat trends of species at the forest level. There may be some short-term 

displacement due to treatment activity, but in the long term forage condition and habitat 

availability would improve for all species. 

Desired structural conditions within the northern goshawk nesting, PFA, and foraging areas 

would not be completely achieved in this one entry but would be placed on a trajectory toward

meeting those conditions in the future.

Impacts Specific to Wild Turkey 

The proposed action was developed in collaboration with the National Wild Turkey Federation; 

therefore, impacts to wild turkey are assessed here. 

The proposed action would improve habitat for wild turkeys across the entire project area. The 

treatment reduces the potential for active crown fires and would, therefore, benefit wild turkey 

habitat for many years. The goals of altering forest conditions in ponderosa pine and piñonjuniper woodlands toward those consistent with the northern goshawk guidelines (Reynolds et al. 

2006) would improve wild turkey habitat. 

Oak woodland treatments should also improve wild turkey habitat where implemented. Oak mast 

is an important food item for wild turkeys. Oak treatments should improve the health of oak 

stands and, as such, improve wild turkey habitat. Prescribed fire has been demonstrated to 

improve wild turkey habitat by providing improved nesting and brooding habitat. 

Meadow restoration treatments would be beneficial to wild turkeys within the project area.

Meadows are important habitat components of our forests and provide important brooding areas 

for wild turkeys if not overused by livestock and elk. Treatment of oaks with herbicide 

applications does not pose a threat to wild turkey populations or habitat. Improvement of oak 

stands through this type of thinning should benefit wild turkey populations and habitat by 

providing additional nesting and brooding habitat. 

Migratory Birds 

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A there would be no direct impact to migratory birds. Current forest structure 

would remain unchanged but densities would increase over time and make stands more 

susceptible to uncharacteristic wildfire. In the event of a severe crown fire, nesting and foraging 

habitat for migratory bird species would be compromised. Species that are dependent upon snags 

would potentially benefit from the passage of a severe wildfire in the project area. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Direct impacts to breeding birds would be minimal. Treatments proposed under alternative B 

would not be carried out during the nesting season (April 1–July 31). Treatments proposed to be 

conducted during the nesting season would require a biologist to conduct a nesting bird survey 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

prior to treatment. If no nesting birds are found, treatments could be conducted during the nesting 

season. Project activities could temporarily displace resident species due to equipment noise and 

human activity during thinning. Tree removal could create short-term impacts to species that nest 

and forage in trees due to changes in vertical and horizontal forest structure; most tree removal 

would be in the small diameter classes, however, that are rarely used by bird species for nesting 

substrates. The creation of clumps and openings in stands that are currently dense with 

continuous cover should encourage regeneration of the herbaceous layer and benefit species that 

prefer more open habitat and grassland areas. Treatments are designed to create a more diverse 

age structure, which would have an overall benefit of creating greater habitat diversity. By 

ensuring that treatment does not occur during the primary nesting season, there is limited chance 

of unintentional take of migratory birds. Implementation of the proposed action would not be 

expected to cause an overall decline of bird species populations. 

Threatened and Endangered Species 

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would not reduce the tree densities in the project area; density and 

canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout the project area. Existing 

small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size and woodland 

species would continue to encroach on open meadow grassland. Fuels buildup would continue, 

leading to a crown fire if wildfire occurs in the area.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposed action would provide reduced potential of stand-replacing wildfire since fuels 

would be reduced throughout the area. The proposed action incorporates northern goshawk 

guidelines and measures to lessen effects to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species. Shortterm noise disturbance and human presence during treatment could temporarily disturb threatened 

and endangered species.

Implementation of the proposed action would result in long-term benefits to threatened and 

endangered species by providing essential habitat components such as diverse structural stages, 

snags, downed logs, and varied canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of these species. 

Mexican Spotted Owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) 

Tree removal and forest burning activities would temporarily disturb the species if construction 

activities occur during breeding months (April–August). However, since the forest treatment 

includes thinning, burning, and creating an uneven-aged forest stand throughout the project area, 

this proposed project is likely to benefit the MSO, whether it is currently present or not, by 

creating or enhancing habitat elements known to be used by the species. 

Baird’s Sparrow (Ammodramus bairdii) 

This proposed project may impact individuals of Baird’s sparrow, but it is not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 125

Spotted Bat (Euderma maculatum)

This proposed project may impact individuals of spotted bat, but it is not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Townsend’s Big-eared Bat (Corynorhinus townsendii) 

This proposed project may impact individuals of Townsend’s big-eared bat, but it is not likely to 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Sensitive Species 

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would not reduce the tree densities in the project area; density and 

canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout the project area. Existing 

small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size and woodland 

species would continue to encroach on open meadow grassland. Fuels buildup would continue, 

leading to a crown fire if wildfire occurs in the area.

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposed action would provide reduced potential of stand-replacing wildfire since fuels 

would be reduced throughout the area. The proposed action incorporates northern goshawk 

guidelines and measures to lessen effects to sensitive species. Short-term noise disturbance and 

human presence during treatment could temporarily disturb sensitive species.

Implementation of the proposed action would result in long-term benefits to sensitive species by 

providing essential habitat components such as diverse structural stages, snags, downed logs, and 

varied canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of these species. 

Northern Goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) 

Tree removal and forest burning activities would temporarily disturb the species if construction 

activities occur during breeding months (April–August). However, since the forest treatment 

includes thinning, burning, and creating an uneven-aged forest stand throughout the project area, 

this proposed project is likely to benefit the northern goshawk, whether it is currently present or 

not, by creating or enhancing habitat elements known to be used by the species. 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences

Threatened and Endangered Species

Alternative A 

Alternative A would not reduce the tree densities in the Isleta CFRP Project area; density and 

canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout. Existing small openings 

and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size so that forage remains limited 

for MSO prey species. Fuels buildup would continue, leading to increased potential for a 

uncharacteristic wildfire if wildfire occurs in the area. Species would continue to experience 

disturbance from existing roads and trails. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Alternative B 

In general, alternative B provides reduced potential of uncharacteristic wildfire since fuels would 

be reduced throughout the area benefitting wildlife and habitat. Existing tree densities and canopy 

cover would be maintained in mixed conifer areas benefitting Mexican spotted owl and its prey 

species. Prescribed fire would be used exclusively in these areas to maintain fuel loading, and 

management activities would occur outside the Mexican spotted owl breeding season (March 1–

August 31). Alternative B incorporates designs to lessen effects to threatened and endangered 

species. Implementation of alternative B would provide essential habitat components such as 

snags, downed logs, residual basal area, and canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of 

threatened and endangered species. Disturbance from vehicle use of roads would increase in the 

short term due to project activities. 

Alternative C 

In general, alternative C provides reduced potential of uncharacteristic wildfire, but to a lesser 

degree than alternative B (see fire/fuels specialist report in the project record). Implementation in 

mixed conifer would be the same as alternative B. No tree cutting would occur in mixed conifer, 

and prescribed burns would occur outside the Mexican spotted owl breeding season (March 1–

August 31). Alternative C incorporates designs to lessen effects to threatened and endangered 

species in the same manner as alternative B. Implementation of this alternative would provide 

essential habitat components such as snags, downed logs, residual basal area, and canopy cover 

necessary for potential occupancy of threatened and endangered species. Potential disturbance 

from vehicle use of roads would increase in the short term due to project activities. Table 36

provides a threatened and endangered species effects determination summary for all three 

alternatives.

Table 36. Summary of effects determinations on Mexican spotted owl

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

MSO Continuation of fuels 

buildup and small diameter 

(ladder) trees leading to a 

potential crown fire if 

wildfire occurs in the area.

Important habitat features 

such as snags, and large 

downed logs could be 

burned. 

No effect in the short term. 

In the long term, disease, 

insects, and drought may 

create some natural variation 

in the mixed conifer habitat. 

This alternative would reduce 

ladder fuels and maintain snags, 

downed logs, and residual basal 

area for potential MSO 

occupancy on 131 acres of 

mixed conifer habitat. No tree 

cutting would occur in mixed 

conifer, and prescribed burns 

would only occur outside the 

MSO breeding season (March 1–

August 31). 

May affect species, not likely to 

adversely affect species or its 

habitat. 

This alternative would reduce 

ladder fuels and maintain snags, 

downed logs, and residual basal

area for potential MSO 

occupancy on 131 acres of 

mixed conifer habitat. No tree 

cutting would occur in mixed 

conifer, and prescribed burns 

would only occur outside the 

MSO breeding season (March 1–

August 31). 

May affect species, not likely to 

adversely affect species or its 

habitat. 

Sensitive Species

Alternative A 

Alternative A would not reduce the tree densities in the Isleta CFRP Project area; density and 

canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout the project area. Existing 

small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size reducing habitat 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 127

quality for sensitive species or their prey. Fuels buildup would continue, leading to a crown fire if 

wildfire occurs in the area. Disturbance to wildlife species from vehicles on existing and 

unauthorized roads and trails would continue. 

Alternative B 

In general, alternative B provides reduced potential of uncharacteristic wildfire since fuels would 

be reduced throughout the area. Alternative B incorporates new designs to lessen effects to 

sensitive species (see Youtz et al. 2007). No adverse management activities would occur within 

the goshawk PFA from March 1 to September 30. Vehicle related disturbance would increase in 

the short term due to project activities; road decommissioning would be coordinated with the 

implementation phases and would decrease disturbance to wildlife from vehicle use of 

unauthorized roads in the long term. 

See information and discussion pertaining to the northern goshawk below alternative C. Reynolds 

et al. (2006, 2008) describes desired conditions in southwestern ponderosa pine as mosaics of 

small, highly interspersed groups of different VSS classes, where “Grass, herb, shrub habitat was 

interspersed around the VSS groups and provided habitat for rabbits, ground squirrels, and birds.” 

Youtz et al. (2007) explains that these groups of trees interspaced within a grass/forb/shrub 

mosaic provide for an irregular and discontinuous forest canopy with variable tree densities and 

discontinuous arrangement of fuels, which minimizes the potential for crown fire and facilitates 

the use of low intensity prescribed fire. This surrounding root development zone, or primary 

rooting zone, between tree clumps are free of trees and provide nutrient uptake that allows trees 

within groups to develop (Pearson 1950). 

The standards and guidelines in the forest plan, as amended with the northern goshawk 

recommendations in September 1996 (Amendment No. 7), are silent on the percentages of area 

within a stand that should be managed under tree cover and the percentages that should be 

managed as forest openings (grass/forb/shrub). If this alternative is selected, the forest plan would 

be amended to state the following: A range (20–60 percent of the area) of forest canopy gaps and 

openings would be maintained within each stand (excluding MSO restricted/threshold and 

northern goshawk nesting areas); the remainder of the stand would be managed for the forest 

structural stages (VSS classes) distribution of 10 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, 20 percent, 20

percent, and 20 percent. 

Assumptions of the SWGS included that goshawks are habitat generalists and that prey 

abundance is limiting (Reynolds et al. 1992). If these assumptions are valid, the proposed action 

should maximize prey abundance as well as availability, improving foraging opportunity while 

maintaining nesting area habitat, thus benefitting goshawk populations in the long term. 

Alternatively, if the goshawk is a habitat specialist and selects stands on the basis of forest 

structure rather than prey abundance, then prey abundance may not be equivalent to prey 

availability (Beier and Drennan 1997). Additionally, interspecific competition for nest sites and 

prey species, as well as direct predation, by red-tailed hawks and great horned owls, which are 

more abundant in open habitats such as meadows, edge, forest openings, and woodlands, likely 

varies as a function of the openness of forest types and extent of natural and anthropogenic 

fragmentation of a forest (Johnson 1992, USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1988, Squires and 

Kennedy 2006). Negative effects on goshawk populations may increase with increasing forest 

fragmentation and loss of mature forest (Reynolds et al. 2006, La Sorte et al. 2004, Gatto et al. 

2005). Great horned owls are most abundant in fragmented landscapes (Houston et al. 1998), 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

begin nesting earlier than goshawks and occasionally lay eggs in goshawk nests, forcing 

goshawks to construct or use alternative nest areas (Reynolds et al. 1994), and have been known 

to kill adult and nestling goshawks (Woodbridge and Detrich 1994, Reynolds et al. 2006). Boyce 

et al. (2006) observe the need for research, and stated that “Although it is believed that extensive 

habitat modifications are detrimental, it remains unclear exactly how goshawk populations are 

responding to habitat modification because of inadequate study of the effects across a gradient of 

tree-harvesting intensities.” Management recommendations still remain as untested hypotheses, 

and a sound experimental design with control, replication, and sufficient sample sizes would be 

required, which would be potentially problematic, costly, and could take decades (Squires and 

Kennedy 2006, Reynolds et al. 2006).

Alternative C 

In general, alternative C provides reduced potential of stand-replacing wildfire, but to a lesser 

degree than alternative B (refer to the fire/fuels specialist report). This alternative incorporates 

existing designs (Reynolds et al. 1992) to lessen effects to sensitive species. No adverse 

management activities would occur within the PFA from March 1 to September 30. Vehicle 

related disturbance would increase in the short term due to project activities; road 

decommissioning would be coordinated with the implementation phases and would decrease 

disturbance to wildlife from vehicle use of existing and unauthorized roads in the long term. 

Implementation of alternative B would provide essential habitat components such as snags, 

downed logs, residual basal area, and canopy cover necessary for potential occupancy of sensitive 

species. 

Scientific information on northern goshawk biology remains limited. The northern goshawk 

conservation strategies (Reynolds et al. 1992) were developed in 1992 and subsequently 

incorporated as forest plan amendments (USFS 1996). In ponderosa pine forests, the sustainable 

distribution approximated 10 percent of the area occupied by grasses, forbs, or shrubs, 10 percent

by seedling-saplings, 20 percent by young trees, 20 percent by mid-aged trees, 20 percent by 

mature trees, and 20 percent by older trees (Reynolds et al. 1992; Bassett et al. 1994). Some 

reviews (including those by the USFWS, State of Arizona Game and Fish Department, and 

NMDGF) of the northern goshawk management guidelines were critical, and were mainly 

concerned with the degree to which forest structure in goshawk foraging habitat would be opened 

and fragmented (Boyce et al. 2006; USFS 1992; Arizona Game and Fish Department 2004; 

NMDGF 2004, Greenwald et al. 2005). Others recognized that the guidelines include a 

landscape-scale mosaic of age and structural classes intended to provide habitats for a broad 

spectrum of wildlife species maintained under an uneven-aged silvicultural system intended to 

approximate the composition, structure, and patterns within the range of natural variability 

existing in presettlement conditions of southwestern ponderosa pine forests before fundamental 

changes in natural disturbance regimes and forest structure (Long and Smith 2000). Benefits 

identified included reduction of unnaturally high tree densities and the return of frequent, low 

intensity surface fires, as well as the ability to simultaneously recreate healthy forests, restore 

diversity, sustain ecological processes, and reduce fuel loads to avoid loss of life and property 

(Boyce et al. 2006). 

Table 37 provides a sensitive species effects determination summary for all three alternatives.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 129

Table 37. Summary of effects determinations to sensitive species by alternative 

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Northern 

goshawk 

This alternative would allow 

fuels to build up, leading to a 

potential crown fire if a 

wildfire occurs in the area.

No impact to the species in 

the short term is expected. In 

the long term, habitat could 

become so densely stocked 

with trees that prey species 

habitat would be reduced.

Continued inaction would not 

meet the forest plan 

guidelines. 

Implementation of this 

alternative would improve 

habitat conditions for prey 

species and reduce potential 

for a crown fire if wildfire 

occurs in the area. 

Fragmentation could reach 

levels of decreasing prey 

availability and increasing 

interspecific competition, as 

well as direct predation.

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

This alternative would treat the 

dense, overstocked stands of 

ponderosa pine in the project 

boundary to the standards set 

forth in the northern goshawk 

management recommendations 

and forest plan. Implementation 

of this alternative would 

improve habitat conditions for 

both the northern goshawk and 

its prey species. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Loggerhead Potential habitat would not be Tree removal may have a Tree removal may have a 

shrike protected or maintained.

Displacement of individuals 

would not occur.

minimal impact on the species 

during the breeding season, 

but a phased approach would 

reduce impacts. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

minimal impact on the species 

during the breeding season, but 

a phased approach would 

reduce impacts. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Gray vireo Potential habitat would not be 

protected or maintained.

Displacement of individuals 

would not occur.

Tree removal may have a 

minimal impact on the species 

during the breeding season, 

but a phased approach would 

reduce impacts. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

Tree removal may have a 

minimal impact on the species 

during the breeding season, but 

a phased approach would 

reduce impacts. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Spotted bat This species is not likely to be 

affected through 

implementation of alternative 

A since individuals roost in 

rocky cliffs and outcrops 

rather than trees. Continuation 

of fuels buildup leading to a 

potential crown fire may 

improve prey species 

availability in the short term.

There would be slight direct 

impacts to the species, but 

large trees would remain 

except in permanent openings 

and riparian areas would be 

maintained. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

There would be slight direct 

impacts to the species, but large 

trees would remain and riparian 

areas would be maintained. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Pale Continuation of fuels buildup Snags and larger diameter Snags and larger diameter trees 

Townsend’s could lead to a potential trees would be retained except would be retained, improving 

big-eared bat crown fire if wildfire occurs 

in the area, thus increasing the 

species’ prey population in the 

short term. Roost habitat 

would likely be lost in the 

event of a landscape-scale 

wildfire. 

in permanent openings 

improving roosting habitat 

somewhat, but overall impacts 

(if any) are expected to be 

insignificant. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

roosting habitat somewhat, but 

overall impacts (if any) are 

expected to be insignificant. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Dwarf shrew Continuation of fuels buildup 

could lead to a potential 

crown fire if wildfire occurs 

in the area, thus reducing 

hiding cover of the species 

and its prey. 

No impact on the species in 

the short term is expected.

The species has the potential 

to occur in the project area. 

The tree removal may have a 

minor impact to the species, 

as this activity would remove 

the tree understory cover of 

seedlings/saplings and polesized trees. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

The species has the potential to 

occur in the project area. Tree 

removal may have a minor 

impact to the species, as this 

activity would remove the tree 

understory cover of 

seedlings/saplings and polesized trees. Less project area 

would result in VSS class 1. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Merriam’s 

shrew 

Continuation of fuels buildup 

could lead to a potential 

crown fire if wildfire occurs 

in the area, thus reducing 

hiding cover of the species 

and its prey. 

No impact on the species in 

the short term is expected.

The species has the potential 

to occur in the area. Tree 

removal may have a minimal 

impact on the species. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss 

of viability.

The species has the potential to 

occur in the area. Tree removal 

may have a minimal impact on 

the species but would be less 

than in alternative B. 

May impact individuals, but is 

not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability.

Management Indicator Species

Alternative A 

Alternative A would not reduce the tree densities in the Isleta CFRP Project area; density and 

canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout the project area. Existing 

small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size. Wildlife would 

continue to be subject to disturbance due to existing motorized roads and trails. Table 38 provides 

an effects summary of alternative A on MIS. 

Table 38. 

MIS 

Elk

Summary of alternative A effects on MIS

Direct and Indirect Effects

Habitat would not be improved as stands would remain in an overstocked 

condition with a dense canopy that has reduced the availability of understory 

forage. In the event of an uncharacteristic stand-replacing wildfire, elk 

foraging habitat would be improved once the area recovers, but cover 

conditions would no longer be met. Project level populations of elk would 

remain stable. It is unlikely there would be any long- or short-term increase 

or decrease in elk populations unless habitat was lost due to wildfire. 

Forestwide 

Population/Habitat 

Effects 

N 

Mule deer There would be no change in the woodland canopy cover, thus there would 

be a continued lack of browse forage availability. Winter range cover would 

be retained and displacement due to human presence would not occur. 

Habitat loss and fragmentation due to roads would continue, but to a lesser 

degree in the short term than alternatives B and C. In the event of a standreplacing wildfire, mule deer browse forage would increase once the area 

recovers, but cover requirements would not be met, making foraging areas 

generally unavailable except along unburned edges. This alternative would 

not affect mule deer populations in the project area. 

N 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 131

MIS Direct and Indirect Effects

Forestwide 

Population/Habitat 

Effects 

Juniper Habitat features such as old growth and snags would not be protected from N 

titmouse wildfire under this alternative. The juniper titmouse would not be displaced 

given that no disturbance would occur. Project level populations of juniper 

titmouse are expected to continue to decline due to factors other than 

alternative A. 

Black bear There would be less mast and herbaceous forage available to black bear due 

to continued dense canopy growth, reducing understory forage. Cover 

requirements would continue to be met without the temporary displacement 

due to human presence and the use of temporary roads described in 

alternatives B and C. Project level populations of black bear are expected to 

remain stable. 

N 

Pygmy 

nuthatch 

Ponderosa pine snags used for nesting would not be affected in the short 

term, but if landscape-scale wildfire occurred, snags could be created. There 

would be no nest abandonment or unintentional take associated with 

treatment activities. Project level populations of pygmy nuthatch are 

expected to remain stable. In the long term, not taking any action would not 

affect pygmy nuthatch unless local habitat was completely lost to landscapescale fire. 

N 

Wild turkey Habitat would not be improved since there would be no change to tree age 

and class structure, and the existing dense forest would not provide 

understory forage. Roost trees would not be protected from drought and fire 

effects. Roads would continue to cause habitat loss and displacement, but to 

a lesser degree in the short term than as described in alternatives B and C.

Project level populations of wild turkey are expected to remain upward for 

reasons unrelated to implementation of this alternative. In the long term, not 

taking any action would not affect the forest level population or habitat trend 

of wild turkey unless cover and forage habitat were completely removed as a 

result of an uncharacteristic wildfire. 

N 

Hairy 

woodpecker 

Habitat needs would continue to be met under this alternative unless there 

was a stand-replacing wildfire. There would be no displacement due to 

human presence during treatments. Project level populations of hairy 

woodpecker are expected to remain upward. 

N 

House wren Habitat needs would continue to be met unless there was a stand-replacing 

wildfire. There would be no displacement due to human presence during 

treatments. Project level populations are expected to remain stable. 

N 

N = Negligible impact to population or habitat (forestwide) since the amount 

percentage of the total habitat available on the Cibola NF&Gs. 

of untreated acres represent a very small 

Alternative B 

In general, there would be no change in the population or habitat trend of MIS at the forest level. 

Implementation of alternative B would result in short-term displacement due to treatment activity 

(noise and human presence). Snags used by cavity nesting MIS birds would be retained. In the 

long term, forage condition and availability would improve for all species due to reduced canopy 

cover and retention of oaks and other shrubs. Other habitat features common in ponderosa pine 

forests such as roost and nest trees and downed logs would be retained except in permanent 

openings. The risk of stand-replacing wildfire would be reduced. Use of existing roads would 

result in increased displacement of elk, deer, and turkey from preferred habitat during treatment.

Eventual road decommissioning would lessen the effect in the long term. Table 39 provides an 

effects summary of alternative B on MIS.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Table 39. Summary of alternative B effects on MIS

Forestwide Short-term Project Level Long-term Project Level Habitat MIS (Habitat) Population Species Direct Effects Indirect Effects Effects

Elk Short-term displacement due IC - Improves foraging habitat; may N 

(mixed conifer) to human activity likely. compromise security cover (patches > 250 

acres in size); no change in habitat quantity. 

Mule deer Short-term displacement due IC - Improves browse forage availability and N 

(piñon-juniper to human activity likely. quality; no change in habitat quantity. Most 

and oak patches would be too small for thermal cover 

woodland) requirements (2–5 acres).

Juniper titmouse Short-term displacement due IC - Improves foraging habitat: treatment is N 

(piñon-juniper) to human activity likely implemented in stages so that not all piñonaffecting foraging habitat. juniper woodlands are treated within the 

same year. Treatment retains snags. There 

would be no change in habitat quantity. 

Black bear Short-term displacement due IC - Improves mast crop and forage N 

(mixed conifer) to human activity likely. availability and retains oaks; no change in 

habitat quantity. 

Pygmy nuthatch Short-term displacement due NC - Activity would occur outside the N 

(ponderosa pine) to human activity likely nesting season in the PFA and is 

affecting foraging habitat. implemented in stages so that not all the 

ponderosa pine forest habitat is treated within

the same year. Snags and large diameter trees 

would be retained. 

Wild turkey Short-term displacement due NC - Treatment activity occurs outside the N 

(ponderosa pine) to human activity. nesting season in the PFA and is 

implemented in stages so that not all the 

ponderosa pine habitat would be treated 

within the same year. Openings would 

provide improved forage conditions for 

poults. 

Hairy Short-term displacement due NC - Treatment activity is implemented in N 

woodpecker to human activity likely. stages so that not all the mixed conifer 

(mixed conifer) habitat would be treated within the same 

year, and large snags would be retained. 

House wren Short-term displacement due NC - Treatment activity is implemented in N 

(riparian) to human activity likely. stages so that not all the riparian habitat is 

treated within the same year. Snags would be 

retained. 

IC = improves habitat condition; DC = decreases habitat condition; NC = no change in habitat condition since the 

amount of treated acres represents a very small percentage of the total habitat available on the Cibola NF&Gs; N = no 

change in population trend at the forest level. 

Alternative C 

In general, there would be no change in the population or habitat trend of MIS at the forest level. 

Implementation of alternative C would result in short-term displacement due to treatment activity 

(noise and human presence). Snags used by cavity nesting MIS birds would be retained. In the 

long term, forage condition and availability would improve for all species due to reduced canopy 

cover and retention of oaks and other shrubs. Other habitat features common in ponderosa pine 

forests such as roost and nest trees and downed logs would be retained. The risk of standreplacing wildfire would be reduced. Use of existing roads would result in increased displacement 

of elk, deer, black bear, and turkey from preferred habitat during treatment. Eventual road 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 133

decommissioning would lessen the effect in the long term. Table 40 provides an effects summary 

of alternative C on MIS.

Table 40. Summary of alternative C effects on MIS

Forestwide Short-term Project Level Long-term Project Level Habitat MIS (habitat) Population Species Direct Effects Indirect Effects Effects 

Elk Short-term displacement due to IC - Improves foraging habitat; no change N 

(mixed conifer) human activity likely. in habitat quantity. 

Mule deer Short-term displacement due to IC - Improves browse forage availability N 

(piñon-juniper and human activity likely. and quality; no change in habitat quantity. 

oak woodland)

Juniper titmouse Short-term displacement due to IC - Improves foraging habitat: treatment N 

(piñon-juniper) human activity likely affecting is implemented in stages so that not all 

foraging habitat. piñon-juniper woodland is treated within 

the same year. Treatment retains snags. 

There would be no change in habitat 

quantity. 

Black bear Short-term displacement due to IC - Improves mast crop and forage N 

(mixed conifer) human activity likely. availability and retains oaks; no change in 

habitat quantity. 

Pygmy nuthatch Short-term displacement due to NC - Activity would occur outside the N 

(ponderosa pine) human activity likely affecting nesting season in the PFA and is 

foraging habitat. implemented in stages so that not all the 

ponderosa pine forest habitat is treated 

within the same year. Snags and large 

diameter trees would be retained. 

Wild turkey Short-term displacement due to NC - Treatment activity occurs outside the N 

(ponderosa pine) human activity. nesting season in the PFA and is 

implemented in stages so that not all the 

ponderosa pine habitat would be treated 

within the same year. Openings would 

provide improved forage conditions for 

poults. 

Hairy woodpecker Short-term displacement due to NC - Treatment activity is implemented in N 

(mixed conifer) human activity likely. stages so that not all the mixed conifer 

habitat would be treated within the same 

year, and large snags would be retained.

House wren Short-term displacement due to NC - Treatment activity is implemented in N 

(riparian) human activity likely. stages so that not all the riparian habitat is 

treated within the same year. Snags would 

be retained.

IC = improves habitat condition; DC = decreases habitat condition; NC = no change in habitat condition since the 

amount of treated acres represents a very small percentage of the total habitat available on the Cibola NF&Gs; N = no 

change in population trend at the forest level. 

Migratory Birds

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, fuels buildup would continue, leading to a uncharacteristic crown fire if a 

wildfire occurs in the area. This would substantially reduce nesting and foraging habitat. 

Woodpeckers can benefit in the short term from wildfire, as the dead and dying trees provide 

insect habitat; sapsuckers prefer live trees for their excavations. Disturbance due to vehicle use 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

and human activity related to existing and unauthorized motorized roads and trails would 

continue. Under alternative A, unintentional take of migratory birds due to tree cutting and 

prescribed fire would not occur. 

Alternative B 

Thinning activity would occur in phases so that fuel reduction activities and wood product 

removal can occur while providing mitigation for the unintentional take of migratory birds. The 

recommended Cibola NF&Gs migratory bird timing restriction is April 1 to July 31. This timing 

restriction would be implemented annually on two-thirds of the project area, while activity could 

occur throughout the year on the other third. In these activity areas it is recognized that 

unintentional take of migratory birds could occur. 

Unintentional take results in direct mortality of migratory birds from cutting or burning of nest 

trees. Some incidental take can also result from nest abandonment due to human activity. In all 

project areas, habitat features important to high-priority migratory birds would be retained. Large 

trees would be retained and a more natural spacing (similar to what occurs in fire-adapted 

ecosystems where small trees and overly dense stands are usually removed by natural fire) would 

result. The short-term impacts would be a reduction in both vertical and horizontal diversity 

within stands. Since trees would be removed to create groups and openings and to reduce the 

“ladder fuels” (trees that allow a fire to easily reach the canopy or “crowns”), this would increase 

the lower understory layers and eventually result in increased diversity within the stands. Most 

bird species do not utilize these smaller diameter trees as nesting substrate; however, trees in the 

9-inch and above class (particularly in piñon-juniper stands) may occasionally be used as nesting 

substrates. The vertical stand diversity (due to the removal of smaller, understory trees) would be 

the component most affected by alternative B. Horizontal tree diversity (looking at the stand from 

directly above) would be impacted as trees between groups would be removed except for one or 

two of the larger diameter trees that are retained between groups. For the most part, areas with 

extant small diameter trees (where a larger overstory does not occur) may be removed, thus 

creating openings in the canopy where none existed. Some slight impacts could be expected in the 

short term to nesting habitat, but as noted, these small trees are generally not the preferred nest 

substrates. Since trees would not be cut on two-thirds of the project area during any one year 

(during the primary breeding season), unintentional take of migratory birds is likely to occur in 

only a portion of the project area. In the short term, vehicle use and associated disturbance would 

increase in the project area. Populations of migratory birds dependent on piñon-juniper and oak 

woodlands, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer forests, and riparian areas would be maintained in the 

long term as a result of implementation of alternative B.

In the long term, after the thinning occurs and the stands retain a more natural spacing, 

populations of birds of conservation concern are expected to show slight to moderate increase, as 

opening the understory to increase light to the forest floor would allow for an increased shrub and 

forb component, potentially increasing species utilized as food by granivorous birds (seed and 

berry eaters), as well as creating a greater mix of understory plant species utilized by insects

which are preyed upon by insectivorous bird species. Retaining the larger trees, as well as dead 

and dying trees with cavities present, would retain the important nesting substrates used by most 

of the species. Road decommissioning would be coordinated with the implementation phases, and 

in the long term would decrease disturbance due to vehicle use of unauthorized motorized roads 

and trails. Cavity trees may be reduced somewhat over time since removing the smaller trees 

would “release” larger trees (removing root competition allows the remaining trees to increase in 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 135

size); thus, trees that may have succumbed earlier due to the dense stocking rates would probably 

not be as prevalent. 

Alternative C 

Effects would be similar to alternative B. Risk of wildfire would be reduced to a lesser degree. 

Foraging opportunity would increase. Thinning activity would occur in phases so that fuel 

reduction activities and wood products removal can occur while providing mitigation for the 

incidental take of migratory birds. The recommended Cibola NF&Gs migratory bird timing 

restriction is April 1 to July 31. This timing restriction would be implemented annually on twothirds of the project area, while activity could occur throughout the year on the other third. In 

these activity areas it is recognized that unintentional take of migratory birds could occur. 

Table 41 summarizes the impacts (both short and long term) of the different alternatives. 

Table 41. Summary of effects on migratory birds 

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Band-tailed 

pigeon 

NC – No change in habitat 

condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the long term 

due to loss of openings 

and berry producing 

shrubs. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

due to disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging potential 

in mature pine/oak stands, 

maintenance of forest 

openings for berry-producing 

shrubs, maintenance of tall 

snags for roosting, decreased 

disturbance from vehicle use 

of roads, and decreased 

wildfire risk. 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term due to 

disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential in mature 

pine/oak stands, maintenance of 

forest openings for berryproducing shrubs, maintenance of 

tall snags for roosting, and 

decreased disturbance from vehicle 

use of roads.

Broad-tailed 

hummingbird 

NC – No change in habitat 

condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the long term 

due to loss of openings, 

and deciduous shrubs as 

canopies continue to close. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

due to loss of structural 

diversity and disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to an increase in grassy areas 

and higher forb production 

associated especially with 

prescribed burns, and 

decreased disturbance due to 

road use. 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term due to loss of 

structural diversity and 

disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to an increase in 

grassy areas and higher forb 

production associated especially 

with prescribed burns, and 

decreased disturbance due to road 

use. 

Grace’s NC – No change in habitat DC – Decreases habitat DC – Decreases habitat condition in 

warbler condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the long term 

due to continuing habitat 

loss associated with fire 

suppression and the 

potential of 

uncharacteristic fires. Also 

due to fire suppression or 

lack of mechanical 

condition in the short term 

due to disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging potential 

and decreased disturbance due 

to roads and wildfire risk. 

the short term due to disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential and decreased 

disturbance due to roads and wildfire 

risk. Mechanical treatments would 

result in high quality older growth 

ponderosa pine forest with a 

relatively open understory. Taller, 

older trees in mature ponderosa pine 

habitat would be retained, benefitting 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

treatments, trees are 

smaller and form a more 

this species. 

closed canopy than in the 

more park-like stands 

favored by this species. 

Flammulated 

owl

NC – No change in habitat 

condition in the short 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term due to loss of 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

due to loss of structural 

diversity and disturbance. 

structural diversity and 

disturbance. 

condition in the long term 

because fire suppression 

and lack of vegetation 

treatments have created 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging potential 

and decreased vehicle 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential and decreased 

vehicle disturbance. Forest 

large areas of dense, 

“doghair” ponderosa pine 

stands unsuitable for 

nesting or foraging. 

Immediate threats include 

the loss of remaining areas 

of open, mature forest 

habitat to uncharacteristic 

fire. 

disturbance and wildfire risk. 

Existing areas of mature or 

old growth forest would be 

protected and maintained. 

thinning and controlled burning to 

restore more open, multistoried 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

stands with fewer and larger trees, 

snags for nesting, a grassy 

understory and patch shrub cover 

should help reverse long-term 

habitat degradation to benefit this 

species. In addition to such 

restoration, existing areas of 

mature or old growth forest would 

be protected and maintained. 

Red-naped 

sapsucker 

NC – No change in habitat 

condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

due to loss of structural 

diversity and disturbance. 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term due to loss of 

structural diversity and 

disturbance. 

condition in the long term 

due to fire suppression and 

loss of areas with 

deciduous trees like aspen. 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging potential 

and decreased road 

disturbance and wildfire risk. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential and decreased 

road disturbance. Vegetation 

treatments would maintain taller 

Medium sized to large 

diameter dead snags would be 

left intact. 

trees in ponderosa and mixed 

conifer forest. Medium sized to 

large diameter dead snags would 

be left intact. 

Virginia’s 

warbler 

NC – No change in habitat

condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the long term 

due to loss of open forests 

with shrub cover. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

when prescribed fires are 

used, which removes suitable 

nests sites and foraging 

opportunities, as well as 

project related disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging 

potential, decreased 

disturbance and wildfire risk, 

and the reinstitution of a 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term when prescribed 

fires are used, which removes 

suitable nests sites and foraging 

opportunities, as well as project 

related disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential, decreased 

disturbance, and the reinstitution of 

a natural disturbance regime.

natural disturbance regime.

Black-chinned 

sparrow 

NC – No change in habitat 

condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

due to loss of structural 

diversity and disturbance. 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term due to loss of 

structural diversity and 

disturbance. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 137

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

condition in the long term. IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging 

potential, decreased 

disturbance due to roads from 

decommissioning, and 

decreased wildfire risk since 

this species prefers open 

canopy habitat and shrubs, 

which would increase 

following the proposed 

vegetation treatments. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential and decreased 

disturbance due to roads from 

decommissioning. 

Black-throated 

gray warbler

NC – No change in habitat 

condition in the short 

term. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the long term 

due to potential loss of 

large stands of mature 

piñon-juniper woodland 

due to insects, disease, and 

wildfire. 

DC – Decreases habitat 

condition in the short term 

due to loss of structural 

diversity, increased habitat 

fragmentation in dense 

woodland habitat, and 

disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat 

condition in the long term due 

to increased foraging potential 

and an overall reduction in 

road density. Vegetation 

treatments would reduce the 

risk of stand-replacing 

wildfire. 

DC – Decreases habitat condition 

in the short term due to loss of 

structural diversity and 

disturbance. 

IC – Improves habitat condition in 

the long term due to increased 

foraging potential and treatment 

mitigation that maintains large 

stands of mature piñon-juniper 

woodland and an overall reduction 

in road density. 

IC = Improves habitat condition; DC = Decreases habitat condition; NC = No change in habitat condition

Important Bird Areas: There are no Audubon Society designated IBAs affected by the project. 

The nearest IBA is the Tajique Canyon site, directly south and west of the project boundary in the 

Manzano Mountains. 

Overwintering Areas: Important overwintering areas have not yet been designated on the Cibola 

NF&Gs; thus, none would be impacted by project implementation. 

Cumulative Effects Across Jurisdictions

The cumulative effect analysis area for wildlife includes habitat types similar to the project area 

(piñon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine forests, mixed conifer forests, oak woodlands, and 

riparian areas) along the wildland-urban interface on the east side of the Manzanita and Manzano 

Mountains. Past activities in the analysis area that have led to current conditions include livestock 

grazing in the early to middle 1900s, subsequent removal of livestock from the Cibola NF&Gs

(Sandia Ranger District), exclusion of unplanned fires, human settlement, and recreational 

development and use of trails and trailheads. More recent activities considered as cumulative 

effects include USFS and private lands fuels reduction treatments in the vicinity of the Isleta 

Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project area and along the WUI zone. Some of those 

treatments have occurred in the past 30 years and trees are becoming reestablished, reducing the 

effectiveness of the treatments. New fuels reduction and forest health restoration projects on 

USFS managed lands are being proposed along the WUI north of the project area. Fuel hazard 

reduction treatments presently occurring on private lands are also likely to continue. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Cumulative effects under alternative A would result in a continuation of existing habitat 

conditions for wildlife in the WUI since much of this area has not yet been treated for fuels 

reduction. Wildlife species composition and populations on NFS lands would continue to be 

similar to what is there now except in the event of a stand-replacing wildfire. Fuel hazard 

reduction presently occurring on private lands is likely to continue and may result in heavier 

treatments with less emphasis on leaving untreated patches, snags, and downed woody debris and 

providing for stand diversity. Existing development and expansion of subdivisions along the WUI 

would continue to fragment and isolate woodland and forested habitats in this area reducing its 

habitat value for wildlife on USFS managed lands. 

Cumulative effects related to alternatives B and C would result in the continued treatment of the 

WUI resulting in some reduction in the threat of stand-replacing wildfire. Without reducing the 

danger from wildfire by some combination of thinning and burning along the entire wildlandurban interface and beyond, fuels treatments in the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis 

Project area are likely to reduce the fire severity only within or near the project boundaries. Past, 

present, and future treatments on USFS lands would provide for more sustainable conditions to 

maintain vegetation structural and compositional diversity. Expected improvement of forage 

habitat on NFS lands would tend to reduce wildlife use of housing areas in the WUI. The 

cumulative effects of past and future fuels reduction to wildlife species dependent on these 

woodland and forest habitats would be overall beneficial. 

Air Resources

Affected Environment Across Jurisdictions

New Mexico has a mild, arid to semiarid, continental climate characterized by abundant sunshine, 

light total precipitation, low relative humidity, and relatively large annual and diurnal temperature 

ranges (New Mexico Climate Center 2010). The average hours of annual sunshine range from 

nearly 3,700 hours in the southwest portions of the state to 2,800 hours in the north-central 

portions. The freeze-free season ranges from more than 200 days in the southern valleys to less 

than 80 days in the northern mountains, where some high mountain valleys have freezes in the 

summer months.

A wide variation in annual precipitation totals is characteristic of arid and semiarid climates 

(Wilcox and Breshears 1994). Generally, July and August are the rainiest months of the year, with 

30 to 40 percent of the state’s annual precipitation falling at this time. Summer rains fall almost 

entirely during brief, frequently intense thunderstorms. The moisture associated with these storms 

originates in the Gulf of Mexico. Spring and summer rains often encourage the growth of fine 

fuels such as grasses and forbs. Late in the season or the following year, these fine fuels can be 

very dry and actively carry a ground fire.

Winter is the driest season in New Mexico. During this season, precipitation is primarily a result 

of frontal activity associated with Pacific Ocean storms that move across the country from west to 

east. Much of this precipitation falls as snow in mountain areas. Snowpack provides water for tree 

growth and has broad reaching effects on overall forest health. In years with low snowpack, soil 

and fuels have more time to dry out before the fire season begins, which can result in more 

extreme fire behavior. In years with high snowpack, onset of the fire season may be delayed due 

to high soil and fuel moisture.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 139

According to the Western Regional Climate Center (2010), the normal annual precipitation for 

Tajique, a close weather station to the project area, averaged 19.60 inches for the period of 1914 

to 1970. Nearly two-thirds of the annual precipitation for the area occurs December through 

March, July, and August. The average maximum temperature for the area is 63.7 degrees 

Fahrenheit (°F), with an average minimum temperature of 33.3 °F (Western Regional Climate 

Center 2010). 

In regard to air quality, the project area lies within both the Albuquerque-Mid Rio Grande 

Interstate Air Quality Control Region 152 and the Northeastern Plains Intrastate Air Quality 

Control Region 154 (NMED 2010). The closest Class I air quality areas are Bandelier National 

Monument and the adjacent Bandelier and Dome Wilderness areas, approximately 55 miles north 

of the project area. A Class I airshed, established by the Clean Air Act and administered by the 

EPA, applies to national parks over 6,000 acres and wilderness areas and memorial parks over 

5,000 acres that require the highest level of aesthetic protection. 

Additionally, the Clean Air Act and its amendments require the EPA to set National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for pollutants considered harmful to public health and the 

environment (Public Laws 88-206, 90-148, 91-604, 95-95, and 101-549). These criteria pollutants 

include lead (Pb), nitrogen oxide (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), carbon monoxide (CO), particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 

(PM2.5), and ozone (O3). The Clean Air Act also allows states to adopt additional ambient air 

quality standards. The State of New Mexico’s ambient air quality standards are more stringent for 

primary pollutants than the Federal NAAQS. Although the NMED AQB does not conduct any 

regional air quality monitoring, both Bernalillo and Torrance Counties have been classified by the 

EPA as an “attainment area,” which means that ambient air quality meets the standards of the 

levels set in the NAAQS (NMED 2007). 

Motorized vehicles, smoke and dust, and numerous industrial and commercial sources throughout 

the state likely account for a large portion of the pollutants within the project area.

Environmental Consequences Across Jurisdictions

Alternative A (No Action) 

There are no direct effects expected under alternative A. The current land use and air quality is 

expected to remain the same. In the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire, there is potential for 

emissions that would exceed that of a prescribed fire depending on the size and severity of the 

fire. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under alternative B, the primary direct effects to air quality come from prescribed fire and pile 

burning within the project area following thinning treatments. The major pollutant of concern in 

smoke is fine particulate matter, both PM10 and PM2.5. Mitigation of these effects would be 

through obtaining burn permits from Bernalillo and Torrance Counties and ensuring that the burns 

are carried out within proposed prescription windows that mitigate smoke effects. The public 

would also be informed about burn days and times. Air quality effects related to prescribed fire on 

USFS lands are discussed in detail in the “Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment” section. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Based on the location of this project and the westerly winds that prevail throughout most of New 

Mexico, prescribed burning is not likely to affect downwind Class I airsheds.

Climate Change

Affected Environment Across Jurisdictions

Globally, the Earth’s surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 oF to 1.4 oF since 1900, with 

most of the warming occurring in recent decades. Anthropogenic gases, particularly CO2, are 

enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, and likely contributing to an increase in these global 

average temperatures and related climate changes (EPA 2010). CO2 and other pollutants enter the 

atmosphere through burning of the fossils fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) that we depend on to 

meet our daily energy needs. 

The potential effects of climate change on the environment would vary spatially. A study done by 

the Agency Technical Work Group (2005), in accordance with Executive Order 05-033, projects 

major environmental implications for the State of New Mexico from a changing climate. The 

agency has predicted some of the following environmental consequences in New Mexico if 

temperatures continue to rise at the current, “business-as-usual” rate:

• Average air temperature substantially warmer by 6–12 °F

• Greater warming for winter, nighttime minimum temperatures, and higher elevations

• More episodes of extreme heat

• Fewer episodes of extreme cold

• Longer frost-free period

• Changes in average precipitation are uncertain, precipitation could increase or decrease

• More extreme events (torrential rain, severe droughts)

• Continuation of historical patterns of wet and dry cycles, including likely recurrence of 

multiyear drought

• Winter rain instead of snow at all but highest elevations

Impact of Climate Change on Fire Frequency and Severity

Climate change has played an extensive role in altering fire occurrence and severity by 

influencing the vegetative cover and available burnable fuel across the western landscape. In the 

past few years, fires have grown to record sizes, are burning earlier and longer, and are burning 

hotter and more intensely than they have in the past (Westerling et al. 2006). According to the 

National Interagency Fire Center, occurrence of uncharacteristic wildfires greatly increased over 

the last 20 years. Westerling et al. (2006) claim that a study of large (>1,000 acres) wildfires 

throughout the western United States from 1970 to 2003 saw a pronounced increase in frequency 

of fire since the mid 1980s. Fires from 1987 to 2003 were four times more frequent than the 

1970–1986 average. After 1987, the length of the fire season was also observed to increase by 78

days. 

Changes in relative humidity have been blamed for much of the changes as increased drying over 

much of the Southwest has lead to an increase in days with high fire danger (Brown et al. 2004). 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 141

Advanced computer models are now making national scale simulations of ecosystems providing 

predictions of how fire regimes would change in the 20th century (Neilson 2004). Predictions are 

that western grasslands would undergo increased expansion of woodier vegetation such as piñonjuniper associated with increased precipitation occurring during typical wet seasons. Summer 

months are predicted to be hotter and longer, which would also contribute to increased fire risk 

(Neilson 2004). Under greater climatic extremes widely predicted throughout the U.S., fire 

behavior is expected to become more erratic, with longer flame lengths, increased torching and 

crowning, and more rapid runs and blowups associated with extremely dry conditions (Brown et 

al. 2004). 

In a General Accounting Office report on climate change and Federal lands, natural resource 

experts from numerous Federal and state agencies and leading academic experts predict that 

climate change would cause forest fires to grow in size and severity (General Accounting Office 

2007). This, in turn, would impact the safety of communities located not just in the WUIs but in 

even larger areas as a result of impaired air quality resulting from vast smoke production. The 

cost of fire suppression and the expense of fire preparedness is likely to increase in parallel with 

increasingly larger fires. Experts warn that Southwest fire and fuels management strategies and 

policies need to address these risks now in order to prepare for these changing regimes, while also 

accommodating complex changing ecosystems subject to growing human stresses (Brown et al. 

2004). 

Since Southwest forest environments and ecological processes are influenced by climate, we need 

to be prepared to learn and understand changes in climate and ecosystem processes and function, 

and to employ adaptive management strategies to accommodate such changes over time. 

Although fire suppression is still aggressively practiced, fire management techniques are 

continually adapting and improving. Due to scattered human developments and values throughout 

the WUI, suppression would always have to be a priority in those areas. However, combining 

prescribed fire with effective fuels management and restoration techniques would help reestablish 

natural fire regimes and reduce the potential for uncharacteristic wildfires associated with our 

changing climate. 

Environmental Consequences Across Jurisdictions

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be no direct effects on carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas 

emissions and, therefore, no indirect effects on global climate change. However, in the event of 

an uncharacteristic wildfire, there could be a significant pulse of greenhouse gas emissions into 

the atmosphere that may impact climate change. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under alternative B, there may be some short-term impacts to climate change, though on a project 

level the impacts on global climate change are difficult to quantify. Thinning treatments that 

reduce canopy cover would impact the global carbon cycle by removing trees that sequester CO2; 

however, the treatment would avoid large greenhouse gas emission pulses and effects to the 

carbon cycle by decreasing the potential for large-scale wildfire. Prescribed burning would also 

emit greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. However, the greenhouse gas emissions associated 

with a prescribed burn are expected to be significantly less than the emissions associated with an 

uncharacteristic crown fire, which has the potential to spread beyond the project area. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Scenic Resources

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

The proposed project area offers great scenic resources to those near and far. Since access for the 

general public is restricted, the main users of the area are tribal members and members of the 

Chilili Land Grant. 

The Sandia Mountains are highly valued for their scenic quality and current users enjoy many 

scenic vistas and varied landscapes. The mountains are located in the Mexican Highland section 

of the Basin and Range physiographic province (USFS 1999). Landscapes range from lower

elevation grasslands to piñon-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine forests at higher elevations. 

Mixed conifer forests are also found scattered throughout the project area. The current forest 

structure in the project area is dense and uniform in terms of age structure, which may impede 

upon natural vistas. 

Due to a lack of formal vegetation management, the landscape is predominantly natural 

appearing, with few road or infrastructural developments. Native flora and fauna dominate, and 

there are numerous opportunities for wildlife viewing. 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment

Forest Plan – Visual Quality Objectives

The forest plan utilized the USFS Visual Management System (VMS) to determine visual quality 

objectives for all NFS lands within the Cibola NF&Gs (USFS 1974). Visual quality objectives 

(VQOs) are designed to integrate the public’s concern for scenic quality (sensitivity levels) with 

the diversity and scenic attractiveness of the natural features (variety classes.) These objectives 

describe the degree of acceptable alteration of the natural landscape based on the importance of 

aesthetics. (USFS 1974) 

VQOs are used to describe the degree of alteration that may occur to the visual resource on lands 

within the Cibola NF&Gs’ management areas:

• Retention – This VQO provides for management activities that are not visually evident. 

Under retention, activities may only repeat form, line, color, and texture that are 

frequently found in the characteristic landscape. Changes in their qualities of size, 

amount, intensity, direction, pattern, etc., should not be evident (approximately 500 acres 

in the analysis area). 

• Partial Retention – Management activities must remain visually subordinate to the 

characteristic landscape. Associated visual impacts in form, line, color, and texture must 

be reduced as soon after project completion as possible but within the first year 

(approximately 7,200 acres in the analysis area).

The Isleta CFRP analysis area is located in Management Areas 2, 11, and 15 as specified in the 

forest plan (1985). The current visual management direction was developed using the VMS. 

These management areas provide for a range of VQOs across the landscape within the project 

area. The VQOs range from partial retention to retention within the project area, where partial 

retention is 93.5 percent of the project area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 143

The following VQOs were assigned to Management Area 2 (which includes all of the 

nonwilderness acres on the Sandia RD): 

• 11,996 acres retention

• 28,623 acres partial retention

• 2,666 acres modification

The following VQOs were assigned to Management Area 11: 

• 3,214 acres retention

• 39,469 acres partial retention

• 59,747 acres modification

The following VQOs were assigned to Management Area 15: 

• 2,105 acres retention

• 23,199 acres partial retention

• 25,318 acres modification

Cumulative Effects Area

The cumulative effects area for scenic resources includes views from the Tranquillo Pines 

residents that border the Cibola NF&Gs. The project area can be viewed from these locations. 

Viewers in these locations often have high concern for scenic quality. Because of the high 

concentration of residents adjacent to the project area, the visual resources of the project area are 

important to their experience and perceptions.

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be no perceived change to scenic resources, though the current 

dense structure of the forest may continue to impinge upon natural vistas. In the event of an 

uncharacteristic wildfire in the project area, the burn scar associated with the fire may be 

perceived negatively by some users. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under alternative B, there would be some temporary and more long-term changes to scenic 

resources. Since scenic beauty is a subjective parameter, the perceived impact would vary by user.

The fuel break area proposed around the Pueblo and Chilili would be thinned to a basal area of 50 

square feet per acre with a removal of both understory and overstory canopy equating to 

approximately 50 percent reduction in tree density. This would result in a much more open forest 

structure and greater visibility on both sides of the Pueblo boundary, impacting Pueblo users and 

adjacent private landowners. Treatment of meadow encroachment would create equally open 

areas with significant changes in visibility and scenic resources, but with accompanying increases 

in herbaceous species diversity and landscape character. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Treatment areas would be characterized, at least on a temporary basis, by thinning slash, cutstumps, and disturbed ground resembling a managed landscape in contrast to the unaltered 

landscape currently exhibited. For some this altered appearance may be perceived as diminished 

scenic beauty. Following treatment, however, slash cleanup and regeneration of the understory 

vegetation layer would mask some of the initial disturbance and improve landscape variability, 

character, and visibility.

Prescribed burns have been found to negatively impact scenic beauty on a temporary basis due to 

charring of flora and soils; within 5 years scenic resources are expected to be enhanced as a result 

of regeneration and increased species diversity and varied structure (Rosenberger and Smith 

1998). Prescribed fires are likely to impact scenic resources to a lesser extent than more 

uncharacteristic wildfire that would have longer lasting impacts. Pile burning would be limited to 

isolated areas and is likely to only minimally impact scenic resources. 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences 

The following discussion describes expected visual changes to the landscape in the short term (1 

to 5 years) and in the long term (more than 6 years). Visual impacts of treatments are determined 

by the type and magnitude of treatments being implemented. The primary goal is reducing 

density and removing ladder fuels. The impact is most evident in the immediate foreground, 

where details such as stumps and slash are discernible. In distant foreground and middle ground 

views, the change is most evident during winter months, when the contrast with snow makes the 

density reduction more apparent. Treatments would maintain greater irregularity in canopy levels, 

maintaining textural variety in the short and long term, especially as viewed from Tranquillo 

Pines. 

When total basal area is reduced to below 80 square feet per acre, the disturbance becomes 

visually dominant in the immediate foreground and foreground views, opening the stand to more 

light, longer views, and less sense of enclosure. In immediate foreground views, stumps are 

evident, ground disturbance is increased, and slash begins to dominate the view. In foreground to 

middle ground views, openings created are apparent but do not dominate the view. 

Slash has been shown to have a high negative impact on visual quality (Rosenberger and Smith 

1998). During harvest operations, where slash debris and ground disturbance is evident, visitors 

would likely feel that visual quality has been reduced. 

Viewers may perceive loss of scenic beauty in middle ground views. The angle that the harvested

area is viewed and the amount removed correlates with the perception of reduction of scenic 

quality. Orland et al. (1993) found that the foreground and middle ground views of treatments 

were preferred to the no action alternative because of the accelerated forest recovery when 

decreasing density. 

Firewood Removal 

Where vehicles would be used to access the harvested trees for firewood, there may be some 

ground disturbance. In the immediate foreground this appears as disrupted forest litter (fallen 

needles, leaves, and other natural debris) and exposed soil, which is often lighter in appearance to 

the surrounding area. During the period where trees are being cut and removed, residual slash 

would be visible. This would give a coarse textural quality to the ground, until ground cover has 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 145

been established. It is anticipated that within 5 years, the color contrast created by the ground 

disturbance would be reduced as normal forest litter is deposited and ground cover has been 

established. 

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would result in little perceived change. Uncharacteristic wildfire is a 

greater risk in the no action alternative. If a large fire or series of fires occur, views of a fire 

altered landscape may begin to dominate. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action) 

The openings created by reducing the vegetation density would be visible from area subdivisions 

and trails. The line created in the forest canopy cover by treating to the project boundary would 

likely be visible from Tranquillo Pines, since greater than 50 percent of the stand would be 

removed. This would provide a linear contrast from the adjacent forest cover in the U.S. 

Department of Defense Withdrawal Area and residential areas. 

In the piñon-juniper forested areas in the northern Manzano project area, total tree densities (trees 

greater than 5 inches d.r.c.) range from 25 to 888 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an 

average of 1,890 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. In the David Canyon project area, total 

tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches d.r.c.) range from 62 to 537 trees per acre. In addition, 

stands have an average of 2,294 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. There would be an 

approximately 45 to 87 percent reduction in the tree cover per acre. This would result in a much 

more open forest appearance, especially since clumps would be maintained. The clumpy nature of 

the treatment would be more natural, but would leave large open areas between clumps. Most 

people who are familiar with the area from the residential areas or area trails would perceive a 

substantial change from the continuous canopy in the existing condition. 

In the ponderosa forest areas in the northern Manzano project area, total tree densities (trees 

greater than 5 inches d.b.h.) range from 34 to 1,288 trees per acre. In addition, stands have an 

average of 1,758 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. In the David Canyon project area, total 

tree densities (trees greater than 5 inches d.b.h.) range from 109 to 451 trees per acre. In addition, 

stands have an average of 3,082 trees per acre less than 5 inches d.b.h.. There would be an 

approximately a 47 to 82 percent reduction in the tree cover per acre. As with the piñon-juniper 

forested area, this would result in a much more open appearance with open expanses between the 

clumps. 

Stumps, slash, and ground disturbance would dominate the view in the immediate foreground of 

area trails where they cross through treatment areas. This proposed action would change the 

undeveloped character until stumps have aged and slash has been treated or has diminished over 

time. A decrease in the sense of solitude and diminished scenic quality would likely occur while 

traveling area trails. Viewers may perceive diminished scenic quality in this area until slash has 

been removed or decomposed, and the ground cover has reestablished in the treatment area. 

Mitigation would not be applied to the non-NFS trails. Since many of these are frequently used 

by local residents, they are likely to perceive diminished quality. These trails may not be usable 

upon completion of the project. For anyone who uses these trails frequently, this is likely to 

displace the users of these trails. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

The existing landscape character is predominantly natural appearing to natural evolving away 

from residential and recreation developments. Near residential areas, the landscape is influenced 

by the rural development character within view of the homes. The landscape character would 

change from natural evolving and natural appearing to an altered landscape with a managed 

appearance, at least in the short term for up to 10 years. For people who prefer the appearance of 

an unmanaged landscape, this would decrease the scenic quality. 

Trail users in this area would likely see the treatment activities and the visual impacts during and 

after completion. Mitigations would be applied along system trails within the project boundary. 

Viewing thinned areas, including slash and downed trees, burned slash piles, and hearing chain

saws during activities would likely reduce their sense of solitude. 

Prescribed burns have been found to negatively impact scenic beauty in the short term, but with 

ground vegetation recovery, can enhance scenic beauty within 5 years (Rosenberger and Smith 

1998). Prescribed fire causes short- and long-term visual impacts, and may begin to dominate the 

view as the size of the area burned increases. Where prescribed fire is limited to slash reduction, 

there are isolated areas of burned piles evident. Once these piles have been scattered, there may 

be some short-term evidence of darkened litter and soil that would be reduced within 5 years and 

generally only be noticeable within the immediate foreground. Where broadcast burning is used 

to reduce slash, visual impacts include charred bark of standing trees and downed logs, and a 

blackened appearance to the ground plane and burned understory plants. The visual impacts 

would be reduced within 2 years, with regeneration of ground cover plants and deposition of 

forest litter over the burned sites. Charred bark, limbs, and other features may be visible for many 

years. 

Fire effects are seen as a natural phenomenon by most visitors, expressing strong support for 

prescribed natural fire policies. While fire was considered to have diminished scenic values, the 

presence of fire did not adversely affect visitor satisfaction (Love and Watson 1992). Light 

prescribed fires are perceived to enhance scenic quality for up to 5 years (Taylor and Daniel 

1983). 

The VQOs are expected to be met upon completion of the project.

Alternative C 

The direct and indirect effects for alternative C would be the same as described for alternative B, 

except in that the residual stand structure for alternative C would not create large open areas 

between clumps.

Cumulative Effects Across Jurisdictions 

No Action 

The impacts to the cumulative effects area are similar to the direct effects from the project. No 

action would result in little perceived change. Uncharacteristic wildfire is a greater risk in the no 

action alternative. If a large fire or series of fires occur, views of a fire altered landscape may 

begin to dominate. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 147

Proposed Action 

The proposed action may lead to a perceived diminished scenic quality for residents and travelers 

who are familiar with the area. The casual observer would likely not notice the changes as viewed 

from a distance. 

Alternative C 

Alternative C may lead to a diminished scenic quality for residents and travelers who are familiar 

with the area. However, the proposed action under alternative C would be a thinning from below 

while favoring trees with the healthiest crowns so the residual stand structure would appear less 

unchanged than alternative B, which would create large openings between clumps of trees. The 

casual observer would likely not notice the changes as viewed from a distance. 

Mitigation

To meet visual quality objectives within the immediate foreground areas (up to 300 feet) adjacent 

to area trails and residential areas, slash treatments would be as follows:

• Stumps would be cut to a 6-inch height throughout the project area. Within the immediate 

foreground areas (up to 300 feet) of trails, the face cut of stumps would be directed away 

from the trail, where possible. 

• Piles created in the immediate foreground would be burned to achieve 95 percent or more 

consumption, and following burning, unconsumed slash would be scattered and the 

ground would be seeded with the approved seed mixture for this area. The burning of 

piles created within the immediate foreground between June and September of any year 

should be burned in September to November of that same year unless fuel or weather 

conditions are not conducive to attainment of the 95 percent consumption objective. 

These piles would be burned the following spring as soon as conditions permit. Piles 

created during a winter harvest operation would not be burned until the following 

September to November period. 

• For alternative B, slash would be scattered within the foreground of area trails and 

residences to reduce visual impacts. 

Transportation

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment 

The transportation system within the analysis area is composed primarily of Forest Service 

maintenance level 2 and 3 NFS roads for alternatives B and C. Tables 42 and 43 list the roads to 

be used for this project. There is no difference in the transportation system between alternatives B 

and C for this project. The David Canyon and North Manzano project areas are included in 

alternatives B and C. 

A maintenance level 3 NFS road is open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard 

passenger cars. User comfort and convenience are low priorities. NFS roads in this maintenance 

level are typically low speed, single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. A maintenance level 2 

NFS road is open for use by high-clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles. In addition, there are a 

number of NFS roads that are considered maintenance level 1. These roads are not open to 

vehicle traffic and have been blocked from entry by either a gate or some other barricade.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Roads within the project area are defined as either NFS roads or unauthorized roads. There are 

approximately 34 miles of NFS roads within the David Canyon and North Manzano project area.

A NFS road is wholly or partly within, or adjacent to, and serving the National Forest System 

which is necessary for the protection, administration, and utilization of the National Forest 

System and the use and development of its resources. NFS roads have a maintenance level 

assigned to them in order to set scheduled maintenance treatments. 

An unauthorized road is a road or trail that is not a NFS road or trail or a temporary road or trail 

and is not included in a forest transportation atlas. There are 11 miles of unauthorized road within 

the North Manzano project area. Unauthorized roads exist in varying levels of use based on 

surface condition and types of use. 

David Canyon Existing Conditions

Raven Road from New Mexico Highway 337 is a county maintained road that gives access to the 

north part of the project area and is a double lane, paved road for 1.62 miles until you approach 

Mars Court Trailhead. There are no outlying issues using the Raven Road for access. 

NFS Road 530 coinicident with Trail No. 05530 is a single lane, native surfaced maintenance 

level 2 road that leads into the project area from Raven Road and is 2.32 miles. NFS Road 530 is 

only open to motorcycles per the “Sandia Ranger District Motor Vehicle Use Map.” 

NFS Road 335 coincident with Trail No. 05335 (3.75 miles) and NFS Road 106 (3.36 miles) from

NFS Road 530 lead to focused areas of the project. The north section of NFS Road 106 

coinicident with Trail No. 05106 (1.4 miles) is only open to motorcycles per the “Sandia Ranger 

District Motor Vehicle Use Map.” 

NFS Roads 335, 530, and 106 have not been maintained recently and are narrow in some areas 

with a roadway average of 12 feet. It has some roadside ditches but not the entire length of the 

road. There is no noticeable surfacing and minimal turnouts. Roadside and overhead brushing is 

needed for the entire length of the roadway. Sections of this roadway need to be reconditioned for 

the use of log trucks, including proper turnouts, drainage features, ditches, culverts, and road base 

course in certain areas. High-clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles using these access routes have 

no problems during dry conditions, but are not recommended during wet conditions to prevent 

resource damage.

North Manzano Division Existing Conditions

Maintenance level 3 NFS roads within this project area are a portion of NFS Road 55 (2 miles) 

from New Mexico Highway 55 to NFS Road 321. NFS Road 55 from New Mexico Highway 55 

is a processed material surfaced single lane road that intersects NFS Road 321. There are no 

outlying issues using FR 55 for commercial vehicle access. 

NFS maintenance level 2 roads within this project area are NFS Road 321 from New Mexico 

Highway 55, NFS Roads 55, 321C, 321D1, 321D1A, 321D2, 321D2A, 321D3, and 321E from 

NFS Road 321; NFS Road 260 from NFS Road 321; and 260A, 260A1 from NFS Road 260. 

NFS Road 321 has several drainage features installed on the southeast portion of this road from 

NFS Road 260 to New Mexico Highway 55, making it only passable for high-clearance vehicles. 

NFS Roads 321C, 321D1, 321D1A, 321D2, 321D2A, 321D3, and 321E from NFS Road 321, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 149

NFS Road 260 from NFS Road 321, and 260A, 260A1 from NFS Road 260 share similar 

characteristics of NFS Road 321 and are only recommended for high-clearance, four-wheel drive 

vehicles. These roadways have not been maintained recently, are narrow in some areas, and have

tight curve radii with a roadway average of 12 feet. It has some roadside ditches but not the entire 

length of the road. It does not have any noticeable surfacing and minimal turnouts. Roadside and 

overhead brushing is needed for the entire length of the roadway. Sections of NFS Road 321 from 

NFS Road 55 to NFS Road 260 need to be reconditioned for the use of log trucks including 

proper turnouts, drainage features, ditches, culverts, and road base course in certain areas. Highclearance, four-wheel drive vehicles have no issues using these access routes during dry 

conditions, but are not recommended during wet conditions to prevent resource damage.

There are 11 miles of unauthorized roads to be used from NFS Road 321 and NFS Road 260 

within this project. At the conclusion of this project, these roads and other mechanized travel 

ways within the project area will be maintained, closed, decommissioned, or obliterated.

Product Removal Route Information

Surface types for removal routes identified for timber removal for the action alternatives consist 

of asphalt pavement, crushed aggregate, and improved native (unprocessed pit run surfacing) and 

native material (table 42 and table 43). 

Table 42. David Canyon haul route summary (miles) 

Total Asphalt Improved Maintenance Haul Route Aggregate Native Haul Pavement Native Level Miles

FR 530 Coincident - - 2.3 - - 2.3 w/Trail No. 05530 

FR 335 Coincident - - - 3.75 - 3.75 w/Trail No. 05335

NFS Road 106 - - - 2 - 2 

FR 106 Coincident - - - 1.4 - 1.4 w/Trail No. 05106

Total Miles 9 

Table 43. North Manzano Division haul route summary (miles) 

Asphalt Improved Haul Route Aggregate Pavement Native

NFS Road 55 2 

NFS Road 321 8 

NFS Road 260 3 

NFS Road 321D3

NFS Road 321D1A

NFS Road 321D1

NFS Road 321E

NFS Road 321D2

NFS Road 321D2A

Native

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

Total Maintenance Haul Level Miles

2 

8 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Total Asphalt Improved Maintenance Haul Route Aggregate Native Haul Pavement Native Level Miles

NFS Road 321E 0.2 0.2 

NFS Road 260A 1 1 

NFS Road 260A1 0.5 0.5 

Unauthorized 11 11 

Total Miles 34.7 

Maintenance 

All removal routes would require maintenance work. All removal routes have been assigned a 

level of maintenance needs, described below, to have the road to its designated maintenance level. 

• Low: Work may consist of brushing roadside vegetation, falling danger trees, grading the 

roadbed, cleaning ditches and culvert inlets and outlets, and removing slough and slide 

material. These standard maintenance activities occur on all roads when commercial 

activity occurs or on a rotating basis determined by use and need.

• Moderate: Includes work described above with the addition of placing aggregate 

surfacing, installing turnouts, and replacing culverts.

• High: All the above mentioned work items could be included with the addition of 

repairing major road failures in riparian areas and road realignments.

Table 44 displays a summary of miles of maintenance needs for alternatives B and C.

Table 44. Maintenance summary (miles)

Haul Routes Low Moderate High

David Canyon

Raven Road – – – 

Trail No. 05530 coincident with NFS Road 530 2.0 – – 

NFS Road 335 4.0 – – 

NFS Road 106 2.0 – – 

Trail No. 05106 coincident with NFS Road 106 1.0 

North Manzano

NFS Road 55 2 – – 

NFS Road 321 – 8 – 

NFS Road 260 – 3 – 

NFS Road 321D3 – 1 – 

NFS Road 321D1A – 2 – 

NFS Road 321D1 – 2 – 

NFS Road 321E – 2 – 

NFS Road 321D2 – 1 – 

NFS Road 321D2A – 1 – 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 151

Haul Routes Low Moderate High

NFS Road 321E – .2 – 

NFS Road 260A – 1 – 

NFS Road 260A1 – 0.5 – 

Unauthorized – – 11 

Total 11 21.7 11 

There are approximately 44 miles of existing road within the project area. In total, 11 miles of 

road would require low maintenance and 21.7 miles would need to be upgraded to a moderate 

standard. Unauthorized roads would require high maintenance before used to access timber stands 

for thinning. 

Costs for Roadwork

Table 45 below is a summary of transportation costs for all road maintenance. The cost for low 

maintenance is estimated at $1,000 per mile, moderate at $3,000 per mile, and $5,000 per mile for 

high maintenance. 

T able 45. Transportation summary

Maintenance/Reconstruction

cost 

Total Maintenance Total 

Levels Miles Costs per Mile Amount

Low 11 $1,000 $ 11,000

Moderate 21.7 $3,000 $ 65,100

High 11 $5,000 $ 55,000

Total $131,100 

Summary

Haul route access to David Canyon has shown to be only appropriate for firewood and not 

commercial vehicles because of existing road conditions on NFS Roads 530, 335, and 106. These 

routes would need to be upgraded to a low reconstruction level to accommodate commercial 

vehicles providing safety to all users of the roads. Present conditions are only suitable for highclearance, four-wheel drive vehicles during dry conditions. Access roads have to be closed during 

wet conditions to prevent further damage to the existing road structure and or resource damage.

North Manzano haul route access has shown to be only appropriate for firewood and not 

commercial vehicles because of existing road conditions on NFS Roads 321 and 260. NFS Road 

321 from NFS Road 55 to NFS Road 260 has presently shown to be passable by high-clearance, 

four-wheel drive vehicles, but possible to commercial vehicles once the road has been upgraded 

to a moderate standard, including turnouts for this section of road to accommodate all users.

Existing conditions would not allow for both logging trucks and public traffic due to poor sight 

distances, inadequate surfacing, failing drainage features, and improper turnouts. 

NFS Road 321 from NFS Road 260 to New Mexico Highway 55 is not recommended for 

commercial vehicles but rather high-clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles due to the severity of 

the existing road conditions and numerous grade dips in place to prevent resource damage on this 

section of roadway. NFS Road 260 from NFS Road 321 to the north area of the project site is 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

only suitable for high-clearance, four-wheel drive vehicles with a native surface and a moderate 

standard required for road maintenance/reconstruction. NFS Roads 260 and 321 may have to be 

closed during wet conditions to prevent further damage to the existing road structure and/or 

resource damage.

At the conclusion of this project, all unauthorized roads and other mechanized travel ways within 

the Northern Manzano Division to be used for haul routes will be maintained, closed, 

decommissioned, or obliterated. 

Transportation Environmental Consequences

Alternative A

Alternate A is the “no action alternative.” Under this alternative, this project would not be 

implemented. There would be no changes in the use or maintenance of the transportation system.

The opportunity to use commercial activities to accomplish road maintenance and 

decommissioning of unauthorized routes would be foregone. 

Alternatives B and C

The transportation system used for this project would include NFS roads, trails, and unauthorized 

roads. There would be no new construction of roads, temporary roads, or any reconstruction 

under these alternatives. The following are potential environmental consequences for the 

transportation system. 

• Overhead brushing will occur where needed.

• Roads will be closed during wet conditions to prevent damage to the existing road 

structure and to prevent erosion or sediment displacement. 

• All routes will require standard Forest Service road maintenance to prevent further 

resource damage and to ensure safety for users and the public. 

Approximately 11 miles of unauthorized roads located between NFS Road 321 and NFS Road 

260 would be maintained, closed, decommissioned, or obliterated. Where forest products are 

removed using commercial methods, the contracts or permits would provide a means to fund all 

or a portion of the needed road maintenance and treatment of unauthorized roads.

Socioeconomic Resources

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

Limited data are available to describe the Pueblo’s and Chilili’s social and economic 

characteristics; hence, Federal data collection efforts are presented here, most importantly, the 

decennial census and the American Community Survey (ACS). The ACS now includes 607 

American Indian areas, Alaska Native areas, and Hawaiian homelands. The Pueblo is one of the 

select areas included in the ACS. The 2005–2009 multiyear estimates upon which the descriptive 

statistics that appear here are based were collected over a 60-month period.

The permanent population of the Pueblo, as estimated by the U.S. Census Bureau (2000), is 3,166 

with a median age of the residents at 31.1 years. The Pueblo’s median household income in the 

past 12 months (in 2009 inflation adjusted dollars) was estimated to be $40,242. While estimates 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 153

of the unemployment rate are not available for people who reside in the Pueblo, 75.9 percent of 

households in the Pueblo had income from salaries or wages, 12.7 percent had self-employment 

income, 24.3 percent had Social Security income, 5.9 percent had Supplemental Security Income, 

18.7 percent had retirement income, 9.7 percent had income from interest, dividends, or net 

rental, and 15.3 percent had some other type of income. The median value of owner occupied 

residences is $81,200, which is lower than the New Mexico median of $108,100. Most of the 

Pueblo’s population is of one race alone; 87.8 percent are American Indian or Alaska Native and 

8 percent are white. The remainder of the population is some race other than American 

Indian/Alaska Native or white or of two or more races. Of the population 25 years and over, 38

percent are high school graduates or have completed the General Educational Development 

(GED) Program or alternative, 23.7 percent have completed some college (no degree), 9.4 percent

have an associate’s degree, 11 percent have a bachelor’s degree, 4.2 percent have a master’s 

degree, and 1.7 percent have a professional school degree.

The permanent population of Chilili is 133 and the median age is 27.8 (U.S. Census Bureau 

2000). The median household income in 1999 was $43,571, which is greater than the New 

Mexico median of $41,509. Approximately 29 percent of Chilili residents live below the poverty 

level (U.S. Census Bureau 2000). 

Any differences in data presented reflect different sources of information used by the separate 

agencies. 

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment

Environmental Justice 

Executive Order 12898 (Office of the President 1994) directs Federal agencies to focus attention on 

the human health and environmental conditions in minority1 and low income communities2

. The 

purpose of Executive Order 12898 is to identify and address, as appropriate, disproportionately high 

and adverse human health or environmental effects3 on minority and low income populations.

Environmental justice means that, to the extent practicable and permitted by law, all populations are 

provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are allowed to share in the 

benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a disproportionately high and adverse 

manner by government programs and activities affecting human health or the environment.

 

1 Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian or Alaska Native; 

Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic (USDA DR5600-002, 1997).

2 Low income population means any readily identifiable group of low income persons who live in geographic 

proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons 

who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities. Low income populations may be identified using data 

collected, maintained, and analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty 

thresholds from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty (USDA 

DR5600-002, 1997).

3 Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this Departmental Regulation include interrelated social and 

economic effects (USDA DR5600-002, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal 

agency decision makers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with 

respect to minority and low income populations4 and identify alternatives that would avoid or 

mitigate those impacts.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a 

broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic or 

social impacts on minority communities, low income communities or Indian Tribes...when those 

impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997). 

Table 46 reports the ethnic distributions within Bernalillo and Torrance Counties, the State of New 

Mexico, and the United States. Both counties have a higher proportion of Hispanic and American 

Indian residents than the United States. Due to the high proportion of Hispanic and American Indian 

residents in the study area, it has been determined that these ethnic groups meet the environmental 

justice requirements of a minority population meaningfully greater than the general population (the 

general population referenced is the population of the Nation). Therefore, decision makers should pay 

careful attention to potential impacts of management actions on those ethnic groups.

Table 46. Ethnicity 

Total 

Population

by county,

White

 state, a

Black

nd nation, 

American 

Indian/ 

Alaska 

2010

Two Hispanic White, or 

or not More Latino Hispanic

Area

Bernalillo 

County 662,564 69.4% 3.0% 

Native

4.8% 

Asian

2.3% 

Hawaiian/

Other 

Pacific 

Islander

0.1% 

Races

4.4% 47.9% 40.5% 

Torrance 

County 16,383 76.1% 1.3% 2.3% 0.4% 0.0% 4.3% 39.1% 56.0% 

New 

Mexico 2,059,179 68.4% 2.1% 9.4% 1.4% 0.1% 4.3% 46.3% 40.5% 

United 

States 308,745,538 72.4% 12.6% 0.9% 4.8% 0.2% 2.9% 16.3% 63.7% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, 2010 accessed 10/20/2011

Table 47 reports the number of individuals below the poverty level and poverty rates in 2000 and 

2009. Poverty rates in Bernalillo and Torrance Counties, the State, and the Nation increased from 

2000 to 2009. In 2009, Torrance County had the highest poverty rate at 24.5 percent and 

Bernalillo County was lower at 15.6 percent. Both counties and the State had poverty rates higher 

than the national average. Such rates suggest that a substantial proportion of the existing 

population should be considered as a low income group. Therefore, decisions regarding future 

management actions on the Cibola NF&Gs should carefully assess the effects on low income 

populations.

 

4 Minority populations/communities means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in geographic 

proximity to and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other geographically dispersed/transient persons 

who will be similarly affected by USDA programs or activities (USDA DR5600-002, 1997).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 155

Table 47. Poverty status by county, state, 

2000

and nation, 2000 and 

2009

2009

Area

Bernalillo County

Number

71,582 

Percent

13.0% 

Number

98,583 

Percent

15.6% 

Torrance County 3,639 22.5% 3,889 24.5% 

New Mexico 309,103 17.3% 359,030 18.2% 

United States

urce: U.S. Census Bureau, Small Area Income

31,581,086 11.3% 42,868,163 14.3% 

So and Poverty Estimates 2009, accessed 10/20/2011

In cases where management decisions are expected to create jobs and income in the local 

economy, it is unlikely that there would be a disproportionate adverse effect on minority and low 

income populations. Individuals in those populations may benefit from any increase in jobs and 

income in the area. Alternatively, future management decisions that may negatively affect local 

employment and income conditions should carefully assess the distribution of effects across 

population demographics, paying careful attention to Hispanic, American Indian, and low income 

populations.

Demographic Conditions and Trends 

It is useful to understand the components of population change because it offers insight into the 

causes of growth or decline. For example, if a large portion of population growth is from inmigration, it would be helpful to understand the drivers behind the trend, whether people are 

moving into the area for jobs, quality of life, or both. If a large portion of population decline is 

from out-migration, it is similarly important to understand the reasons, including the loss of 

employment in specific industries, or youth leaving for education or employment opportunities. 

Table 48 shows the population change from 2000 to 2009 for the aggregated reporting area 

(Bernalillo and Torrance Counties). 

Bernalillo County is highly urbanized and contains the city of Albuquerque. Torrance County, 

although immediately adjacent, has a more rural character and low population. It is useful to 

consider the counties individually and compare them with Albuquerque and the State (table 49). 

Table 48. Components of population change for the aggregated reporting area, 

2000–2009

Metric 2000 2009 Change 2000–2009 Percent Change

Population 574,097 659,002 84,905 15% 

Natural Change – – 42,500 72% 

Net Migration – – 47,200 28% 

Source: Headwaters Economic Profile System, accessed 10/22/2011 

Table 49. Population change, Bernalillo and Torrance Counties and the State, 2000–2010

Area 2000 2010 Change 2000–2010 Percent Change

Bernalillo County 556,678 662,564 105,886 19.0% 

Torrance County 16,911 16,383 -528 -3.1% 

City of Albuquerque 448,607 545,852 95,245 21.7% 

New Mexico 1,819,046 2,059,179 240,133 13.2% 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, accessed 10/20/2011
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Within Torrance County, the affected area includes the small Spanish land grant communities of 

Manzano, Torreon, and Tajique. The town of Chilili, also a Spanish land grant community is 

situated within Bernalillo County, and Isleta Pueblo (land grant) and Indian Reservation falls 

within both counties. Seemingly remote, these communities are located east of the Manzano and 

Manzanita Mountains but are immediately adjacent to the Albuquerque metro area. Mean travel 

time to work indicates that many of these residents are commuting to Albuquerque for work. 

Demographic statistics for small communities are frequently incomplete or unavailable. 

Population statistics for 2010 are not yet available for Manzano, Torreon, Tajique, or Chilili, nor 

is the commute time for Isleta Pueblo. Table 50 shows the population trends for these 

communities. 

T able 50. Population trends for land grant communities

Area 2000 2005–2009 

(estimate)* 2010 Mean Travel Time to Work (minutes)

Manzano 54 17 – 35 

Torreon 244 269 – 50 

Tajique 148 142 – 91 

Chilili 113 147 – 44 

Isleta Pueblo 2,201 2,789 2,489 – 

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, American Fact Finder, accessed 10/20/2011

* 2005–2009 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.

Economic Conditions and Trends

Torrance and Bernalillo Counties have experienced a 39.2 percent increase in nonlabor income 

between 2000 and 2009. An aging population, stock market and investment growth, and a highly 

mobile population are some of the reasons behind rapid growth in nonlabor income. The growth 

in nonlabor income can be an indication that a place is an attractive place to live and retire. The

in-migration of people who bring investment and retirement income with them is associated with 

a high quality of life, good health care facilities, and affordable housing. Because of these factors 

and the good climate, many U.S. Air Force personnel return and retire in the area. 

Public land resources are one of the reasons the area is able to attract and retain nonlabor sources 

of income and are important to local economic well-being by contributing to economic growth 

and per capita income.

Table 51. Components of personal income change, 2000–2009 for the aggregated counties 

(Bernalillo and Torrance) 

Change Percent Change Component 2000 2009 2000–2009 2000–2009

Total personal income 19,963,389 24,532,932 4,569,544 22.0% 

Labor earnings 13,719,505 2,119,192 2,119,192 15.4% 

Nonlabor income 6,243,884 8,694,235 2,450,351 39.2% 

Dividends, interest, and rent 3,762,619 4,161,310 398,692 10.6% 

Transfer payments 2,481,265 4,532,924 2,051,660 82.7% 

Source: Headwaters Economic Profile System, accessed 10/22/2011

Values are in 2010 U.S. dollars.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 157

Table 52 below lists the total number of jobs in the aggregated study area by industry. 

Government supports the largest percentage of jobs in the two counties and consists of Federal, 

military, State, and local government employment and government enterprise with a 12.3 percent

increase in employment between 2001 and 2009. 

The second largest industry is health care and social assistance, followed by retail trade; both of 

these are service related industries. Forestry, fishing, and related activities are a nonservice related 

industry with relatively low total employment, 353 jobs in 2009. However, this industry 

experienced a 50.2 percent increase in total employment during the reporting period. 

Table 52. Employment by industry 

Torrance) 

2001–2009 for the aggregated counties (Bernalillo and 

Industry

Total employment (number of jobs)

2001

397,487 

2009

427,743 

Change Percent 

2001–2009 Change 

2001–2009

30,256 7.6 

Nonservice related 50,027 46,159 -3,868 -7.7 

Farm 1,575 1,248 -327 -20.8 

Forestry, fishing, and related activities 235 353 118 50.2 

Mining (including fossil fuels) 756 1,842 1,086 143.6 

Construction 26,577 27,638 1,061 4.0 

Manufacturing 20,884 15,078 -5,806 -27.8 

Services related 280,162 305,996 25,834 9.2 

Utilities 740 800 60 8.1 

Wholesale trade 15,027 13,224 -1,803 -12.0 

Retail trade 44,922 44,072 -850 -1.9 

Transportation and warehousing 9,742 8,891 -851 -8.7 

Information 11,287 9,972 -1,315 -11.7 

Finance and insurance 17,158 17,941 783 4.6 

Real estate and rental and leasing 13,213 19,083 5,870 44.4 

Professional and technical services 35,688 41,951 6,264 17.6 

Management of companies and enterprises 4,561 3,387 -1,174 -25.7 

Administrative and waste services 30,890 31,108 219 0.7 

Educational services 5,542 8,190 2,648 47.8 

Healthcare and social assistance 36,499 47,679 11,180 30.6 

Arts, entertainment, and recreation 7,058 8,913 1,855 26.3 

Accommodation and food services 30,220 31,190 970 3.2 

Other services, except public administration 17,615 19,594 1,979 11.2 

Government 67,045 75,302 8,257 12.3 

Source: Headwaters Economic Profile System, accessed 10/22/2011
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Methodology

TREAT is a modeling tool used to assist in the development of economic impacts. It uses a 

Microsoft Excel workbook as the interface between user inputs and data from existing IMPLAN 

models. The individual worksheets contain the formulas that drive the model. TREAT was 

designed to streamline data entry and preparation for the generation of economic impact tables to 

be used in CFRP proposals. The goal for this tool is to assist teams in estimating the economic 

impacts of restoration activities while providing a standard approach at the proposal stage.

Economic impact analysis investigates the effects of restoration activities on employment and 

income levels. The relative size of the economy plays an important role in the estimate of impacts 

on jobs and income. The reported impacts would occur within the specified region. Economic 

models were built using IMPLAN software. IMPLAN is an input-output model that tracks the 

activity within an economy. A change in economic stimulus ripples through the economy and can 

affect employment and income levels in a variety of sectors. For example, an increase in the level 

of timber harvesting allowed in a region will likely require logging companies to hire more labor 

to perform the additional work associated with the increased extraction levels. Such impacts to 

industries occurring from a change in local production are referred to as direct effects. In other 

words, these are the impacts (i.e. change in employment) resulting from the changes in 

expenditures and/or production values caused by a policy to increase the timber harvested in the 

region. 

In addition to hiring more labor, industries must meet technical requirements by purchasing more 

equipment, supplies, and other inputs to production. Some of these purchases will be made from 

other local industries; for example, additional fuel purchased by the logging companies at local 

gas stations increases the output in the oil and gas industry. Such impacts are called the indirect 

effects. Thus, the indirect effects are the changes in inter-industry purchases as they respond to 

the new demands of the directly affected industries. Another type of indirect effect is referred to 

as induced effects. Induced effects reflect changes in spending habits from individual households 

as income increases or decreases due to changes in production. For example, an increase in 

employment in the agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting sector will be filled by unemployed 

individuals in the region and/or the in-migration of new households. The increased income to 

those individuals will stimulate an increase in their demand for goods and services within the 

local area, which in turn could cause local companies to respond by increasing employment and 

output.

The jobs and labor income are average annual effects and are assumed to last the life of the 

project. The Isleta CFRP would create 18 total jobs and generate $628,067 over the life of the 

project, contingent of CFRP funding. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 159

T able 53. TREAT summary table, average annual impacts

L

i

Impacts Employment (Number of

Part and Full-time Jobs)

12.1 

Labor Income

Commercial forest projects $476,636 

Other project activities 2.1 $68,640 

USFS implementation and monitoring 3.7 $82,790 

Total project impacts 17.9 $628,067 

Source: TREAT, Cibola Forestry, October, 2011.

Note: Employment includes full, part-time, and temporary jobs.

abor Income is the value of wages and benefits plus proprietor’s income.

Other Project Activities: Ecosystem restoration, etc., are labor intensive and will produce higher employment

mpacts relative to commercial harvest activities, which are highly mechanized and are not as labor intensive.

V alues are in 2010 U.S. dollars.

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would result in no change to the socioeconomic conditions of the local 

communities, including the Pueblo and Chilili. Tribal members and Chilili residents would not 

have access to temporary seasonal jobs associated with the forestry project. They would also not 

be provided with firewood to heat their homes. For the Cibola NF&Gs, the no action alternative 

would result in no change to the affected environment as described above.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) and Alternative C

Implementation of the forest landscape treatments would contribute to the Pueblo’s economic 

well-being by creating jobs and meeting tribal member demand for forest products such as 

firewood. Full-time employment for the tribe’s 10-person fire/fuels crew and part-time 

employment for up to 10 seasonal crew members is projected in the completion of landscape 

treatments on reservation lands and in contracting these crew resources to complete treatments on 

the Cibola NF&Gs and on Chilili land. The fire/fuels crew is trained and able to work in a broad 

range of forest management activities, including timber falling, wildfire suppression, pile 

burning, lopping and scattering, forest stand exams, and forest equipment operation. Full-time 

employment is also created for a fleet manager and heavy equipment operator to maintain and 

repair vehicles, machinery, chain saws, hand tools, etc., and to operate heavy equipment used in 

forest treatments. 

The Pueblo relies on its trust relationship with the BIA for specialized forest management 

services including forest inventories and surveys, prescribed burning, and forest insect and 

disease detection/treatments. The Pueblo depends on its own public works department for road 

maintenance and assistance with erosion control.

The proposed action would result in short-term beneficial impacts to the socioeconomics of 

Chilili residents by meeting land grant member demand for forest products such as firewood. In 

addition, the proposed project would be eligible to compete for CFRP grant funds. If awarded, 

both the Pueblo and Chilili would receive up to $360,000 to implement the proposed action. With 

these funds, both entities would be able to build internal capacity for future forest restoration 

projects. This capacity building would result in long-term socioeconomic benefits. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

For the Cibola NF&Gs, the proposed action would not result in demographic changes, such as 

displacement of minorities, geographic changes in land use, or economic hardship such as an 

increase in taxes. The proposed action would provide a short-term employment opportunity for 

both tribal and land grant members. Wood product permits on USFS lands would be offered 

without prejudice toward any particular group, under Federal laws, regulations, and policies.

Cultural Resources

Federal regulations require that the Pueblo, Chilili, and USFS, in compliance with Section 106 of 

the National Historic Preservation Act, consider the effects of the proposed project on historic 

properties that are included in, or are eligible for inclusion in, the National Register of Historic 

Properties (NRHP). 

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

SWCA completed a pedestrian survey of 49-foot transects within the proposed project area 

between May 17 and June 23, 2010. 

Over the course of this extensive archaeological survey, 13 previously unidentified prehistoric 

and historic period archaeological sites were discovered, 3 previously identified archaeological 

sites were reexamined, and 184 isolated occurrences were encountered. Seven of the newly 

recorded sites contained prehistoric assemblages, three sites contained both prehistoric and 

historic assemblages, two sites contained historic assemblages, and one site contained an 

assemblage of unknown origin. Of these sites, five are recommended eligible for the NRHP, and 

eight are recommended not eligible. All three previously recorded sites are recommended not 

eligible to the NRHP.

In the case of all five sites recommended eligible to the NRHP, it is recommended that the Pueblo 

establish a 656-foot buffer around each of the site boundaries to avoid direct contact or indirect 

damage from the prescribed burning activities. The direct effects from the fire would directly 

damage the historic and archaeological integrity of the site area and the archaeological contents 

found within. The indirect effects from the burning activities may also severely damage the future 

potential for archaeological chromomeric dating and/or increase or further bury in-situ artifacts 

by topographic erosion. If these sites cannot be avoided, then it is recommended that 

archaeologists perform additional surface and subsurface testing to further investigate the scope 

and breadth of cultural properties present within the site boundaries. If previously unknown 

archaeological resources are uncovered during construction, it is recommended that work in that 

area should be halted and the New Mexico Historic Preservation Division should be notified.

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment

A detailed report of cultural resources can be found in appendix C. The archaeological resources 

located in the area are diverse and reflect the long-term use of the Manzano and Manzanita 

Mountains from prehistoric times to the early 19th century. The prehistoric sites reflect the 

lifeways of Archaic and Pueblo peoples, while the historic sites exhibit the periodic and long-term 

occupation of the region by mobile native groups (Athabascan), homesteaders, miners, loggers, 

and ranchers. These cultural resources include surface artifact scatters, intact features, and 

subsurface (potential or identified) cultural deposits that require management during the proposed 

project.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 161

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) – All Jurisdictions

There would be no effect to cultural resources as a result of the no action alternative.

Alternative B (Proposed Action) – All Jurisdictions

Project activities include thinning and/or burning of trees in specific project areas. Thinning 

activities include mastication, firewood collection, and commercial thinning, while burning 

activities include pile and broadcast burning. All sites located in all project areas have been

flagged and would be avoided during project activities. In the case of broadcast burning, sites 

would be flagged and fire control lines would be cut on the outside of site perimeters. If pile 

burning is selected, the material would be piled away from sites. 

Alternative C (Cibola NF&Gs Lands)

Project activities include thinning and/or burning of trees in specific project areas. Thinning 

activities include mastication, firewood collection, and commercial thinning, while burning 

activities include pile and broadcast burning.

There are a total of 16 eligible and/or not determined sites (13 previously recorded, 3 newly 

recorded) in the project area. All 16 sites located in all project areas would be flagged and 

avoided during project activities. In the case of broadcast burning, sites would be flagged and fire 

control lines would be cut on the outside of site perimeters. If pile burning is selected, the 

material would be piled away from sites. 

Findings

There would be no effect to cultural resources as a result of implementing alternative B or 

alternative C.

Recreation Resources

Pueblo and Chilili Affected Environment

Recreational opportunities throughout the project area vary by jurisdiction. The Pueblo portion of 

the project area is open to all tribal members for recreational and traditional activities, including 

hunting and wood gathering, but is closed to the public. The Chilili portion of the project area is 

open to land grant members only. All areas are accessible by road but there are minimal formal 

trails. All jurisdictions wish to keep access to users limited to protect the natural resources in the 

project area; therefore, road enhancements would be minimal.

Cibola NF&Gs Affected Environment

David Canyon Division

The trail system within the David Canyon analysis area is composed primarily of Forest Service 

class III trails in addition to Forest Service roads (discussed in the transportation report) that are 

utilized by trail users and, in some cases, are coincidentally designated as motorized trails 

(motorcycle) on the district motor vehicle use map. The trails within the project area are defined 

as either NFS trails or unauthorized trails. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

There are approximately 6.12 miles of NFS trails, 7.45 miles of NFS roads with coincident 

motorized (motorcycle) designation, and 3.5 miles of unauthorized trails within David Cany

Recreational use of trails and roads within David Canyon ranges from low to medium use 

depending on season and day of the week (based on personal observation). Primary use occu

from April to early November primarily on weekday afternoons/evenings and weekend days.

Users include hikers, mountain bikers, OHV users (motorcycle), and equestrians. 

Trails 05048, 05049, 05161, 05162, and 05238 are regularly maintained, are in good conditi

and incorporate many design features to minimize or eliminate erosion problems. Features 

include maximum average grade, undulation and proper treadway clearing, and brush remov

Coincident motorized routes with NFS roads, their condition and maintenance are covered in

transportation report.

The West Boundary Trail (unauthorized trail) is not regularly maintained but often traveled b

variety of users. It is anticipated that inclusion into the district trail system will occur during 

following completion of this project.

Other unauthorized trails may exist within the project area but are not documented.

Northern Manzano Division 

Because of this area’s distance from Albuquerque and amenities such as restaurants, hotels, a

shopping, most of those who recreate in this area are local residents.

The interior of the project area is accessed by level 2 maintenance roads (2-track, native mat

and unauthorized and decommissioned roads. There are no developed trails for hiking, horse

riding, or OHV use, and there are no campgrounds, picnic areas, or other developed recreatio

sites. The majority of recreation use includes hunting, OHV use, horseback riding, and dispe

camping (usually in conjunction with hunting and OHV use). Driving for pleasure is a year-r

activity (road conditions permitting) on NFSR 55 along its loop between Torreon and Tajiqu

especially when the Rocky Mountain maples change to their fall colors for a few weeks in la

September and early October. During this time, hundreds of vehicles per day drive between 

Tajique and 4th of July Campground to view the leaves.

The southern boundary of the project area is National Forest System Road (NFSR) 55 in Cañ

de Tajique (4th of July Canyon). Along the full length of this road are developed recreation si

trailheads for hiking and horseback riding, a private camp facility, and private residences. Th

road is used for traffic to these improvements. 

Pueblo and Chilili Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

Under alternative A, there would be little perceived change to current recreational use. In the

event of an uncharacteristic wildfire, there is potential that current users may be displaced du

damage to natural and scenic resources. Existing roads may need to be closed for resource 

protection and game species may be temporarily displaced, impacting those pursuing huntin

on. 

rs 

on, 

al. 

 the 

y a 

or 

nd 

erial) 

back 

n 

rsed 

ound 

e, 

te 

on 

tes, 

e 

e to 

g 

opportunities. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 163

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

Under alternative B, there could be some short-term impact to recreational users. Roads and trails 

may need to be closed to ensure public safety during periods of mechanized thinning and 

prescribed burning, and some areas may be temporarily closed for resource protection following 

treatment. Users on adjacent areas may be impacted by the sound of chain saws and other 

equipment during the extent of the project. Following project completion, recreational use is 

expected to return to normal. Hunting activities may be enhanced by the proposed treatment as 

understory forage utilized by game species is increased and areas are opened up, improving 

wildlife viewing from roads and trails. 

Cibola NF&Gs Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) – Combined for 

David Canyon and North Manzano Divisions

No action will result in little perceived change. No immediate impact on recreational visitors 

would be noticed. Catastrophic wildfire is a greater risk in the no action alternative. A wildland 

fire in the area would displace users, possibly for many years.

Alternatives B and C

David Canyon Division

Temporary closures of roads or trails (system and user/nonsystem) to recreation use are planned, 

displacing individuals for the duration of the closure. Some recreation visitors will shift their use 

to trail and recreation site locations outside the project boundary. It is anticipated that users will 

begin using the trails again once closures have ended. 

Once reopened, the reduction in vegetative cover may result in increased tread width and 

establishment of additional user trails.

Residents on adjacent lands are likely to hear chain saws and may observe noise, dust, and smoke 

during project treatments. This could be a concern to area residences. 

Direct effects include: Temporary closure of roads or trails to recreation use. Elimination of 

unofficial trails from resulting slash debris. 

Indirect effects include displacement of recreational visitors because of noise, dust, slash, and 

other harvest related effects in the vicinity of recreation sites and trails. Short-term reduction in 

visitation may also result from publicity through local and regional media about project area 

issues and actions. Some recreational visitors will shift their use to trail and recreation site 

locations outside the project boundary. Increased tread width and additional user trails are 

possible. 

Northern Manzano Division

Most of these effects would be sporadic or short lived, such as traffic, smoke, and noise. Other 

effects such as thinned and cleared areas would be maintained over time to retain the desired 

characteristics of the stands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project

Effects in the interior of the project area would include:

• Sounds of vehicles and equipment operating in specific areas under treatment. 

• Possible increase in OHV traffic and user conflicts while project area roads are improved 

and opened. 

• Possible difficulty in passing when vehicles meet on 2-track roads. 

• Sights of the operation, including skid trails, machinery, and slash. 

• Smoke from prescribed fires. 

• Some roads would be closed temporarily to public use during operations for safety. 

• Open viewsheds which could enhance visual enjoyment and hunting success. 

Effects along NFSR 55 would include:

• Those accessing Tajique Campground and private residences could encounter traffic from 

this project along NFSR 55 between Tajique and their respective turnoffs. 

• Those driving further west and south of the project area along NFSR 55 to access Fourth 

of July Campground, the Albuquerque, Cerro Blanco, and Bosque trailhead parking 

areas, and Inlow Baptist Camp and Convention Center (private) could encounter traffic 

from this project along NFSR 55 between Tajique and NFSR 321. 

• Those driving the road for pleasure could encounter traffic entering and exiting the 

project area via NFSR 55. 

• There would be an increase in noise and dust from the increased traffic. 

Cumulative effects include continued relatively low levels of persons hunting, driving for 

pleasure, camping, and horseback riding due to the decreasing populations of the communities 

between Chilili Land Grant and the town of Mountainair, as well as the distance to the 

Albuquerque Metro area. 

The use of OHV vehicles can be expected to increase slightly due to their increasing popularity. 

With implementation of the Travel Management Rule, roads and routes used for this project in the 

Northern Manzano Mountain Division would be designated for motorized use or restricted to 

administrative use only. OHV opportunities would decrease in sensitive areas and cross country, 

but use could increase overall in designated areas as opportunities are made known.

Cibola NF&Gs Cumulative Effects 

David Canyon Division

Cumulative effects include a change in the overall experience for trail users within the project 

area. For some it will be positive, for some it will be negative. The biggest challenge is likely to 

be holding the trail width to design standard(s) and holding back user created trails. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 165

Northern Manzano Division

No foreseeable changes in the amount of driving for pleasure, hunting, and horseback riding 

would occur through implementation of this project.

Indian Trust Assets

Indian Trust Assets (ITAs) are legal interests in property held in trust by the United States for 

Indian tribes or individuals. The Secretary of the Interior, acting as the trustee, holds many assets 

in trust. Examples of objects that may be trust assets are lands, minerals, hunting and fishing 

rights, and water rights. The United States has an Indian trust responsibility to protect and 

maintain rights reserved by or granted to Indian tribes or individuals by treaties, statutes, and 

Executive Orders. These are sometimes further interpreted through court decisions and 

regulations. 

Affected Environment

Because the proposed project analyzed in this EA is located on Pueblo reservation land, the 

resources within the project area are considered ITAs. 

Environmental Consequences

Alternative A (No Action) 

The no action alternative would not result in adverse impacts to ITAs. The fire threat within the 

project area would continue to increase due to reduced tree densities in the proposed project area. 

Density and canopy cover of all timber types would continue to increase throughout the project 

area. Existing small openings and forb/shrub/grassland areas would continue to decrease in size 

and woodland species would continue to encroach on open meadow grassland. In addition, 

traditional hunting areas could be adversely impacted because big game habitat, such as open 

meadows and clumpy forested areas, would be reduced. 

Alternative B (Proposed Action)

The proposed action would result in beneficial impacts to ITAs. The forest conditions would 

improve as a result of the proposed forest treatments. Variables that tend to increase the risk of 

wildfire, such as tree density and interlocking tree canopies, would be reduced. In addition, the 

treatments would allow understory vegetation to become established, providing improved wildlife 

and big game habitat.

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

The Pueblo, Chilili, and Cibola NF&Gs consulted the following individuals and Federal, State, 

and local agencies and tribes during development of this EA. 

Federal, State, and Local Agencies 

 Bureau of Indian Affairs - Southern Pueblo Agency
 

 Claunch-Pinto Soil and Water Conservation District 

 Edgewood Soil and Water Conservation District 

 Ciudad Soil and Water Conservation District 

 New Mexico Wild Turkey Federation 

 U.S. Department of Defense - Kirtland Air Force Base 

 U.S. Department of Energy - Sandia National Labs 

 New Mexico State Forestry Division 

USFS Interdisciplinary Team Members 

 Cid Morgan - Sandia District Ranger
 

 Karen Lessard - Mountainair District Ranger 

 Paul Tidwell - Vegetation 

 Matt Rau/Sunbear Vierra - Fire and Fuels Management 

 Beverly deGruyter/Ramon Borrego/Zack Parsons - Wildlife 

 Cynthia Benedict - Tribal Consultation and Cultural Resources 

 Lucas C. Kellett/Christina Sinkovec/Cliff Nicoll - Heritage Resources 

 Livia Crowley - Soil and Water Resources 

 Tyler Albers - Scenic Resources
 

 Henry Martinez - Transportation 

 Ian Fox - Forestry Program Manager 

Tribes and Pueblos 

 The Pueblos of Acoma, Zuni, Isleta, Sandia, Santo Domingo, Santa Ana, San Felipe, San 

Ildefonso, Cochiti, Zia, and Jemez 

 Mescalero Apache Tribe 

 Navajo Nation 

 Jicarilla Apache Nation 

 To’hajilee Navajo Chapter 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 167 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination 

Others 

 Chilili Land Grant members 

 New Mexico State University 

 Sandia Mountain Natural History Center 

List of Preparers 

Brian J. Bader, Project Manager 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

5647 Jefferson St. NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87109 

(505) 254-1115 

bbader@swca.com 

Coleman Burnett, Natural Resources Planner 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

5647 Jefferson St. NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87109 

(505) 254-1115 

cburnett@swca.com 

Victoria Amato, Natural Resources Planner 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

5647 Jefferson St. NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87109 

(505) 254-1115 

vamato@swca.com 

Matt Gagnon, Natural Resources Planner 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

5647 Jefferson St. NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87109 

(505) 254-1115 

mgagon@swca.com 

Melani Oakley-Spangler, NEPA Specialist 

SWCA Environmental Consultants 

5647 Jefferson St. NE 

Albuquerque, NM 87109 

(505) 254-1115 

spangler@swca.com 

168 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

Literature Cited
 

Abella, Scott R., Charles W. Denton, David G. Brewer, Wayne A. Robbie, Rory W. Steinke, and 

W. Wallace Covington. 2010. Using a Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey to Estimate the 

Historical Density of Ponderosa Pine Trees in Arizona. Ecological Restoration Institute, 

Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 

Abella, Scott R. 2008. Managing Gambel Oak in southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: The 

Status of Our Knowledge. USDA Forest Service, RMRS-GTR-218. 

Agee, J. K. 1998. The landscape ecology of western forest fire regimes. Northwest Science 

72:24–34. 

Agee, J. K. 2003. Monitoring postfire tree mortality in mixed conifer forests of Crater Lake. 

Oregon. Natural Areas Journal 23:114–120. 

Agency Technical Work Group. 2005. Potential Effects if Climate Change on New Mexico. 

Agency Technical Work Group, State of New Mexico. December 30, 2005. 

Allen, C. D., M. Savage, D. Falk, K. F. Suckling, T. W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P. B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern 

ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological applications 12:1418-1433. 

Arnold, J. F., D. A. Jameson, and E. H. Reid. 1964. The piñon-juniper type in Arizona. In Effects 

of Grazing, Fire and Tree Control. Washington, DC: U.S. Forest Service Production 

Research Report. 84 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2004. Response to draft supplement to the final 

environmental impact statement for amendment of forest plans in Arizona and New 

Mexico. Phoenix, AZ, USA. 

Baisan, C. H., Swetnam, T. W. 1997. Interaction of fire regimes and land use in the central Rio 

Grande valley. Research Paper RM-RP-330. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. 20 

pp. 

Baisan, C. H., and T. W. Swetnam. 1995. Historical fire occurrence in remote mountains of 

southwestern New Mexico and northern Mexico. In: Brown, J. K., compiler. Proceedings: 

Symposium on fire in wilderness and park management. USDA Forest Service, General 

Technical Report INT-GTR-320. Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Research Station: 153-156. 

Baker, W. L., and D. J. Shinneman. 2004. Fire and restoration of piñon-juniper woodlands in the 

Western United States: a Review. Forest Ecology and Management. 189:1-21. 

Bassett, R. L., D. A. Boyce, M. H. Reiser, R. T. Graham, and R. T. Reynolds. 1994. Influence of 

site quality and stand density on goshawks habitat in southwestern forests. Studies in 

Avian Biology 16: 41-45. 

Beier, P., and J. E. Drennan. 1997. Forest structure and prey abundance in foraging areas of 

northern goshawks. Ecological Applications 7:564-571. 

Biota Information System of New Mexico (BISON-M). 2010. BISON-M home page. Available 

at: http://www.bison-m.org. Accessed 29 April 2010. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 169 
 

 

 

Literature Cited 

Biswell, H. H. 1973. Fire ecology in ponderosa pine grassland. Proceeding of the Tall Timbers 

Fire Ecology Conference 12: 69-96. 

Boerner, R. E., T. A. Waldrop and V. B. Shelburne. 2006. Wildfire mitigation strategies affect soil 

enzyme activity and soil carbon in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda) forests. Canadian Journal 

of Forest Research. Volume 36, Number 12. 

Bosch, J. M., and J. D. Hewlett. 1982. A Review of Catchment Experiments to Determine the 

Effect of Vegetation changes on Water Yield and Evapotranspiration. Journal of 

Hydrology 55:3–23. 

Boyce, D. A., R. T. Reynolds, and R. T. Graham. 2006. Goshawk status and management: what 

do we know, what have we done, and where are we going? Studies in Avian Biology No. 

31:312–325. 

Brockway, D. G., R. G. Gatewood and R. B. Paris. 2002. Restoring grassland savannas from 

degraded piñon-juniper woodlands: effects of mechanical overstory reduction and slash 

treatment alternatives. Journal of Environmental Management. 64. 179–197. 

Brown, J. K. 1995. Fire regimes and their relevance to ecosystem management. Pages 171–178 In 

Proceedings of Society of American Foresters National Convention, Sept. 18–22, 1994, 

Anchorage, Alaska. Society of American Foresters, Washington, DC. 

Brown, T. J., B. L. Hall and A. J. Westerling. 2004. The impact of twenty-first century climate 

change on wildland fire danger in the Western United States: An application perspective. 

Climatic Change 62:365-388. 

Burgess, T. L. 1995. Desert grassland, mixed shrub savanna, shrub steppe, or semi-desert scrub? 

The dilemma of coexisting growth forms. In: The Desert Grassland. The University of 

Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. pp. 31–67. 

Cooper, C. F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure and growth of southwestern pine forests 

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30: 129–164. 

Council on Environmental Quality. 1997. Environmental Justice, Guidance under the National 

Environmental Policy Act. 23 pp. 

Costello, C. M; D. E. Jones; K. A. Green Hammond; R. M. Inman; K. H. Inman; B. C. 

Thompson; R. A. Deitner, and H. B. Quigley. 2001. A Study of Black Bear Ecology in 

New Mexico, with Models for Population Dynamics and Habitat Suitability. New Mexico 

Dept. of Game and Fish, Hornocker Wildlife Institute, Ecosystem Modeling, and New 

Mexico Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit. Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration 

Project W-131-R. Available at: http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/publications/ 

documents/NMBearStudy.pdf 

Covington, W. W. and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: changes 

since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92: (1) 39–47. 

Covington, W. W., Fulé, P. Z., Moore, M. M., Hart, S. C., Kolb, T. E., Mast, J. N., Sackett, S. S. 

and Wagner, M. R. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in ponderosa pine forests of the 

southwest. Journal of Forestry. 95. 23–29. 

170 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Literature Cited 

Cram, D., Baker, T., Boren, J. (2006) Wildland fire effects in silviculturally treated vs. untreated 

stands of New Mexico and Arizona. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, Research Paper RMRS-RP-55 (Fort Collins, CO). 

Dietrich, J. H. & T. W. Swetnam, 1984. Dendrochronology of a fire-scarred ponderosa pine. 

Forest Science, 30: 238–247. 

Dore, S., T. E. Kolb, M. Montes-Helu, S. E. Eckert, B. W. Sullivan, B. A. Hungate, J. P. Kaye, S. 

C. Hart, G. W. Koch, and A. Finkral. 2010. Carbon and water fluxes from ponderosa pine 

forest disturbed by wildfire and thinning. Ecological Applications, 20(3), pp. 663–683. 

Famweb, 2010. Accessed November 26th 2010. http://fam.nwcg.gov/famweb/weatherfirecd/new_mexico.htm#Fire%20Occurrence%20Files 

Findley, James S. 1987. The Natural History of New Mexican Mammals. University of New 

Mexico Press. Albuquerque, NM. 164 pp. 

Finney, M. A. (2001a) Design of regular landscape fuel treatment patterns for modifying fire 

growth and behavior. Forest Science 47, 219–228. 

Fulé, P. Z., Crouse, J. E., Heinlein, T. A., Moore, M. M., Covington, W. W., Verkamp, G., 2003. 

Mixed-severity fire regime in a high-elevation forest: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Landscape 

Ecology 18, 465–486. 

Elliot, W. J, and Audin, L. J. (editors). 2007, last update. DRAFT Cumulative Watershed Effects 

of Fuels Management in the Western United States. Available online: 

http//forest.moscosfsl.wsu.edu/engr/cwe/ accessed October 1, 2009. 

Environmental Protection Association. 2010. Available online: 

http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl/resource.cfm. Accessed March 3rd 

2010. 

Ernest, Krintina A., Earl F. Aldon, and Esteban Muldavin. 1993. Woody Debris in Undisturbed 

Pinon-Juniper Woodlands of New Mexico. In: Managing Piñon-Juniper Ecosystems for 

Sustainability and Social Needs, proceedings of the symposium 1993 April 26-30; Santa 

Fe, New Mexico. USDA GTR-RM-236, pp 117–123. 

Ffolliott, Peter F., Cody L.Stropki, Hui chen, and Daniel G. Neary. 2011. The 2002 RodeoChediski Wildfire’s impacts on southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystem, hydrology, and 

fuels. USDA Forest Service, RMRS-RP-85, Fort Collins, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, 36 pp. 

Gatto, A. E., T. G. Grubb, and C. L. Chambers. 2005. Red-tailed hawk dietary overlap with 

northern goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau, Arizona. Journal of Raptor Research 39(4): 

439–444. 

General Accounting Office. 2007. Climate Change – Agencies should develop guidance for 

addressing the effects on federal lands and water resources. Report to Congressional 

Requesters. GAO-07-863. 

Gottfried, G. 2004. Silvics and silviculture in the southwestern piñon-juniper woodlands. In: 

Silviculture in Special Places: Proceedings of the 2003 National Silviculture Workshop. 

W. D. Sheppard and L. G. Eskew (Eds.). U.S. Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-34. 

64–79. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 171 
 

 

Literature Cited 

Gottfried, G. J. and S. T. Overby. 2009. Overstory, fuel loading, and soil nitrogen changes 

following mechanical mastication or thinning pinyon-juniper stands in southwestern 

Colorado. Association for Fire Ecology Congress: Savannah, GA. December. 

Grant, Gordon E., Lewis, Sarah L., Swanson, Frederick J., Cissel, John H., McDonnell, Jeffrey J. 

2008. Effects of forest practices on peak flows and consequent channel response: a stateof-science report for western Oregon and Washington. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-760. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 76 pp. 

Greenwald, D. N., D. C. Crocker-Bedford, L. Broberg, K. F. Suckling, and T. Tibbitts. 2005. A 

review of northern goshawk habitat selection in the home range and implications for 

forest management in the western United States. Wildlife Society Bulletin 33(1):120-129. 

Griffis, K. L., Crawford, J. A., Wagner, M. R., and Moir, W. H. 2001. Understory response to 

management treatments in northern Arizona ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and 

Management. 146. 239-245. 

Hann, W. J. Bunnell, D. L. 2001. Fire and Land Management Planning and Implementation 

across Multiple Scales. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10 (4): 389-403. 

Hann, W., D. Havline, A. Shlisky. 2003. Interagency Fire Regime and Condition Class 

Guidebook, Version 1.2. 2005. The Fire Regime Condition Class Web site. U.S. Forest 

Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, The Nature Conservancy, and Systems for 

Environmental Management. Available online at 

http://frames.nbii.gov/frcc/documents/1.2.2.2./Complete_Guidebook_V1.2.pdf. Accessed 

December 2010. 

Hardy, C. C., Schmidt, K. M., Menakis, J. P. 2001. Spatial data for National Fire Planning and 

fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire. 10: 353-372. 

Harvey, M. J., J. S. Altenbach, and T. L. Best. 1999. Bats of the United States. Arkansas Game 

and Fish Commission and Asheville Field Office (NC), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

64 pp. 

Headwaters Economic Profile System (2011). http://headwaterseconomics.org/ 

headwaters/economic-profile-system/ accessed 10/22/2011. 

Hunter, M. E., W. D. Shepperd, J. E. Lentile, J. E. Lundquist, M. G. Andreu, J. L. Butler, and F. 

W. Smith. 2007. A comprehensive guide to fuels treatment practices for ponderosa pine in 

the Black Hills, Colorado Front Range and Southwest. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-198. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 93 pp. 

Idaho Department of Fish and Game (IDFG). 1995. Habitat conservation assessment and 

conservation strategy for the Townsend’s big-eared bat. Idaho State Conservation Effort 

(ISCE). Draft unpubl. Rep. No. 1; Idaho Dept. of Fish and Game, Boise, Idaho. 63 pp. 

Kaye, Jason P. and Stephen C. Hart. 1998. Ecological Restoration Alters Nitrogen 

Transformations in a Ponderosa Pine-Bunchgrass Ecosystem. Ecological Applications, 8 

(4), pp. 1052–1060. 

Kaye, M. W. and T. W. Swetnam. 1999. An assessment of fire, climate and Apache history in the 

Sacramento Mountains, New Mexico. Physical Geography 20: (4) 305–330. 

172 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
Literature Cited 

La Sorte, F. A., R. W. Mannan, R. T. Reynolds, and T. G. Grubb. 2004. Habitat associations of 

sympatric red-tailed hawks and northern goshawks on the Kaibab Plateau. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 68:307-317. 

Leopold, A. 1924. Grass, brush, timber and fire in southern Arizona. Journal of Forestry. 22: 1-10. 

Long, J. N., Smith, F. W., 2000. Restructuring the forest: goshawks and the restoration of 

southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of Forestry 98, pp. 25–30. 

Love, Timothy G. and Alan E. Watson. 1992. Effects of the Gates Park Fire on Recreation 

Choices. Research Note, INT-402. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. Ogden, UT. 

McMillan, N. J., McLemore, V. T., and Ervin, S. D., 2000, Cambrian tectonics of New Mexico 

and Colorado, in, Lawton, T. F., McMillan, N. J., and McLemore, V. T., 2000, Southwest 

Passage: A Trip through the Phanerozoic: New Mexico Geological Society Guidebook 

51, pp. 37–39. 

McPherson, G. R. 1995. The role of fire in desert grasslands. In: The Desert Grassland. The 

University of Arizona Press, Tucson, AZ. 130–151. 

National Wildfire Coordinating Group. 1998. Fireline Handbook. NWCG Handbook 3. PMS 410­

1. NFES 0065. National Interagency Fire Center, Boise, ID. 

Neary, D. G., K. C. Ryan and L. F. Debano. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems- Effects of Fire 

on Soils and Water - Chapter 12 Summary and Research Needs. USDA Forest Service 

Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. pp. 207–212. 

Neilson, R. 2004. Western Forests, Fire Risk and Climate Change. Science Update. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. Issue 6. 13 pp. 

New Mexico Administrative Code. 1995. Natural Resources and Wildlife – Endangered Plants. 

New Mexico Administrative Code 19.21.2. 

New Mexico Climate Center (NMCC). 2006. Climate of New Mexico. New Mexico State 

University, Las Cruces. Available online at http://weather.nmsu.edu/News/climate-inNM.html 

New Mexico Energy, Minerals and Natural Resources Department (2007). New Mexico 

Communities at Risk Assessment Plan. 46 pp. 

New Mexico Environment Department (NMED). 2004. Water Quality Survey Summary for the 

Middle Rio Grande (From Angostura Diversion near Algodones to Isleta Diversion near 

Isleta Pueblo) 1999. 

———. 2009. Water Quality Monitoring of the Middle Rio Grande. Annual Baseline Condition 

and Trends of Key Water Quality Parameters. October 2006–July 2008. Final Report. 

Surface Water Quality Bureau. 

———. 2010. EPA Air Quality Nonattainment Areas in New Mexico. Available at: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/ modeling/na_map.html. Accessed November 17, 

2010. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 173 
Literature Cited 

———. 2012. 2008-2010 State of New Mexico CWA §303(d)/§305(b) Integrated Report. 

Available at: http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/swqb/303d-305b/2008-2010. Accessed 

January 2012. 

New Mexico Department of Game and Fish. 2004a. Response to draft supplement to the final 

environmental impact statement for amendment of forest plans. Santa Fe, NM, USA. 

———. 2004b. Winter Elk and Deer Sightability Index Survey Analysis. Federal Aid in Wildlife 

Restoration Grant W-93-R46, Projects 02.01 and 02.02, September 2004. 

———. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species of New Mexico 2006 Biennial Review. 

August 25, 2006. http://www.wildlife.state.nm.us/conservation/ 

threatened_endangered_species/index.htm 

———. 2010. Threatened and Endangered Species of New Mexico. 2010 Biennial Review. 

New Mexico Partners in Flight. 2007. New Mexico Bird Conservation Plan Version 2.1. C. 

Rustay and S. Norris, compilers. Albuquerque, NM. 

New Mexico Rare Plant Technical Council. 2010. Available at: 

http://nmrareplants.unm.edu/about.html. Accessed Dec 2010. 

New Mexico State Listed Noxious Weed List. 2009. Available at: 

http://plants.usda.gov/java/noxious?rptType=State&statefips=35 

Nowak, Ronald M. 1994. Walker’s Bats of the World. John Hopkins University Pres. Baltimore, 

MD. 287 (218) pp. 

Office of the President, 1994. Executive Order 12898 of February 11, 1994. Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations. 

Federal Register Vol 59. Number 32. 

Ohlander, C. A. 1998. Water resources analyses, Clean Water Act—Monitoring and Evaluation, 

part 7 Stream Health (TWalk). Unpublished manuscript. Denver, CO: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region. 

Omi, P. N. and E. J. Martinson. 2002. Effect of fuels treatment on wildfire severity. Final Report. 

Submitted to the Joint Fire Science Program Governing Board. 

Omi, P. N. and E. J. Martinson. 2007. Tested by Fire: What happens when wildfires meet fuel 

treatments? Fire Science Brief- Joint Fire Science Program. 1. 1-6. 

Orland, B., T. Daniel, J. L. Paschke and J. Hetherington. 1993. Visualization of Forest 

Management Issues on the Dixie National Forest. Final Report, May 1993. Forest Pest 

Management, Region 4, Ogden, UT. 

Owen, Suzanne M., Carolyn Hull Sieg, Catherin A. Gehring, and Matthew A. Bowker. 2009. 

Above and belowground responses to tree thinning depend on the treatment of tree debris. 

Forest Ecology and Management, 259, pp. 71–80. 

Page, Doug. 2006. Preliminary thinning guidelines for the maintenance of pinyon-juniper 

ecosytems. Bureau of Land Management Southwest Utah Zone Forester, Cedar City, UT. 

Pearson, G. A. 1950. Management of ponderosa pine in the southwest. USDA Forest Service 

Agricultural Monograph No. 6. 

174 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

Literature Cited 

Perkins, J. M., and T. Schommer. 1992. Survey protocol and an interim species conservation 

strategy for Plecotus townsendii in the Blue Mountains of Oregon and Washington. U.S. 

Dept. of Agriculture, Forest Service. Pacific Northwest Region, Wallowa Whitman 

National Forest, Baker City, OR. 23pp. Available: 

http://fishandgame.idaho.gov/cms/tech/cdc/cdc_pdf/U92PER01.pdf 

Pollet, J. and Omi, P. N. 2000. Effect of Thinning and Prescribed Burning on Crown Fire Severity 

in Ponderosa Pine Forests. Pages 137-141, In: Proceedings, The Joint Fire Science 

Conference and Workshop, Grove Hotel, Boise, Idaho, June 15-17, 1999, Volume 2 of 2 

volumes. 

Pueblo of Isleta, 2005. Pueblo of Isleta Fire Management Plan. 

Pyne, S. J., P. L. Andrews and R. D. Laven. 1996. Introduction to Wildland Fire. 2nd ed. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M. H. Reiser, R. L. Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, G. 

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992. Management recommendations for the 

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States. General Technical Report RM217, 90 pp. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment 

Station, Fort Collins, CO, USA. 

Reynolds, R. T., S. M. Joy, and D. G. Leslie. 1994. Nest productivity, fidelity, and spacing of 

northern goshawks in Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 16:106-113. 

Reynolds, R. T., J. D. Wiens, and S. R. Salafsky. 2006. A review and evaluation of factors 

limiting northern goshawk populations. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:260-273. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and D. A Boyce. 2006. An ecosystem-based conservation strategy 

for the northern goshawk. Studies in Avian Biology No. 31:299-311. 

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, and D. A Boyce. 2008. Northern goshawk habitat: an intersection 

of science, management, and conservation. Journal of Wildlife Management 72(4):1047­

1055. 

Richardson, D. M. 1998. Ecology and biogeography of Pinus. Cambridge University Press, 

Cambridge. 527 pp. 

Robson, S. G., and E. R. Banta. 1995. Groundwater Atlas of the United States–Arizona, 

Colorado, New Mexico, Utah: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas HA 730-C. 

Available at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/ha/ha730/ch_c/index.html. Assessed 30 April 2010. 

Roccaforte, J. P., P. Z., Fulé and W. W. Covington. 2008. Landscape-scale changes in canopy 

fuels and potential fire behavior following ponderosa pine restoration treatments. 

International Journal of Wildland Fire. 2008. 17, 293-303. 

Romme, W. H., C. D. Allen, J. Bailey, W. L. Baker, B. T. Bestelmeyer, P. Brown, K. Eisenhart, L. 

Floyd-Hanna, D. Huffman, B. F. Jacobs, R. Millerm, E. Muldavin, T. Swetnam, R. 

Tausch and P. Wesiberg. 2007. Historical and modern disturbance regimes of piñonjuniper vegetation in the Western U.S. Colorado Forest Restoration Institute and the 

Nature Conservancy. 13 pp. 

Rosenberger, R. S., and E. L. Smith. 1998. Assessing Forest Scenic Beauty Impacts of Insects and 

Management. FHTET 98-08. USDA Forest Service Forest Health Technology Enterprise 

Team, Fort Collins, CO. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 175 
 

Literature Cited 

Rothermel, R. C. 1972. A mathematical model for predicting fire spread in wildland fuels. Res. 

Pap. INT-115. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain 

Forest and Range Experiment Station. 40 pp. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results 

and Analysis 1966 - 2003. Version 2004.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, 

Laurel, MD) http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbsold.html 

Savage, M., 1991. Structural dynamics of a southwestern pine forest under chronic human 

disturbance. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81, 271–289. 

Schmidt, Kirsten M., James P. Menakis, Colin C. Hardy, Wendel J. Hann, and David L. Bunnell. 

2002. Development of course-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. 

General Technical Report, RMRS-GTR-87, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort Collins, CO. 39 pp. plus CD. 

Scott Joe H. and Burgan, Robert E. 2005. Standard Fire Behavior Fuel Models: A Comprehensive 

Set for Use with Rothermel’s Surface Spread Model. Gen. Tech. Rep RMRS-GTR-153, 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 72 pp. 

Scott, J. H.; Reinhardt, E. D. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface 

and crown fire behavior. Res. Pap. RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station: 59 pp. 

Squires, J. R and P. L. Kennedy. 2006. Northern goshawk ecology: an assessment of current 

knowledge and information needs for conservation and management. Studies in Avian 

Biology No. 31:8-62. 

Stednick, John D. 1996. Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest on Annual Water Yield. Journal 

of hydrology, vol. 176, 79-95. 

Stednick, J. D. 2006. In G. E. Dissmeyer. 2000. Drinking Water from Forests and Grasslands, A 

Synthesis of the Scientific Literature. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report 

SR3-39. 

Strenger, S., S. Sebring, W. Robbie, F. Escobedo, C. Vaandrager, V. Andrew, E. Brooks, C. 

Krasine, B. Nielsen, and R. Fletcher. 2007. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Cibola 

National Forest and National Grasslands. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. 

696 pp. 

Strom, B. A., and P. Z. Fule. 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine 

forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire 16:128–138. 

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2006. East Mountains Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 

45 pp. 

———. 2008a. Torrance County Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 161 pp. 

———. 2008b. Middle Rio Grande Bosque Community Wildfire Protection Plan. 143 pp. 

Swetnam, T. M., C. H. Baisan, A. C. Caprio, R. Touchan, and P. M. Brown. 1992. Tree-ring 

reconstruction of giant sequoia fire regimes. Final Report to the Sequoia, Kings Canyon 

and Yosemite National Parks. Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, Tucson, AZ. 90 pp. 

176 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

 

 

 

 

Literature Cited 

Swetnam, T. M.; Brown, P. M. 1992. Oldest known conifers in the southwestern United States: 

temporal and spatial patterns of maximum age. Paper presented at: Workshop on oldgrowth forests in the Rocky Mountains and Southwest: The status of our knowledge. 

Portal, AZ, March 9-13, 1992; 24-38. 

Taylor, Jonathan G. and Terry C. Daniel. “Perceived Scenic and Recreational Quality of Forest 

Burn Areas.” in Proceedings-Symposium and Workshop on Wilderness Fire, Missoula, 

MT, November 15–18, 1983. General Technical Report INT-182 

Touchan, R., Allen, C. D., Swetnam, T. W., 1996. Fire history and climatic patterns in ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer forests of the Jemez Mountains, northern New Mexico. In: Allen, 

C.D. (Ed.), Fire Effects in Southwestern Forests. Proceedings of the Second La Mesa Fire 

Symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR-286, Rocky 

Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO, pp. 33–46. 

Torrance Soil Survey. 1970. Soil Survey. Torrance Area, New Mexico. USDA Soil Conservation 

Service and Forest Service. 

TREAT. 2010. Treatment for Restoration Economic Analysis Tool–User Guide. USDA Forest 

Service. 10 pp. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. State and County Quick Facts. Available: http://quickfacts.census.gov. 

Accessed 29 April 2010. 

———. 2009. Small Area Income and Poverty Estimates 2009, 

http://www.census.gov/did/www/saipe/ Accessed 10/21/2011. 

———. 2010. State and County Quick Facts 2010. http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/index.html. 

Accessed 10/20/2011 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1999. FSM 2509.18-99-1, Soil Condition Rating Guide. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2000. Biological Aassessment on Wildland-Urban Interface 

Catastrophic Wildfire Risk Reduction Projects. Forest Service, Region 3. Albuquerque, 

NM. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. Southwestern Region Climate Change Trends and Forest 

Planning. Forest Service, Region 3. Albuquerque, NM. 

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA-NRCS). 2010a. 

Web Soil Survey. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed 28 April 

2010. 

———. 2010b. The PLANTS Database. Baton Rouge: National Plant Data Center. Available at: 

http://plants.usda.gov. Accessed 28 April 2010. 

U. S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management 

Volume 2, Chapter 1 The Visual Management System. Forest Service Handbook No. 462. 

Washington, DC. 

———. 1985. Cibola National Forest Final Land Management Plan (forest plan) Environmental 

Impact Statement (EIS). Albuquerque, NM. 

http://fsweb.cibola.r3.fs.fed.us/planning/index.shtml 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 177 
Literature Cited 

———. 1990. Forest Service Handbook FSH 2509.22 Soil and Water Conservation Practices. 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

———. 1992. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station General Technical Report 

RM-217, Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern 

United States, 1992. Available: http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_rm/rm_gtr217.pdf 

———. 1997. Plant Associations of AZ and NM, Volume 1: Forests, p. 229 

———. 1999a. Mountainair Ranger District Geographic Area Assessments, Version 1. 

———. 1999b. Forest Service Handbook FSH 2509.18-99-1 Soil Management Handbook. 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, NM. 

———. 2004a. FSM 2500 Watershed and Air Management Chapter 2526 Riparian Area 

Management. 

———. 2004b. FSM 2500 Watershed and Air Management Chapter 2521Watershed Condition. 

———. 2005a. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems: Effects of Fire on Soils and Water. RMRS-GTR-42­

Volume 4. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Albuquerque, NM. 

———. 2005b. Cibola National Forest, Management Indicator Species Report for the Cibola 

National Forest and Grasslands. Revised March 2005. 

———. 2006. Cibola National Forest Fire Management Plan. Cibola National Forest, 

Albuquerque, NM. 

———. 2007. Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Animals and Plants. Southwestern Region, 

Albuquerque, NM, USA. http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/r3/plantsanimals/?cid=FSBDEV3_022105 

———. 2010a. Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United States. 

RMRS-GTR-231. 

———. 2010b. Cibola National Forest Breeding Bird Survey Report for 2010. Prepared by Hart 

R. Schwarz, Oct., 2010. Supplemented in 2011. 

———. 2011a. Watershed Condition Framework. United States Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, FS-977. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2001. The National Fire Plan. GAO-01-1022T. 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1974. Information on Levels of Environmental 

Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan, 1995. Available as 

link: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/mso/recovery_plan.htm 

———. 2011. List of species by county for New Mexico: Bernalillo, Torrance. Ecological 

Services, Albuquerque, New Mexico. http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/ 

EndangeredSpecies/EndangeredSpecies_Lists/EndangeredSpecies_ListSpecies.cfm 

Van Wagner, C. E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire. Canadian Journal of 

Forest Research. 7. 23-34. 

178 EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 
 

Literature Cited 

Weaver, H. 1947. Fire, natures thinning agent in ponderosa pine stands. Journal of Forestry 45: 

437-444. 

West, N. E. 1984. Successional patterns and productivity potentials of piñon-juniper ecosystems. 

In: Developing strategies for rangeland management. National Research 

Council/National Academy of Sciences. Westview Press, Boulder, CO. 1301-1332. 

Westerling, A. L., H. G. Hidalgo., D. R. Cayan, and T. W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier 

spring increase in Western U.S. Forest Wildfire Activity. Science. 313 (5789): 940-943. 

Western Regional Climate Center. 2010. Bernalillo, New Mexico. Available at: 

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?nm0903. Accessed 28 April 2010. 

Wilcox, B. P. and D. D. Breshears. 1995. Hydrology and ecology of piñon-juniper woodlands: 

conceptual framework and field studies. pp. 109–119. In: D. W. Shaw, E. F. Aldon, C. 

LoSapio (tech. coordinators) Proc.: Desired future conditions for piñon-juniper 

ecosystems, Flagstaff, AZ, August 8-12, 1994. USDA Forest Serv. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM258. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 

Woodbridge, B., and P. J. Detrich. 1994. Territory occupancy and habitat patch size of northern 

goshawks in the southern Cascades of California. Studies in Avian Biology 16:83-87. 

Woodbridge, B. and Hargis, C. D. 2006. Northern Goshawk Inventory and Monitoring Technical 

Guide Gen. Tech. Report WO-71. Washington, DC: USDA Forest Service. 80 pp. 

Wright, R. J. and S. C. Hart. 1997. Nitrogen and phosphorus status in a southwestern ponderosa 

pine forest after 20 years of interval burning. Ecoscience, 4, pp. 526–533. 

Youtz, J. A., R. T. Graham, R. T. Reynolds, and J. Simon. 2007. Implementing northern goshawk 

habitat management in southwestern forests: A template for restoring fire-adapted forest 

ecosystems. Proceedings of the 2007 National Silviculture Workshop. Gen. Tech. Rep. 

PNW-GTR-733. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific 

Northwest Research Station. 306 pp. 

EA for the Isleta Collaborative Landscape Analysis Project 179