BONITO WATERSHED PROJECT - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · planned upcoming Bonito Watershed Project on the Lincoln National

1

BONITO WATERSHED PROJECT

HYDROLOGY AND SOILS SPECIALIST REPORT

Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest

Lincoln County, New Mexico

Mike McConnell, Forest Hydrologist

Bob Dancker, Soils Scientist

May 2009

INTRODUCTION

This report is an analysis of existing conditions and effects related to hydrology and soils

in the major portion of the Upper Rio Bonito watershed and parts of Middle Rio Bonito

and Magado watersheds. This report will summarize information about soils and

hydrologic conditions along with with effects analysis on alternatives as they relate to the

planned upcoming Bonito Watershed Project on the Lincoln National.

The Bonito Watershed Project is a planned hazardous fuels reduction project covering

28,488 acres across three 6th

level Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) watersheds, the Upper

Rio Bonito (HUC #130600080201), Middle Rio Bonito (#130600080207) and Magado

Canyon (#130600080202). These smaller watersheds are part of the larger 5th

level HUC

Rio Bonito watershed (189,455 acres). The 28,488 acre (44.5 mi2) Bonito project area

lies in the upper portion of the Rio Bonito watershed with the majority of the project

above Lake Bonito or the Upper Rio Bonito watershed which includes the 16,029 acres

of the White Mountain Wilderness. Mechanized travel is not allowed in the White

Mountain Wilderness and there are no roads there. Roads in the non-wilderness area are

primarily the Class 1, 2 and 3 roads. The majority of the Bonito project lies within the

Upper Rio Bonito watershed (25,847 acres or 40.39 mi2) where 82 percent of it (21,254

acres or 33.2 mi2) feeds into Bonito Lake.

The Upper Rio Bonito watershed serves as the municipal supply watershed for Holloman

Air Force Base, the City of Alamogordo and the towns of Nogal, Carrizozo, and Fort

Stanton where Lake Bonito is located.

Purpose and Need

The project goal is to improve forest health and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire

through strategies that utilize ecosystem restoration principles, best available science, and

technical expertise of interdisciplinary team.

2

1. Existing Condition

Climate

Climate data was derived from NOAA’s “Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United

States” and Western Regional Climate Center. The nearest climate data center near the

project area would be Ruidoso (elevation approximately at 6920 feet) located 7 miles to

the south with similar elevation level as the lower end of the Bonito project area which

starts at 7000 feet. The upper end of the Rio Bonito watershed rises to an elevation of

11,300 feet, an elevation gain of over 4,000 feet.

Ruidoso’s average annual rainfall for Ruidoso is 21.5 inches. Annual rainfall runoff is

approximately 2.5 inches. A 2-year rainfall return interval (50% chance of occurring in a

given year) produces a 1.1 inch/hour rainfall intensity storm for the Ruidoso area.

Precipitation occurs primarily as high intensity short duration summer thunderstorms and

winter snowfall. Summer season is regarded as the wet season (monsoon) with most of

its precipitation occurring from June to August with moisture coming off from the Gulf

of Mexico from the southeast direction. Average annual precipitation varies from about

32 inches at the highest elevations and near 20 inches near Angus. Spring and fall are the

driest season is typically when most wildfires occur on the forest. Winter precipitation

falls as mostly in the frozen form and Ruidoso gets about 39 inches of snowfall a year.

Snow accumulation is most significant in the upper headwater portions and ridges with

annual snowfall anywhere between 70 to 90 inches. Temperatures vary from 70s - 90s

degree Fahrenheit in the summer to sub-zero levels in the winter. Strong southwesterly

winds prevail during the spring and early summer

Perennial streams

There are approximately 26.5 miles of perennial streams throughout the Bonito planning

area on Forest Service lands only. For the entire Upper Rio Bonito watershed, which

includes the planning area, White Mountain Wilderness and non-Forest Service lands,

there are approximately 31 miles of perennial streams. Kraut Canyon, Philadelphia

Canyon, and the South Fork Rio Bonito all flow into the Rio Bonito creek. Philadelphia

Canyon is located below the Bonito Lake reservoir and is tributary to the Rio Bonito.

Most major streams are mostly perennial with some having perennial-interrupted stream

characteristics either due to geology or limited moisture (or both). Kraut canyon is mostly

an intermittent channel. The main stem of Rio Bonito Creek within the Bonito watershed

above the reservoir is approximately 9.1 miles. Below the reservoir the creek becomes

the Rio Bonito and flows some 2.5 miles where it meets the tributary channel

Philadelphia creek outside of the Bonito watershed.

Flood plains

Identified areas of flood plain areas are mostly located along stream reaches of the main

stem of the Rio Bonito above the reservoir due to its lower gradient and depositional

alluvial and colluvial soils consisting of gravel, sand, silt, and clay. These “active” flood

3

plains may flood approximately at least once every 20 years (i.e. 5 year storm) along

some stretches of the stream channels where flood plain terraces can be seen. Along these

areas have the most recreational use due to convenient nearby access to streams (e.g. road

crossings and camp grounds) and nearby popular hiking trails. As a result, some of these

areas are currently eroded although light and continue to contribute sediment into the Rio

Bonito which ends up in the Bonito Reservoir

Stream Type (Rosgen)

Rosgen Classification stream type varies from A1 in the upper reaches of the headwaters

to B4 the project area. In the upper elevation stream channels are fairly straight

containing bedrock and large boulders. In the lower elevation channels become more

sinuous and progress to a B4 or B5 Rosgen channel type containing more gravel and sand

with less cobble. Stream channels containing boulder or bedrock components contribute

greatly to channel structure and stability.

Riparian areas

Data on riparian vegetation comes from on-the-ground observations, survey team photo

monitoring efforts, infra-red aerial photo interpretation, corporate GIS database layers,

and the Land Resource Management Plan for the Lincoln National Forest (Forest Plan).

Direction for managing riparian areas on the Forest is found in the Forest Service Manual

2526 (USDA 2000), and the Forest Plan (USDA 1986).

Much of the entire stream channels within the project boundary are identified as having

riparian features or the potential to contain riparian features based on 1982 infrared aerial

photos. Photos showed riparian and potential riparian areas that are dependent on

moisture availability to maintain their ecosystem. These riparian features are seen mostly

along perennial water sources.

Most of the riparian areas along stream channels exist anywhere from a few feet to small,

open valley-like areas where the water table is near the surface conducive for riparian

plant species growth. Riparian areas are delineable areas as distinct riparian ecosystems

separate from the upper terrestrial ecosystem. Riparian features are identified by certain

soil characteristics and distinctive vegetative communities that have access to free and

unbound water. Healthy riparian zones along stream banks help stabilize stream channels

against unnecessary erosion, provide sediment storage, source of nutrient sinks, shades

water to help control water temperature, reduce “flashy” flows, and improve water

quality.

In a July 2007 field survey three team members collected riparian data at numerous

locations on tributary streams that enter the main stem of the Rio Bonito creek. A total of

10 separate stream drainages were surveyed over a total of 24 miles to document existing

riparian conditions along 292 transects or 12.2 transects per mile. Several hundred photos

were taken along with riparian and morphological data, and amount of large woody

debris with logs 20 inches or greater in diameter to help determine general riparian health

4

in 10 major drainages (Tanbark, Big Bear, Little Bear, Anan, Turkey, George

Washington, Iron, Littleton, Philadelphia, and Argentina Canyon). The current overall

health of existing riparian corridors is satisfactory with some areas experiencing minor

impact from sedimentation from gravel or dirt roads or at crossing locations.

Lakes or Open Body of Water

Bonito Lake is the only open body of water within the project boundary of the Upper Rio

Bonito watershed. It is a 44 acre lake (surface area at average storage) and serves as a

municipal water supply for the City of Alamogordo, Holloman Air Force Base, Fort

Stanton, Eagle Creek, Nogal Canyon, and Carrizozo. This reservoir is located on private

land within the Lincoln National Forest boundary and was first built in 1931. It’s

drainage area is 21,254 acres.

Water from Bonito Lake is superior in chemical quality at 300 mg/L TDS where water is

mixed with the spring and ground water at the La Luz’ Water Treatment Plant to increase

the overall water supply and improve water quality.

There is a relatively unknown volume of sediment settled at the bottom of the reservoir

over the past 78 years and that no dredging of sediment ever took place. Although in

1992 the City of Alamogordo Engineering Department explored a dredging possibility

and estimated that 400,000 cubic yards of sediment material have been deposited since

1961 from several major storm events resulting in a 25% decrease in volume capacity (80

million gallons) of water for the reservoir. The figure was obtained after taking partial

measurements of the lake bottom and compared to the original lake topography map.

These measurements were based on preliminary soundings of the lake bottom in various

places.

This would mean on average of about 13,000 cubic yards of sediment material (about

1,300 truckloads) is deposited annually on the lake bottom. This number may be large

and it is only expressed by taking into consideration large storm events that may take

place once every 5 or 10 years pushing large amount of sediment materials downstream.

To date the estimated amount of sediment material at the bottom of the lake could be an

additional 200,000 cubic yards of sediment materials totaling to about perhaps 600,000

cubic yards. This would be an equivalent of a 1 ½ acre plot filled with sediment 420 feet

high. But the stored sediment may contain measurable heavy metals such as mercury,

arsenic, lead, and cadmium along with trace metals such as zinc, iron, gold and silver that

may have been leached from surrounding abandoned mining areas that began in the late

1800s to early 1900s. Today, there may include traces of cyanide (which was used as part

of the leaching process to extract valuable metals from crushed ore) deposited at the lake

bottom from past mining activities from the late 1800s to early 1900s in residual amount

into surrounding areas. Minor leaching of metals into surrounding streams and into

Bonito Lake well after the dam was built in 1930 may be presently occurring. Although

there has been no chemical analysis of the lake bottom sediment to determine the amount

of trace metals and chemicals currently.

5

Wetlands

Wetlands found are usually small (<150 ft2), few in numbers and are sometimes seen

along trails where an active seep or spring feeds it year round with small patches of grass

sedges or rushes growing out of hydric soils, and in some instances cattails may be found.

They are usually found deeper in the forest of White Mountain Wilderness in the upper

elevation areas.

Wild and Scenic River

The South Fork Bonito creek (5.7 miles) has been selected as an eligible stream for

designation as a “Wild and Scenic River” suitable to be considered by Congress for the

National Wild and Scenic River System. No designation by Congress for this creek as a

“Wild and Scenic River” as of March 2009.

Impaired water bodies

In New Mexico Environment Department’s “2008 – 2010 Integrated Clean Water Act

303(d)/305(b) Report” on impaired water bodies (Category 5) there were streams or open

bodies of water found within the Bonito project area that were identified in the report.

Rio Bonito:

From highway NM 48 near Angus to the headwaters of the Rio Bonito watershed the

stream is currently categorized (under “IR Category”) as “5/5C.” The “5C” is defined as

“water bodies that are suspected of being impaired due solely to natural causes, but lack

sufficient data to make this determination.”

(Note: This IR Category rating is for a particular stream reach below the Bonito reservoir

dam whose rating is believed to be the result of low flow alteration.)

Probable Causes of Impairment for Rio Bonito.

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments (streams)

Fecal Coliform

Low flow alterations

South Fork Rio Bonito:

IR Category: 2 (Attaining some of the designated or existing uses based on numeric and

narrative parameters that were tested, and no reliable monitored data is available to

determine if the remaining uses are attained or threatened.)

Bonito Lake:

IR Category: 1 (Attaining the water quality standards for all designated and existing uses)

Geology

The mountains contain tertiary-aged volcanic rocks, Sierra Blanca Volcanics, generally

consist of andesite, rhyolite, trachyte, monzonite, syenite, diorite and latite. The Sierra

Blanca Volcanics overlay sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age and younger. Large

6

intruding stocks, dikes and sills of basaltic andesite flows can be seen throughout the

Upper Rio Bonito watershed. Outcrop of dioritic facies along the eastern end of Bonito

Lake. The Bonito Lake stock outcrops of altered basaltic andesite with occasional

mononite dikes and sills can be easily seen near the dam spillway area.

The Sierra Blanca Volcanics also contain monzonite, porphyry with some andesite flows

and tuffs. The ore in the area occurs as lodes or stringers in the porphyry and in some

veins of the andesite. Mineralized veins consist of simple fissure fillings of calcite,

dolomite, and quartz. The chief ore product for mining has been gold along with some

silver, lead and copper.

Mines

There are many abandoned mines within the project area. Many of them are small,

insignificant with adits that have long since caved in or buried. Some of these were

probably exploratory mines or failed mine attempts (e.g. adits abandoned due to seeping

water) where exposed adits and shafts can still be seen. Several of these mines are located

away from stream channels and off of the main trails. The more notable mines are few in

numbers and may require closer inspection. Most of these mines were once operational

from the late 1800s to early 1900s and became largely abandoned sometime around the

1920s such as the well known Parson’s Mine in Tanbark Canyon where gold was once

mined from a breccia pipe during the early 1900s.

The project area is partially within the Nogal Mining District and some historic mines are

located in within the Upper Rio Bonito watershed. Mines like Great Western Mines sits

at the top of the Dark Betsy Canyon drainage to the southwest above Bonito Lake. Bear

Skull mine near Skull Canyon which is tributary to Tanbark Canyon, George Washington

mine, Anan Mine on Anan Creek (tributary to Iron Canyon which is tributary to Kraut

Canyon that flows into the north end of Bonito Lake) whose adit is visibly exposed which

poses a safety hazard for recreational users who may discover this. Silver Spoon Mine

(inside of White Mountain Wilderness adjacent to Rio Bonito creek) whose adit has

caved in with materials but still obviously poses some potential safety hazards to curious

recreational users. The few adits that are currently exposed may pose some safety hazards

to recreational users who may want to come closer.

Roads

Approximately 31.7 miles of “existing roads” that lie within the Bonito project boundary

of 12,458 acres (non-Wilderness only). Most of the roads identified are restricted to

vehicle use and are identified as Class 1 or 2 roads (unimproved roads). Approximately

17 miles of roads are Class 1 roads, 8.3 miles of Class 2 roads and 4 miles of Class 3

roads all using native surface materials that may be contributing source of sedimentation

during rainfall runoff events. A good number of these roads run alongside near stream

channels. There are also 2. 4 miles of class 4 and 5 roads with bituminous surface

treatment and are mostly located on the eastern end of the project area.

7

Current road density value for the Upper Rio Bonito watershed is 1.18 mi/mi2 which

includes the White Mountain wilderness though it contains no roads which gives the

Upper Rio Bonito a lower road density value. Magado Canyon has a road density of 2.46

mi/mi2. And Middle Rio Bonito with a road density value of 1.44 mi/mi

2.

Native surface roads account for many of the sediment movements in watersheds because

they are a link between sediment source areas and stream channels. They can directly

affect the channel morphology of streams by accelerating erosion and sediment delivery

and by increasing the magnitude of peak flows.

Other factors that influence sediment movements include road gradient, road design (i.e.

out-sloped versus in-sloped, broad based dips), site conditions, age of road, fill slope

length, cut slope exposures, amount of vegetative cover or encroachment (on little used

roads) and amount of fill slope used on maintained roads.

Sediment impact to streams is primarily related to road density, proximity to stream and

road types such as paved versus unpaved roads. The greater the road density, the greater

the influence roads have on increasing sediment into streams such as culverts needed to

direct water and sediment off of roads, road stream crossings as well the increased

propensity for public vehicle traffic such as ATV users.

Current road density values for the Bonito project planning fall below road density range

of 1.7 - 4.7 mi/mi² which is considered to be “functioning inappropriately and at-risk” if

it’s in the upper density range. The Bonito project area’s road density values are well

within the desired range of road density values.

A road proximity or distance to an active stream channel is one of the major sources of

direct sediment input into a stream channel where factors such as surface materials,

amount of travel use, road density, and the number of stream crossings help contribute to

the amount of sediment entering stream channels. Approximately 26.2 miles of roads are

within 200 feet of a nearby stream channel. Many notable roads seen in Bear Canyon,

Tanbark Canyon, Philadelphia Canyon and Kraut Canyon are often much closer to stream

channels under 100 feet.

Grazing Allotments

There are 5 allotments within the Bonito Project area. The Loma Grande allotment on the

northeastern end and the Lower Bonito allotment on the eastern end of the project area

make up the bulk of the allotments. Wilderness, Dry Gulch and Alto allotments fringe the

project area on the north and south end. Grazing remains limited in those areas and are

not extensive as it once were in the past. The Loma Grande allotment was heavily grazed

up into the late 1990s in the Anan creek area (tributary to Iron creek which is tributary to

Kraut Canyon) eating plants and grasses down to one inch high. And Philadelphia

Canyon in the Lower Bonito allotment was recently grazed heavily until around 2004 or

2005 (per phone call with Larry Cordova, District Wildlife Biologist, March 20, 2008). Based from

recent field surveys done in July 2007 both Anan and Philadelphia shows marked

improvements as seen in photographs taken along the drainages.

8

Municipal Watersheds

Municipal watersheds are managed under multiple use prescriptions in land and resource

management plans.

The watershed of Upper Rio Bonito above the Bonito reservoir is defined as a “Municipal

Supply Watershed” according to the Washington Office Forest Service Manual 2542.05.

The definition of a Municipal Supply Watershed states:

“A municipal supply watershed is one that serves a public water system as defined in

Public Law 93-523 (Safe Drinking Water Act); or as defined in State safe drinking water

regulations. The definition does not include communities served by a well or confined

ground water unaffected by Forest Service activities.”

Air Quality

The Bonito project area is within the White Mountain Wilderness Class I airshed. It is

one of the 156 mandatory Class I federal areas in the United States. A Class I area, as

defined by the Clean Air Act, includes national parks greater than 6,000 acres, wilderness

areas and national memorial parks greater than 5,000 acres, and international parks that

existed as of August 1977. White Mountain Wilderness Class I airshed covers 31,171

acres.

Desired Conditions from Forest Plan:

The Lincoln National Forest Plan, as amended (Forest Plan), has many goals and

objectives (USDA 1986). The Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines for the soil and

water resources, which are applicable to all areas of the Forest, especially in management

areas related to this project (see Table 1.0), include:

Page 12 “Provide direction and support to all resource management activities

with emphasis on maintaining water quality and quantity.

Page 12 "Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and

management of the Forest.

Page 13 "Manage for a favorable flow of water for users by improving or

maintaining all watersheds to a satisfactory or higher condition.

Page 13 "Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and

management of the Forest.

Page 13 "Maintain on-site soil loss within established tolerance levels.

Page 13 "Manage riparian areas to provide optimum vegetation and ecological

diversity.

Page 41 "Through the use of best management practices, the adverse effect of

planned activities will be mitigated and site productivity maintained.

9

Table 1.0 Management Area Guidelines for the Bonito Project Area

Management

Area

Emphasis Notes

1F – White

Mountain

Wilderness

Wilderness

Management

Maintain high quality visual conditions in the Class I air

quality areas.

Provide maintenance activities in conformance with the

Wilderness Act.

1G – Rio

Bonito

Dispersed and

developed recreation,

and wildlife

management

1H – South

Fork Rio

Bonito

Maintain developed

recreation.

1H-RNA

William G.

Telfer

Research

Natural Area

Provide conditions

suitable for research on

natural ecosystems

Management Direction for Water and Soils

-Provide direction and support to all resource management activities with emphasis

on maintaining water quality and quantity.

-Secure and provide an adequate supply of water for the protection and management of

the Forest.

-Manage for a favorable flow of water for users by improving or maintaining all

watersheds to a satisfactory or higher condition.

-Maintain water quality to meet or exceed appropriate standards.

-Maintain on-site soil loss within established tolerance levels.

-Manage riparian areas to provide optimum vegetation and ecological diversity.

-Specific standards and guidelines are found in the Regional Guide; Region 3 Threatened

and Endangered Note 23 and Hydrology Notes 11 and 14; individual management area

prescriptions, and Forest-wide Standards & Guidelines under Activities F01-F05, K01,

K03-K06.

For soil resources, satisfactory soil condition is the goal. Therefore, areas listed as either

having impaired soil condition or unsatisfactory soil conditions are not meeting Forest

Plan goals. All map units are rated as being in satisfactory soil condition.

10

For hydrology resources, satisfactory watershed condition is the goal while striving

toward and or maintain with an upward trend from a Watershed Condition Class II

category in the non-wilderness portion of the watersheds. And strive for a Watershed

Condition Class I for the wilderness area. Areas where sedimentation may be a concern

or negative impact to riparian corridors would not be meeting Forest Plan goals and that

BMPs would be required to help mitigate negative impacts.

Past, Present and Future Activities:

Table 2.0 Past, Present and Future Activities

Resource

Past Activities

Present Activities

Reasonably

Foreseeable Future

Activities HydrologySoils Timber

HydrologySoils Recreation - Horseback,

OHV, fishing, hiking

and scenic viewing.

Recreational uses remain

popular on the forest.

Expect to see continued

but small and steady

growth on recreational

uses of the forest as

nearby population

centers continue to grow.

Hydrology/Soils Grazing was active in

the past which have

impacted various

riparian areas.

Grazing is limited or

under control.

Continued but limited

use of grazing in

watersheds in the non-

wilderness portion of

LNF

11

2. Laws, Regulations and Policies

Table 3.0 Laws, Regulations and Policies

Authority Level

(Federal, State, County,

Forest, Regional)

Law, Regulation, Policy

How Applicable to

Project Federal Organic Administration Act of

June 4, 1897, as amended

Authority of watershed

management on USFS lands.

Federal Multiple-Use Sustained- Yield

Act of 1960 National forests are

established and shall be used

for outdoor recreation, range,

timber, watershed, and

wildlife and fish purposes.

Federal National Environmental Policy

Act of January 1, 1970 Requires an environmental

assessment, including an

evaluation of impacts on

water resources, for all major

Federal actions.

Federal National Forest Management Act

of 1976 Emphasizes maintenance of

productivity, protect

and improve the quality of soil

and water resources; avoid

lasting impairments of land

productivity on Forest Service

lands.

Federal Federal Land Policy and

Management Act of October 21,

1976

“…the public lands be

managed in a manner that

will protect the quality of

scientific, scenic, historical,

ecological,

environmental, air and

atmospheric, water resource,

and archeological values.”

And that “Terms and

conditions must minimize

damage to scenic and

12

aesthetic values and fish and

wildlife habitat and otherwise

protect the environment.”

Federal The Clean Water Act of 1977 Section 313 of the act states

that Federal agencies must

comply with Federal, State,

and local requirements

related to the control and

reduction of pollution to the

same level and extent as

required of non-governmental

entities. Section 404 of the

Clean Water Act regulates

the discharge of dredged,

excavated, and/or fill material

in wetlands, streams, rivers,

and other U.S. waters.

Federal Clean Air Act 1977 & 1990 The 1977 amendments to the

Clean Air Act established a goal

for the “prevention of any future,

and remedying of any existing

impairment of visibility in

mandatory Federal Class 1 areas

which impairment results from

manmade air pollution.”

The 1990 amendments to the

Clean Air Act focused attention

on regional haze which has been

defined as visibility impairment

caused by the cumulative air

pollution emissions from

numerous sources over a wide

geographic area.

Executive Executive Order 11752 This EO mandates that

Federal agencies provide

national leadership in order to

protect and enhance the

quality of air, water, and land

resources through

13

compliance with applicable

Federal, State, interstate, and

local pollution standards.

Executive Executive Order 11990 Requires Federal agencies

take action in order to

minimize the

destruction, loss, or

degradation of wetlands; and

to preserve and enhance the

natural and beneficial values

of wetlands.

Executive Executive Order 11988 This order requires the Forest

Service to provide leadership

and to take action to (1)

minimize adverse impacts

associated with occupancy and

modification of floodplains and

reduce risks of flood loss, (2)

minimize impacts of floods on

human safety, health, and

welfare, and (3) restore and

preserve the natural and

beneficial values served by

floodplains.

3. Consistency with Forest Plan

Table 4.0 Consistency with Forest Plan

4. Environmental Analysis

HYDROLOGY: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Watershed Condition

Per the FSM 2521.03 condition of watersheds are evaluated and given a rating based on a

variety of criteria and a watershed is assigned with one of the following three classes:

1. Class I Condition. Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. The drainage network is

Forest Wide

Standard and Guideline/Pg(s).

Management

Area Standards and Guides/

Pg(s).

Recovery/

Maintenance Plan Pg(s).

Chapter 4, pg 3 Chapter 4, pg 68 - 77 Chapter 5, pg 162, 163

14

generally stable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil, aquatic,

and riparian systems are predominantly functional in terms of supporting beneficial uses.

2. Class II Condition. Watersheds exhibit moderate geomorphic, hydrologic, and

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. Portions of the watershed may

exhibit an unstable drainage network. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions

suggest that soil, aquatic, and riparian systems are at risk in being able to support

beneficial uses.

3. Class III Condition. Watersheds exhibit low geomorphic, hydrologic, and

biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition. A majority of the drainage

network may be unstable. Physical, chemical, and biologic conditions suggest that soil,

riparian, and aquatic systems do not support beneficial uses.

Watershed condition assessments provide basic information about soil and water

processes and conditions which are fundamental to ecosystem management. Based on a

CEO document (see Appendix C) on “Watershed Condition Class” ratings for 5th

HUC

watersheds across the Lincoln National Forest, a WCC rating of “II” was given for the

Rio Bonito watershed (189,455 acres) as a general description of the overall condition.

This assessment was done around the mid-1990s at the watershed scale. Currently there is

no updated version of the WCC for 5th

level HUC watersheds and that there are no WCC

for smaller sized watershed such as the 6th

level HUC watershed. We can infer from past

WCC values to what we see today and get a general estimate whether watershed

conditions have improved, degraded or primarily unchanged.

Watershed condition assessments provide basic information about soil and water

processes and conditions which are fundamental to ecosystem management. Assessments

will help identify management needs (via alternatives) in a watershed and will measure

accomplishment in terms of protecting or enhancing the health and function of

ecosystems in a watershed.

Assessments will require the diagnosis of land and water attributes that respond to natural

and human disturbances and indicate current conditions of soil productivity, hydrologic

function, with comparison to some reference conditions. These land and water attributes

include:

(1) Geology and landform; and soil and hillslope processes (such as surface and gully

erosion, compacted soils, and connected disturbed areas).

(2) Vegetation conditions which affect runoff (such as cover type, density, and age)

and hillslope stability.

(3) Stream flow regimes, patterns and temporal distribution.

(4) Water quality and quantity.

(5) Channel types and conditions such as bed sediments, turbidity and bank stability.

Currently, watershed conditions are believed to be satisfactory in terms of hydrologic

responses to rainfall and snowmelt, and overall water quality issues due to erosion and/or

soil conditions whether from the protection or lack of vegetation cover and road density.

15

The Upper Rio Bonito is a 6th

level HUC watershed where the “Watershed Condition

Class” is believed to be at a “WWC II” overall, and in areas of the White Mountain

wilderness watershed condition there is considerably better than the non-wilderness

portion of the project area. Portions of the 6th

HUC Magado Canyon and Middle Rio

Bonito watersheds are believed to be WWC II watersheds using the same criteria done

for 5th

level HUC WCC.

SOILS: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Vegetation

The Climatic Vegetation Communities represented in the Bonito Watershed are as

follows:

TABLE 5. Vegetation Climatic Communities Percent of the Bonito Watershed

Vegetation Communities ACRES Percent of WS

Pinon Juniper Woodland 2,059 7.2%

Ponderosa Pine Forest 4,570 16.0

Mixed Conifer Forest 13,644 47.9

Spruce Forest 8,215 28.8

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey

A Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) was completed by the Forest Service in 1984 and

covers the entire Smokey Bear District (USDA, 1984). The descriptions of the soils from

this report were used in determining reference conditions for the soils observed. The

average annual precipitation south of the project area at Ruidoso is about 21.8 inches.

(Western Regional Climate Center http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html ). The

interpolated average annual precipitation on the watershed is about 22-26 inches.

The different TES Units found within the allotment are shown with unit descriptions and

acreage in Table 1 (see Appendix A for a TEU Soils Map for the Bonito Project Area).

TABLE 6. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Units Descriptions

TES

UNIT

Slope

%

Surface

Texture/

Modifier

Soil Depth Parent

Material

Erosion

Hazard

Acres

Vegetation

5 0-15% Loam Deep Alluvium Slight

28

Popr

Fear2

Pipo

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html

16

6 0-15% Loam Deep Alluvium Slight

311

Popr

Fear2

Pipo

3054 41-

120% Loam Mod. Deep Igneous Moderate

4571

Abco

Psmeg

Pipo

Pist

Quga

3104 16-40% Very Cobbly

Loam Deep Igneous Slight

471

Pien

Ablaa

Abco

Psmeg

3124 0-15% Very Gravelly


74

Pien

Ablaa

Abco

Psmeg



6299

Pien

Ablaa

Abco

Psmeg



478

Feth

Dain

Fear2


Loam Deep Igneous Moderate

877

Feth

Dain

Fear2

3194 41-80% Clay Loam Deep Igneous Moderate

6802

Abco

Psmeg

Pipo

Pist

Quga

320 0-15% Gravelly Clay

Loam Shallow Igneous Moderate

163

Pipo

Pied

Jude2

Quun

321 16-40% Loam Mod. Deep Igneous Slight

153

Pipo

Pied

Jude2

17

Quun


Loam Shallow Igneous Moderate

498

Psmeg

Pipo

Jude2

326 16-40% Loam Shallow Igneous Moderate

1706

Psmeg

Pipo

Jude2

3274 41-80% Cobbly Loam Mod. Deep Igneous Severe

1390

Pipo


Clay Loam Shallow Igneous Severe

2525

Pipo

335 0-15% Loam Mod. Deep Igneous Moderate

6

Pied

Jude2

Jumo

Quga

336

16-40%

Loam

Deep

Igneous

Moderate

339

Pied

Jude2

Jumo

Quga

3404 41-80% Gravelly Loam Mod. Deep Igneous Severe

1248

Pied

Jude2

Jumo

Quga

347 16-40% Cobbly Loam Shallow Igneous Moderate

466

Pied

Jude2

Jumo

Quga

349 16-40% Loam Mod. Deep Igneous Moderate

6

Abco

Psmeg

Pipo

Pist

Quga


Loam Deep Igneous Moderate

16

Pien

Ablaa

18

407 16-40% Loam Deep Igneous Moderate

60

Psmeg

Pipo

Jude2

Soil Condition

Soil condition field monitoring has been ongoing for years and the latest information was

collected in 2008. The Bonito watershed was evaluated using protocols from Forest

Service Handbook 2509.18-99-1 R3 Supplement titled Soil Management Handbook

(Attachment B). Soil condition was evaluated by using a combination of field

inspections, topographic maps, and digital ortho-quads. The soil condition represents an

approximation. It is not possible to visit all areas. Interpretations were based on historical

use patterns, TES data, and slope characteristics.

TABLE 7. Slope Acres and Percent for the Bonito Watershed

WATERSHED 0-15% 15-40% 40%+ TOTAL

Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres

Rio Bonito 582 2% 3679 13% 24227 85% 28,488

The base maps used for the analysis were the three United States Geological Survey

(USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangle maps: Angus, Nogal, and Nogal Peak. Information from

the forest service corporate Geographic Information System database (GIS) was used to

overlay multiple datasets over the quad maps.

A field trip was made to the area on March 4, 2008. Data gathered consisted of visiting

generally representative areas. Soil condition information was then gathered and used in

the preparation of this report.

The soil condition rating procedure evaluates soil quality based on an interpretation of

factors that affect three primary soil functions. The primary soil functions evaluated are

soil stability, soil hydrology and nutrient cycling. These functions are interrelated. (FSH

2509.18). Definitions of soil functions are as follows:

Soil Hydrologic Function. The ability of the soil to absorb, store, and transmit

water, both vertically and horizontally. This function is assessed by evaluating or

observing changes in surface structure, surface pore space, consistence, bulk

density, infiltration or penetration resistance. Increases in bulk density or

decreases in porosity results in reduced water infiltration, permability and plant

available moisture.

19

Soil Stability. The ability of the soil to resist erosion. Soil erosion is the

detachment, transport, and deposition of soil particle by water, wind or gravity.

Vascular plants, soil biotic crusts, and vegetation ground cover (VGC) are the

greatest deterrent to surface soil erosion. Visual evidence of surface erosion

includes sheets, rills, and gullies; pedestalling, soil deposition, erosion pavement,

and loss of the surface "A " horizon. Erosion models may also be used to predict

on-site soil loss.

Nutrient Cycling. The ability of the soil to accept, hold and release nutrients. This

function is assessed by evaluating vegetative community composition, litter,

coarse woody material, root distribution and soil biotic crusts. These indicators

are considered an important source of soil organic matter, which is essential in

sustaining long-term soil productivity. It provides a carbon and energy source for

soil microbes, stores and provides nutrients which are needed for the growth of

plants and soil organisms and by providing for cation and anion exchange

capacities.

The definitions for soil condition ratings are as follows:

Satisfactory. Indicators signify that soil function is being sustained and soil is

functioning properly and normally. The ability of the soil to maintain resource

values and sustain outputs is high.

Impaired. Indicators signify a reduction in soil function. The ability of the soil to

function properly and normally has been reduced and/or there exists an increased

vulnerability to degradation. An impaired category indicates there is a need to

investigate the ecosystem to determine the cause and degree of decline in soil

functions. Changes in land management practices or other preventative measures

may be appropriate.

Unsatisfactory. Indicators signify that a loss of soil function has occurred.

Degradation of vital soil functions result in the inability of the soil to maintain

resource values, sustain outputs or recover from impacts. Unsatisfactory soils are

candidates for improved management practices or restoration designed to recover

soil functions.

Satisfactory soil condition class covers nearly 100% of the watershed. Soils are

functioning properly and retain their inherent productivity. Historically compaction and

the lack of vegetation groundcover (VGC) particularly around water sources has reduced

the nutrient cycling and contributed to decreased soil stability at these locations. These

localized impaired soils appeared to have a static or upward trend. The heaviest use in

the watershed is from recreation activities immediately adjacent to the Rio Bonito.

Erosion problems were observed at a few places in the Pinon-Juniper ecosystem, in the

eastern most part of the watershed. These problems appear to be stabilizing.

FOREST PLAN MANAGEMENT AREAS: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

20

The Bonito watershed is classified by the Forest Plan into Management Area 1F, 1H, 1H-

RNA and 1G. Management Area 1F which is the White Mountain Wilderness has the

major emphasis of dispersed recreation. 1G - Rio Bonito and 1H - South Fork Rio Bonito

have emphasis on developed and dispersed recreation. 1H-RNA is a research

management area

WILD AND SCENIC RIVERS: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT AND EFFECTS

The South Fork of the Rio Bonito is listed as eligible for designation as a Wild and

Scenic stream, however no designation has been made at this time (USDA Forest

Service, 2002).

RIPARIAN AREAS AND STREAM CHANNELS: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Riparian vegetation and stream channel data within this analysis are from on-the-ground

observations, aerial photo interpretation, corporate GIS database layers, and the Land

Resource Management Plan for the Lincoln National Forest (Forest Plan). Direction for

managing riparian areas on the Forest is found in the Forest Service Manual 2526 (USDA

2000), and the Forest Plan (USDA 1986).

Numerous named canyons or washes dissect the watershed. A few of the canyons or

washes within the project area have surface water flowing. Water is present only after

rains (ephemeral) or intermittently for short durations in most areas. Few of the streams

have year round surface water flow (perennial). However, below the surface, the water

table may be shallow in spots or have subsurface flow. This subflow may be close

enough to the surface to sustain small areas of riparian type vegetation. Fluctuations in

the subflow may cause the depth of free flowing water, or capillary moisture, to not be

within reach of roots for undefined periods of time. Drought conditions and groundwater

pumping are the primary causes for a reduction in subflow. The project area contains

mapped wetlands and floodplains. Major issues regarding recreation use in these areas is

of primary concern to this analysis. Also, recreation use in a municipal supply watershed

poses an additional concern.

There are riparian areas mapped on the Bonito watershed and no data was collected.

Field observations confirmed that there is an opportunity for riparian area development

due to generally deep soils and a corresponding great depth to groundwater in the

channels.

RIPARIAN AREAS AND STREAM CHANNELS: EFFECTS

Most of the effects discussed in this section pertain to recreation uses. The key factors

most likely to affect riparian areas are dispersed recreation.

21

Using R3 “Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook” (FSH 2509.22) for Best

Management Practices (BMPs) to protect soil and water conditions will help to protect

and/or minimize impacts to stream channels, riparian areas and water quality (i.e.

sedimentation).

WATER QUANTITY AND QUALITY: AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

Surface water quality and water quantity peak flow is affected by hydrologic function,

which is the ability of soil to capture, hold and release water. Hydrologic function is

strongly influenced by soil condition. However, the effect of soil condition on water

quality and quantity is generally based on a landscape scale and usually not related to

individual TES map units. For this reason water quality and quantity are addressed at the

landscape level rather than watershed scale. No change in hydrologic function at a

watershed scale is expected. though changes in hydrologic function are expected on some

localized map units.

If soil conditions degrade significantly, then the water quality of the watershed can

degrade due to a compromised hydrologic function. Runoff is usually increased and the

time that water sits on the land (water residence time) decreases. This decrease of water

residence time limits the ability of the soil to absorb and transmit water resulting in a

reduction of the capability to filter soluble solids and sediments thereby impacting water

quality. Turbidity is generally considered a gauge of watershed water quality and a low

turbidity result would indicate good water quality and stable soil conditions.

Similarly, as soil conditions degrade significantly, water quantity, in the form of runoff,

increases due to a compromised hydrologic function. The result is generally an increase

in peak flow discharges. In the following effects section, the analysis of increased water

quantity will not be focused around increased runoff, but rather be attributed to increases

of water quantity in the aquifer, subflow and soil. Therefore, an increase in water

quantity will be a positive attribute rather than a negative one.

Water Quantity

There are known surface water flow gauging stations near the vicinity of the project area.

Information can be found at the USGS National Water Information System Website

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis. The nearest stream gage on the Rio Bonito would be the

USGS gage near Lincoln, New Mexico (08389055) located approximately 22 miles

downstream. Record only extend from 1999 – 2002. Short term data on flow

measurements and the gage’s location far downstream may be an inappropriate use of

current data to extrapolate for the Rio Bonito above the dam and may not be practical to

ascertain if current (or future) management have impacted flow quantity. The New

Mexico Environment Department used a 3-year low-flow frequency (4Q3) regression

model for the Rio Bonito from Angus to below Bonito dam. Modeled results showed

“normal” stream flows ranging from 3.8 to 6.0 cfs. Several discharge measurements were

taken above Bonito Lake that ranged from 0.25 to 5.77 cfs.

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis

22

Water Quality

Water quality is assessed by comparing existing conditions with desired conditions that

are set by the States under the authority of the Clean Water Act. The New Mexico

Environment Department is the regulating authority for water quality in New Mexico.

The general classifications used for surface water quality by NMED are attaining and

impaired for all uses specified, and not assessed. Presently, water quality has not been

assessed within the project area to determine water quality parameters that may be

affected by watershed condition other than from impairment assessment done by the State

of New Mexico (i.e. 303(d) list).

The way that land is used may impact the water quality in a watershed. Uses on public

lands were primarily grazing, recreation, wood cutting and historic mining. Current use

is predominantly from recreation, grazing and mining are also uses taking place within

the watershed. Land uses on private land are those associated with grazing, rural

development, agriculture and recreational mining.

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 - No Action

Under all scenarios of the no action alternative, none of the proposed road work,

thinning, or prescribed burning activities would be implemented. Other previously

authorized activities would continue to occur in the area, such as controlling the spread of

invasive plants, improving and maintaining trails, road improvements, implementing the

travel management plan in its current form, recreational activities in designated areas and

dispersed areas, and grazing where allotments are active. When the direct, indirect, and

23

cumulative effects of the alternatives on hydrology and soils are considered, the No

Action Alternative has the greatest potential for negatively impacting water and soil

resources should a catastrophic wildfire occur.

Direct and Indirect Effects:

Based on erosion modeling scenarios using the WEPP FuMe model (see Appendix A –

Table 11.0. Output Summary Result) background erosion rate result -- the rate that will

occur with no action (i.e. “undisturbed forest”) – would be from 6.4 to 32 yd3/mi

2/yr. If

existing low access road network is included with the background erosion rate then it

would be from 6.8 to 38.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For existing high access road network erosion rate

would be from 7.1 to 48.9 yd3/mi

2/yr. This is dependent on the percentage of road

network that crosses live water during runoff events and the relative proximity to stream

channels where cross drains can redirect runoff water into channels. These estimates do

not include the amount or intensity of road use by the public. Also, increased

sedimentation is also dependent on rainfall duration, amount and intensity versus drier

seasons.

By allowing vegetation density and fuels to increase there is the increased likelihood of a

catastrophic wildfire happening. In a catastrophic wildfire scenario using the WEPP

FuMe model erosion sedimentation rate would be anywhere from 1292 to 4429

yd3/mi

2/yr. With the combined background sedimentation rate, road access and wildfire

effects, the estimated erosion rate would be from 1298.4 to 4819 yd3/mi

2/yr in the first

year after a wildfire. Amount, duration and rainfall intensity will be the determining

factors on the severity and amount sediment released downstream. Sediment rate would

be expected to attenuate over the next 3 years while the regrowth of plants (e.g. grasses,

forbs, trees) help stabilize the surrounding soils and reduce soil movement and erosion.

Post wildfire impact will produce a massive influx of sediment into drainages of the

Upper Rio Bonito above Bonito Reservoir which will impact Bonito Reservoir, and

Magado and Middle Rio Bonito. The City of Alamogordo’s (and other communities)

water supply in terms of quantity of water may not be available due to the displacement

of water from sediment. And that the quality of water would see unacceptable turbidity

and sediment levels along with ash contamination. This scenario will also have a major

impact on a Category 5 impaired stream channel Rio Bonito below the dam by

introducing excessive sediment and ash.

Cumulative Effects:

Past, present and foreseeable future projects or actions that have affected or will affect

the project area include historic heavy grazing, prescribed and natural fires, wildfire

suppression, invasive exotic plants, dispersed recreation and water development. These

occurrences have contributed incrementally to effects that have changed ecological

conditions of the area. Other activities being conducted over the watersheds include

recreation, mining, farming, wildlife management, and activities associated with rural

residential communities.

24

Historic heavy livestock grazing throughout the watersheds around the turn of the 19th

to

the 20th

century resulted in a reduction in native grasses and an increase in shrubs. In

addition, the introduction of African grasses, most obviously Lehmann lovegrass

(Eragrostis lehmanniana), 50 to 60 years ago has resulted in displacement of native

grasses in the most disturbed areas. In some areas, removal of vegetation by grazing

resulted in soil loss followed by site occupation by exotic grasses. Best Management

Practices (BMPs) to mitigate grazing effects have since been implemented on Federal

lands, with a general improvement in conditions. Soil loss, however, is most likely

irretrievable in human time frames (100 years), and methods to reverse site occupation by

exotic grasses in a wildland situation have not been developed.

Historic fuel wood harvesting in the project area was conducted prior to BMPs. This has

also contributed to historic soil loss and increase in shrubs.

Wildfire suppression activities since the establishment of the National Forest is

contributing to the trend of increased shrubs and tree density with associated decreases in

grasses on National Forest land.

Recreation impacts are primarily from vehicle use on roads (both un-surfaced and gravel)

and trails. Continued uses of these activities have the potential to increase sediment in

drainage channels, and in the case of off-road use, severely disturb vegetation and soils.

Presently, OHV use is significant in this area and as this outdoor recreation activity

grows in popularity with Bonito Lake area as being the prime recreational area on the

Lincoln National Forest. Unregulated use has the potential to some times create wildcat

roads and undesignated stream crossings which can pose an impact to the watershed.

Mining activity have occurred within and adjacent to the project area since the mid

1800’s. Historic surface and underground mining is a ground disturbing activity by

definition and causes numerous effects, some irreversible, to the environment. Historic

mining activity can have adverse effects to soil and water quality caused by excess

sediment and pollutants from areas of waste rock dumps or processed ore. Vegetation

can be impacted due to the need for large volumes of fuel wood to process ore. Water

quantities may also be impacted since water is generally necessary for present day

commercial mining activities. Currently, there is no planned commercial mining activity

reported within the project area. However, since the area is a mining district with historic

mineral production, there is a potential, that within the next century, renewed exploration

and extraction could occur should mining becoming viable again.

Farming is not a significant use in the upper portion of the watersheds. Presently,

farming does not take place on Forest land within the watershed. However, farming is

significant in the lower portions of the watersheds off Forest lands. Farming can impact

water quantity since irrigation uses groundwater and diverted surface water. Farming can

also impact water quality since agricultural chemicals can pollute surface and

groundwater. Sedimentation from the farm fields can impact the streams down stream

from farms.

25

Rural and urban development (all off Forest) in the watersheds has resulted in loss of

vegetation, increased polluted runoff from roads and disturbed areas, and increased

groundwater and surface water use.

Livestock grazing may impact soil, water and riparian function in a number of ways

including compacting the soil surface (hydrologic function), removing plant material

(stability), or changing the plant community composition (nutrient cycling). All soils on

these allotments must be managed to maintain or improve long-term productivity (Forest

Plan goals and objectives). This can be accomplished by implementing Best

Management Practices (BMP's) such as, but not limited to:

(1) annually prepare an operating plan with the permittee to allow for current allotment

conditions;

(2) make periodic field checks to identify needed adjustments in season and livestock

numbers including stock counts, forage utilization, assessment of rangeland to verify soil

and vegetative condition and trend;

(3) and use necessary techniques to achieve proper distribution, or lessen the impact on

areas which are sensitive or which would naturally be overused including riding and

herding to shift livestock locations, using salt or supplement feed, range improvements,

prescribed burning, trail construction, seeding, or prevention of intensive livestock

grazing or concentrated livestock use on soils that have low bearing strength and are wet

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Alternative 2 proposes treatments to occur on approximately 27,000 acres of national

forest land, including 15,339 of the White Mountain Wilderness to reduce tree densities

in an effort to restore natural ecosystem processes. Thinning would be utilized on

approximately 12,192 acres of non-wilderness; and prescribed fire would implemented

on the 27,000 acres of both wilderness and non-wilderness national forest land. The “no

treatment” acres which comprise approximately 6.5 percent of the project consist of

Mexican Spotted Owl Protected Activity Center core nest areas where ground-disturbing

management activities are not allowed.

The Proposed Action would include 4.0 miles of road construction or reconstruction with

road decommissioning activities occurring on those same 4.0 miles upon project

completion. Road construction would allow for 2,842 acres of removal of woody

material to enhance economic opportunities in the form of small diameter utilization

including biomass utilization, compost production, conventional lumber, and other wood

product opportunities.

The following methods could be utilized for timber stand improvement in non-wilderness

areas:

▪Manual felling

▪Mechanical felling

26

▪Mechanical grinding

▪Mechanical pushing

▪Mechanical extraction

▪Ground-based log removal

▪Cable log removal

▪Skyline log removal

▪Felling with no removal


All activities described in the proposed action have the potential to disturb soils

encouraging additional erosion and sedimentation to occur. Little or no impact to a

Category 5 impaired stream channel, Rio Bonito, below the dam. Activities through

mechanical thinning and/or prescription burns will result in a temporary increase in

sediment movement from exposed areas, increased activity on roads and other ground

disturbances in areas undergoing treatments. Soil erosion is directly related to the amount

of cover that is left intact to reduce the impact of rainfall. Logs, litter, duff, needle cast

and rock are effective in reducing soil displacement from raindrop impact.

The proposed construction of 4.0 miles of road will not adversely change the modeling

results when road density value changes little. Planned road locations are mostly away

from drainages well beyond 200 feet.

The proposed action may see a reduction in soil productivity and development on sites

where soils have become compacted, displaced, or burned. Improve watershed and soil

conditions will be likely over the long term when fuels are reduced and that the potential

threat to catastrophic wildfire become less of a risk. With the reduction of trees and

shrubs (ie. fuels) will reduce the amount of surface area for rain and snow to collect on

allowing moisture to fall on the ground. In some areas this will help improve soil

moisture and the retention of water.


Table 11.0 Output Summary Result) background erosion rate result in an undisturbed

forest would be about 6.4 to 32 yd3/mi

2/yr. If existing low access road network is

included with background erosion rate then it would be from 6.8 to 38.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For

existing high access road network it would be from 7.1 to 48.9 yd3/mi

2/yr. This is

dependent on the percentage of road network that crosses live water during major runoff

events and relative proximity to stream channels where cross drains can redirect runoff

water into channels. Also, increased sedimentation is also dependent on rainfall duration,

amount and intensity versus drier seasons. For prescribed burn results erosion rate would

be from 51 to 326 yd3/mi

2/yr depending on soil texture and slope. And for thinning

results erosion rate would be from 6.4 to 185 yd3/mi

2/yr whether it’s commercial or pre-

commercial thinning. Combination of prescribed burn, low access road network, and

thinning would produce an erosion rate of 64.2 to 549.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For prescribed burn,

high access road network and thinning operations you would see an erosion rate from

64.2 to 559.9 yd3/mi

2/yr.

27

Cumulative Effects:









to

the 20th
















and trails. Continued use of these activities have the potential to increase sediment in















28









from farms.











conditions;









Effects Relative to Significant Issues:

There are certain resource conditions that need to be considered before determining

whether extraordinary circumstances related to the proposed action would require further

analysis and documentation into an EA or an EIS format as listed in FSH Interim

Directive No. 1909.15-2004-1, approved June 29, 2004.

Floodplains, Wetlands, or Municipal Watersheds -

Floodplains: Executive Order 11988 directs agencies to avoid adverse impacts

associated with the occupancy and modification of floodplains. Floodplains are defined

by this order as “. . . the lowland and relatively flat areas adjoining inland and coastal

29

waters including flood prone areas of offshore islands, including at a minimum, that area

subject to a one percent (100-year recurrence)or greater chance of flooding in any one

year.

Proposed action would not alter or have adverse impacts to any floodplains within the

Bonito project area.

Wetlands: Executive Order 11990 is to avoid adverse impacts associated with destruction

or modification of wetlands. Wetlands are defined by this order as, “….areas inundated

by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support and under normal

circumstances does or would support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that

requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs,

potholes, wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.”

There are no mapable wetlands found within this project area on National Forest Service

lands. The definition of “mapable wetlands” according to FSM 2527.05 on definitions:

“Mapable Wetlands. A 1:24,000 scale map area of at least 0.05 square inches (a square

0.22 inches per side or a circle with a diameter of 0.25 inches). Include smaller wetlands

providing habitat for threatened, endangered or sensitive species.”

Two hundred feet equals 0.1 inch at a map scale of 1:24,000. A mapable area of 0.05

square inches is approximately 4.5 acres. According to FSM 2527.1 directive there is no

“mapable wetlands” located within the Bonito project area on Forest Service lands.

There are three requirements for a wetland:

1. Hydric Soils

2. Hydrophytic Vegetation (Emergent Vegetation)

3. Wetland Vegetation

There are small pockets of wetlands that exist in various parts of the sub-watersheds

within the Bonito project area. . This alternative will not have any adverse impact to

those wetlands.

Municipal Watersheds: Municipal watersheds are managed under multiple use

prescriptions in land and resource management plans.

The watershed of the Upper Rio Bonito (above the dam) is defined as a “Municipal

Supply Watershed” area according to the Washington Office Forest Service Manual

2542.05. The definition of a Municipal Supply Watershed states:



30



From Forest Service Manual 2542.1 on Municipal Supply Watershed Planning:

1. Existing water resource conditions as determined by a hydrologic investigation (FSM

2530).

2. Current uses, values, and management requirements for other National Forest

resources.

3. Projection of use in the watershed under multiple-use management practices.

4. Current and proposed handling and treatment of water by the municipality, or other

water user, after water is diverted from the municipal supply watershed.

A major portion of the Upper Rio Bonito watershed feeds into Bonito Reservoir and is a

Municipal Supply Watershed. This alternative action will likely see some sedimentation

introduced into this reservoir.

Conclusion for Alternative 2

Results from this alternative will help reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire by reducing

potential sediment amount by 800% to 2000% (depending on soil texture and slope)

when compared to a post-wildfire scenario as seen in the No Action alternative result.

The greatest potential sediment loss comes out of the Bear Creek/Rio Bonito and

Wilderness (see Appendix A – “WEPP FuMe Output Summary Result for Bonito with

dominant soil texture description”) area due to the progressively steeper slopes towards

the western end of the Upper Rio Bonito. This is matched well with a wildfire model that

was produced by a fuels specialist to determine the potential fire severity. The fire

severity map showed that the Bear Creek/Rio Bonito and Wilderness portions would

sustain the greater percentages of high and moderate severity burns under this alternative

in a post-wildfire scenario.

Alternative 3– Same as Alternative 2 but with no additional roads

Alternative 3 will treat 27,000 acres, the same number of acres as alternative 2, for both

wilderness and non-wilderness areas utilizing the same prescriptions as alternative 2;

however, tree removal will occur on a much smaller area in an effort to address issues

related to road construction effects including sediment movement. Under alternative 3,

no new road construction or reconstruction will occur.





31






With no new road construction it will not be significantly different from Alternative 2 in

terms of road density and that erosion modeling results are similar.









Table 11.0 Output Summary Result) background erosion rate result in an undisturbed

forest would be about 6.4 to 32 yd3/mi

2/yr. If existing low access road network is

included with background erosion rate then it would be from 6.8 to 38.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For

existing high access road network it would be from 7.1 to 48.9 yd3/mi

2/yr. This is

dependent on the percentage of road network that crosses live water during major runoff

events and relative proximity to stream channels where cross drains can redirect runoff

water into channels. Also, increased sedimentation is also dependent on rainfall duration,

amount and intensity versus drier seasons. For prescribed burn results erosion rate would

be from 51 to 326 yd3/mi

2/yr depending on soil texture and slope. And for thinning

results erosion rate would be from 6.4 to 185 yd3/mi

2/yr whether it’s commercial or pre-

commercial thinning. Combination of prescribed burn, low access road network, and

thinning would produce an erosion rate of 64.2 to 549.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For prescribed burn,

high access road network and thinning operations you would see an erosion rate from

64.2 to 559.9 yd3/mi

2/yr.

Cumulative Effects:









to

the 20th



32





































from farms.




33








conditions;











whether extraordinary circumstances related to this alternative action (should it be

chosen) would require further analysis and documentation into an EA or an EIS format as

listed in FSH Interim Directive No. 1909.15-2004-1, approved June 29, 2004.







year.

This alternative action will not alter or have adverse impacts to any floodplains within the









34










1. Hydric Soils



There are small pockets of wetlands that exist in various parts of the sub-watersheds

within the Bonito project area. This alternative will not have any adverse impact to those

wetlands.












2530).


resources.




35

A major portion of the Upper Rio Bonito watershed feeds into Bonito Reservoir and is a

Municipal Supply Watershed. This alternative action will likely see some sedimentation

introduced into this reservoir.



potential sediment amount by 800% to 2000% (depending on soil texture and slope)

when compared to a post-wildfire scenario as seen in the No Action alternative result.

The greatest potential sediment loss comes out of the Bear Creek/Rio Bonito and

Wilderness (see Appendix A – “WEPP FuMe Output Summary Result for Bonito with

dominant soil texture description”) area due to the progressively steeper slopes towards

the western end of the Upper Rio Bonito. This is matched well with a wildfire model that

was produced by a fuels specialist to determine the potential fire severity. The fire

severity map showed that the Bear Creek/Rio Bonito and Wilderness portions would

sustain the greater percentages of high and moderate severity burns under this alternative

in a post-wildfire scenario.

Alternative 4 – Wilderness Supplemental Alternative

Alternative 4 is proposed as a supplement to any of the above alternatives. This

supplement would allow for the use of chainsaws in the White Mountain Wilderness to

selectively thin up to 300 acres which would act as fuel breaks. Fuel breaks will be

located in the southeast portion of the project along critical boundaries which border

private lands and subdivisions. Fuel break areas lie within the CWPP for the Greater

Ruidoso Area and are adjacent to urban populations. Chainsaws would also be used to

construct fireline in areas within the White Mountain Wilderness.













36





The wilderness supplemental inclusion of 300 acres to any of the two alternatives will

add to the additional sedimentation.


Output Summary Result) background erosion rate result in an undisturbed forest would

be about 6.4 to 32 yd3/mi

2/yr. If existing low access road network is included with

background erosion rate then it would be from 6.8 to 38.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For existing high

access road network it would be from 7.1 to 48.9 yd3/mi

2/yr. This is dependent on the

percentage of road network that crosses live water during major runoff events and

relative proximity to stream channels where cross drains can redirect runoff water into

channels. Also, increased sedimentation is also dependent on rainfall duration, amount

and intensity versus drier seasons. For prescribed burn results erosion rate would be from

51 to 326 yd3/mi

2/yr depending on soil texture and slope. And for thinning results erosion

rate would be from 6.4 to 185 yd3/mi

2/yr whether it’s commercial or pre-commercial

thinning. Combination of prescribed burn, low access road network, and thinning would

produce an erosion rate of 64.2 to 549.4 yd3/mi

2/yr. For prescribed burn, high access road

network and thinning operations you would see an erosion rate from 64.2 to 559.9

yd3/mi

2/yr.

Cumulative Effects:









to

the 20th










37






























from farms.










38


conditions;









(see BMP’s descriptions.and guidelines).



whether extraordinary circumstances related to this alternative action (should it be

chosen) would require further analysis and documentation into an EA or an EIS format as

listed in FSH Interim Directive No. 1909.15-2004-1, approved June 29, 2004.







year.

This alternative action will not alter or have adverse impacts to any floodplains within the














39





1. Hydric Soils



There are no wetlands in this area.












2530).


resources.




This area is below Bonito Reservoir and is not considered as part of the Municipal

Supply Watershed.



potential sediment amount by 1350% to 1850% in this area alone when compared to a

post-wildfire scenario as seen in the No Action alternative result. With the lesser slopes

on the eastern end of the project area the erosion rate is expected to be less (see Appendix

40

A – Table 10.0. Output Summary Result for the Philadelphia Canyon area where the said

wilderness area is to the south of it).

Table 8. Comparison of Alternatives

Item of

Comparison

No Action

Alternative

Proposed

Action

Alternative

(with road)

Alternative 3

(no road)

Alternative 4

(chainsaw in

wilderness)

Improve

watershed

condition

x

x

x

Reduce risk of

wildfire x x x

Improve

hydrologic

function

x

x

x

Minimal x

41

sedimentation

or erosion Significant

increase in

sedimentation

and erosion

from wildfire

x

(significantly

reduced)

(significantly

reduced)

(significantly

reduced)

Additional

increase in

potential

sedimentation

x (additional 4 miles

of temporary road,

slight increase in

sedimentation

potential)

x (additional 300 acres

will see additional

increase in potential

sedimentation)

Impact to

Category 5

impaired

stream below

dam

x (significant

impact, post-

wildfire)

x (little or no impact)



5. Mitigation/Environmental Protection Measures

Table 9.0 Mitigation/Environmental Protection Measures

Mitigation Measure Description

Purpose

(Avoid, minimize,

reduce, eliminate,

compensate)

Applicable

Alternative

(All, 1,2,3,4)

Best Management Practices. Refer

to R3 Soil and Water Conservation

Practices Handbook when

applying treatments to project area

to minimize impact and apply

erosion prevention measures on

disturbed lands.

Reduce negative impact to

soils and hydrology.

2, 3, and 4

100 feet buffer zone from active Minimize negative impact to 2, 3, and 4

42

streamside (i.e. perennial) and

active wet area (springs, seeps,

wetlands).

live waters from project

activities.

50 feet buffer zone from

ephemeral and intermittent

channels

Reduce travel pathways

opportunities for loose

sediment materials during

precipitation events.

2, 3, and 4

6. Monitoring Recommendations

Table 10.0 Monitoring Recommendations

Monitoring Description

Applicable

Alternative

(All, 1,2,3,4)

Type Of Monitoring

(Implementation,

Effectiveness,

Validation)

Monitor and confirm buffer zone

restriction as seen in #5

Mitigation/Environmental

Protection Measures

2, 3 and 4 During and after

project work

43

7. LITERATURE CITED

Brady, Nyle C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Tenth Edition. Macmillian

Publishing Company.

Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; King, J. G. 1989. Reduction of soil erosion on forest roads. General

Technical Report INT-GTR-264. Ogden, UT: U.S. Forest Service Intermountain

Research Station. 24 p.

City of Alamogordo Engineering Department. Preliminary Water Resource and Site

Improvement Plan. April 1992.

DeBano, L. F. and Schmidt, L. J. Improving Riparian Areas Through Watershed

Management. General Technical Report RM-182. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest

Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station.

Dynamic Corporation. Site Characterization Report. Parsons Mine Tract. Smokey Bear

Ranger District. September 4, 1998.

Elliot, William J., Robichaud, Peter R, Miller, Sue I. 2007. Erosion Rates from Forests

and Rangelands Following Fuel Management. Soil and Water Engr Research Work Unit,

US Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station.

Furniss, M.J., T.D. Roeloffs, and C.S. Lee. 1991. Road construction and maintenance.

Pages 297-323 in W.R. Meehan, editor. Influences of forest and rangeland management

on salmonid fishes and their habitats. Special publication 19. American Fisheries Society,

Bethesda, Maryland.

Geology and Aggregate Resources District II, New Mexico State Highway Department,

Santa Fe New Mexico, 1972.

John Shomaker and Associates, Inc., 2002. City of Alamogordo 40 Year Water

Development Plan 2005 - 2045, Executive Summary

Keys to Soil Taxonomy, Soil Survey Staff, United States Department of Agriculture,

Natural Resources Conservation Service, Tenth Edition 2006

Memo from Richard W. Koehler. 1990. “Abandoned Mine Land Burea. Mining Division

“Report on Ruidoso Area Meeting Concerning Hazards identified by USFS Near Bonito

Lake.”

New Mexico Environment Department, 2008. Procedures for Assessing Use Attainment

for the State of New Mexico Integrated Clean Water Act 303(d)/305(b) Water Quality

Monitoring and Assessment Report: Assessment Protocol

44

New Mexico Environment Department, 2003. Total Maximum Daily Load for the Rio

Hondo Watershed, Appendix H.

NOAA Precipitation-Frequency Atlas of the United States. Atlas 14, Volume 1, Version

3. RUIDOSO 2 NNE , NEW MEXICO (29-7649) 33.3833 N 105.6167 W 2193 meters.

Ronnie, Rappmund, 1989. Bonito Lake Area report. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver

Office. Ground Water Branch, Geohydraulics Section.

Soil Survey Manual, Soil Survey Division Staff, United States Department of

Agriculture, Handbook No. 18, October 1993

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Handbook, FSH 2509.14 R-3 United States Department of

Agriculture, Forest Service Region 3, Albuquerque, New Mexico

Tularosa Basin and Salt Basin. Regional Water Plan 2000 - 2040. Vol. 1. South Central

Mountain RC&D Council, Inc.

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 1986. Lincoln National Forest Plan as

amended.

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 1989, Riparian Area Survey and Evaluation

System (RASES).

USDA Forest Service, 1999, Forest Service Handbook 2509.18, Soil Management

Handbook, R3 Supplement No. 2509.18-99-1.

USDA Forest Service, 2000, Forest Service Manual 2526, Riparian Area Management.

Wallace, G., and Komives, B., 1989. U.S. Bureau of Reclamation Study of the Bonito

Watershed Area. City of Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Western Regional Climate Center. Online at http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/index.html

45

8. Appendix

Appendix A - Model Run for Bonito Project Area using WEPP FuMe

The Bonito project area is located within three different 6th

HUC watersheds (Upper and

Middle Rio Bonito, and Magado Canyon) on the Lincoln National Forest. The majority

of the project area lies within the Upper Rio Bonito watershed. An USDA approved

modeling program called “Fuel Management Erosion Analysis (FuME) was used to

analyze potential erosion from site disturbances such as prescribed fire or mechanical

thinning. This online software program can be found on the Forest Service WEPP

website (http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/).

This modeling program helps provide baseline potential sediment loss (under the “No

Action” scenario) using the unit “tons per acre per year” (t/ac/yr) or “tons per square

miles per year” (t/mi2/yr). Results are compared with the Proposed Action and other

alternatives including the no action alternative.

MODELING PROGRAM: Water Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) Fuel Management

(FuMe) Tool Application for fuel treatment. The WEPP FuME model used for this EA

project.

PURPOSE OF THE MODEL: WEPP FuMe estimates sediment generated by fuel

management activities.

METHODOLOGY: WEPP FuMe estimates background erosion rates and compares

sediment loads and erosion from wildfire, thinning, prescribed fire, and low- and high-

use road networks for a given topography. Soil and water databases are the same as those

used for WEPP. It requires input as a series of representative hillslopes from a watershed.

It is intended to be used as a planning tool for NEPA analysis and similar documentation.

ASSUMPTIONS: WEPP FuME is an application of the WEPP model with a series of

standard assumptions built in regarding the management of forests for hazardous fuels

reduction. The built-in assumptions allow rapid comparison of numerous common fuel

management practices without explicitly producing a WEPP model.

LIMITATIONS: Small sub-watershed scale of 640 acres or less. Horizontal slope length

is limited up to 1500 feet. WEPP FuMe only models hillslope surface erosion processes.

It does not model channel processes such as sediment transport and gullying. The

interface does not model landslides on disturbed hillslopes or on road networks. It

provides only 4 soil textures to choose from and that clay loam and loam are the

dominant soil textures found on the Bonito project. Other short-comings or limitations

include the under or over-predicting sediment amount. A range of numbers is provided to

cover the potential amount in the loss of sediment.

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/

46

OUTPUT: Twelve output runs with long-term averages based on time between

disturbances. A narrative is then presented that aids the user in interpreting and reporting

the results. The model results are based on seven forest conditions.

1. Undisturbed mature forest

2. Wildfire

3. Prescribed fire

4. Thinning

5. No traffic roads

6. Low traffic roads

7. High traffic roads

All model outputs are computed as tons of sediment per square mile (tons/mi2/yr) of

contributing area for the year of disturbance. The WEPP FuME model will compute

average sediment yield per year if a value is entered for disturbance return period. The

climate, soil texture, topography, road density, wildfire return interval, prescribed fire

cycle and thinning cycle are specified by the user. The three road runs are summarized

on a low access range (for no traffic and low traffic) and a high access range (for low

traffic and high traffic with gravel). Road erosion is assumed to occur every year.

More information about the WEPP FuME on output can be found at:

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/fume/WEPP_FuME.pdf

Disturbance Return Period for WEPP FuME input:

- Wildfire: 5 to 15 years (Mixed Con); 3 to 10 years (Ponderosa) ; 10 to 25 years (Pinyon-

Juniper). Average return interval is 26 years for WEPP FuME input.

- Prescribed Fire: 1 to 5 years: average is 3 years for WEPP FuME input.

- Thinning: return interval for thinning, for pre-commercial will be 20 - 30 years, for

commercial will be 40-50 years.

- Road Density: Upper Rio Bonito (1.18); Magado Canyon (2.46); Middle Rio Bonito

(1.44). Upper Rio Bonito watershed’s low road density value is due to the lack of roads in

the White Mountain Wilderness.

For wilderness thinning and prescribed burning, chainsaw use is proposed for work at

boundary line near the southeastern end of the project boundary adjacent to the non-

wilderness portion of the forest. Average mechanical thinning is done every 25 years.

Wilderness contain mostly of the mixed conifer variety (approx 21,564 acres for entire

project area in elevation ranging from 7400 to11200 feet). Average wildfire return

interval is 26 years according to fuel specialist.

Typical hillslope profiles from various sub-watersheds within the project area were used

for this modeling exercise. In higher elevation sub-watersheds gradients become

increasingly steeper in mixed conifers and to some extent in the ponderosa pines. In

lower elevation near the eastern end of the project area slopes become increasingly less.

Slope values chosen for this modeling exercise ranged from 5 to 40 percent. For the

wilderness portion of the modeling slopes in the Tanbark and Bear Creek/Rio Bonito area

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/docs/fume/WEPP_FuME.pdf

47

cover this as they are adjacent to the wilderness and share many of the same soil textures

and steeper slopes.

Soil textures were identified using the Terrestrial Ecosystem Unit (TEU) Data to

determine areas containing either predominantly loam, clay loam, sandy loam or silt loam

for the model program. Dominant soils within the Bonito project are either loam or clay

loam characteristics. Relative soil erodibility values are built into the WEPP FuME

program based on one of the four soil textures chosen. For the Bonito project area

dominant soil textures are either clay loam or loam.

Climate data for the Ruidoso area was manually constructed using one available climate

data built into the WEPP FuME program. Using Ruidoso climate data from the Western

Regional Climate Center data was modified for input the WEPP model.

Modeling runs were based on 50 years of possible weather events.

All results can be seen in the summary analysis in Appendix A. Summary analysis

includes 1) Background sedimentation erosion rate for “Undisturbed Forest” pre and post

wildfire results. 2) Thinning effects on erosion rate and from wildfire effects. 3)

Prescribed fire effects and from wildfire results. 4) Combination from thinning and

prescribed fire. 5) Road impacts due to design and road density effects.

Analyst requirement:

WEPP FuMe is an online interface that can be run with any recent Web browser.

Data inputs

Climate

Soil texture

Road density

Length(s) of treated hillslope(s)

Length(s) of untreated buffers(s)

Hillslope gradient

Time between disturbances

Linkage to other models/tools:

WEPP FuMe is part of a set of tools online at http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fuels.

Developers (partners) USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain, Pacific Northwest, North

Central, and Pacific Southwest Research Stations.

A WEPP FuME Caveat:

As with any software modeling runs there are certain inherent uncertainties that go with

the WEPP FuMe software program. In some reports on the use of this model the stated

accuracy of WEPP FuME was that the true erosion rate could come within plus or minus

50 percent of the predicted value according to some observed values that fell within the

predicted range. This online software is used as part of our NEPA planning tool for our

erosion prediction efforts and it is the best available science to use for our NEPA

48

analysis. It is our responsibility to adequately disclose the WEPP FuMe model’s

shortcomings and that it is simply a predictive modeling tool.

Model results for the Bonito project area

White Mountain Wilderness area (eastern end at lower elevation) modeling results.

Hillslope Run #1:

Climate

RUIDOSO NM + Modified by Rock:Clime on March 11, 2009 from ALAMOGORDO NM 29 199 0 T MAX 56.24 61.50 67.91 77.45 86.21 95.17 94.55 92.01 86.84 77.52 65.33 57.14 deg F T MIN 28.22 32.09 37.52 45.09 53.27 62.31 65.56 63.99 57.90 46.90 34.99 28.57 deg F MEANP 1.33 1.46 0.00 0.00 1.84 1.02 5.58 5.27 2.83 0.00 0.93 2.48 in # WET 26.69 29.17 0.00 0.00 22.96 16.98 31.00 31.00 28.29 0.00 5.17 31.00

Soil texture clay loam

Hillslope length 735 ft

Hillslope gradient 5 30 15 %

Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y

Prescribed fire cycle 3 y

Thinning cycle 25 y

Road density 0 mi mi-2

Output summary based on 50 years of possible weather

Line Source of sediment

Sediment delivery in year of disturbance

(ton mi-2)

Return period of disturbance

(y)

"Average" annual hillslope

sedimentation (ton mi-2 y-1)

1 Undisturbed forest

1 12.8

2 Wildfire 2796.8 26 107.6

3 Prescribed fire

192 3 64.0

4 Thinning 19.2 25 0.8

49

Hillslope Run #2:

Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 25.6

2 Wildfire 3795.2 26 146.0

3 Prescribed fire

268.8 3 89.6

4 Thinning 32 25 1.3

50

Hillslope Run #3:

Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 19.2

2 Wildfire 3481.6 26 133.9

3 Prescribed fire

243.2 3 81.1

4 Thinning 25.6 25 1.0

51

Philadelphia Canyon area modeling results.

Hillslope Run #1 for commercial thinning

Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y

Road density 1.18 mi mi-2




(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 12.8

2 Wildfire 2809.6 26 108.1

3 Prescribed fire

185.6 3 61.9

4 Thinning 19.2 45 0.4

5 Low access roads

1.3 to 45.3 1 1.3 to 45.3

6 High access roads

4.7 to 45.3 1 4.7 to 45.3

52


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 19.2

2 Wildfire 3123.2 26 120.1

3 Prescribed fire

230.4 3 76.8

4 Thinning 25.6 45 0.6

5 Low access roads

1.7 to 46.9 1 1.7 to 46.9

6 High access roads

6.5 to 46.9 1 6.5 to 46.9

53


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 1292.8 26 49.7

3 Prescribed fire

70.4 3 23.5

4 Thinning 6.4 45 0.1

5 Low access roads

0.9 to 24.3 1 0.9 to 24.3

6 High access roads

2.9 to 24.3 1 2.9 to 24.3

54

Philadelphia Canyon area modeling results.

Hillslope Run #1 for pre-commercial thinning

Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 12.8

2 Wildfire 2809.6 26 108.1

3 Prescribed fire

185.6 3 61.9

4 Thinning 19.2 25 0.8

5 Low access roads

1.3 to 45.3 1 1.3 to 45.3

6 High access roads

4.7 to 45.3 1 4.7 to 45.3

55


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 19.2

2 Wildfire 3123.2 26 120.1

3 Prescribed fire

230.4 3 76.8

4 Thinning 25.6 25 1.0

5 Low access roads

1.7 to 46.9 1 1.7 to 46.9

6 High access roads

6.5 to 46.9 1 6.5 to 46.9

56


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 1292.8 26 49.7

3 Prescribed fire

70.4 3 23.5

4 Thinning 6.4 25 0.3

5 Low access roads

0.9 to 24.3 1 0.9 to 24.3

6 High access roads

2.9 to 24.3 1 2.9 to 24.3

57

Magado Canyon area modeling results.


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 0

2 Wildfire 2400 26 92.3

3 Prescribed fire

64 3 21.3

4 Thinning 0 45 0.0

5 Low access roads

2.5 to 62.4 1 2.5 to 62.4

6 High access roads

9.6 to 62.4 1 9.6 to 62.4

58


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 3680 26 141.5

3 Prescribed fire

204.8 3 68.3

4 Thinning 6.4 45 0.1

5 Low access roads

4.6 to 113.8 1 4.6 to 113.8

6 High access roads

18.4 to 113.8 1 18.4 to 113.8

59


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 0

2 Wildfire 2054.4 26 79.0

3 Prescribed fire

51.2 3 17.1

4 Thinning 0 45 0.0

5 Low access roads

2.2 to 52.8 1 2.2 to 52.8

6 High access roads

7.3 to 52.8 1 7.3 to 52.8

60

Magado Canyon area modeling results Hillslope Run #1 for pre-commercial thinning

Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 0

2 Wildfire 2400 26 92.3

3 Prescribed fire

64 3 21.3

4 Thinning 0 25 0.0

5 Low access roads

2.5 to 62.4 1 2.5 to 62.4

6 High access roads

9.6 to 62.4 1 9.6 to 62.4

61


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 3680 26 141.5

3 Prescribed fire

204.8 3 68.3

4 Thinning 6.4 25 0.3

5 Low access roads

4.6 to 113.8 1 4.6 to 113.8

6 High access roads

18.4 to 113.8 1 18.4 to 113.8

62


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 0

2 Wildfire 2054.4 26 79.0

3 Prescribed fire

51.2 3 17.1

4 Thinning 0 25 0.0

5 Low access roads

2.2 to 52.8 1 2.2 to 52.8

6 High access roads

7.3 to 52.8 1 7.3 to 52.8

63

Tanbark Canyon area modeling results (includes slopes on White Mountain

Wilderness)


Climate

White Mountain Wilderness NM + Modified by Rock:Clime on March 11, 2009 from ALAMOGORDO NM 29 199 0 T MAX 42.48 47.74 54.15 63.69 72.45 81.41 80.79 78.25 73.08 63.76 51.57 43.38 deg F T MIN 16.75 20.62 26.05 33.62 41.80 50.84 54.09 52.52 46.43 35.43 23.52 17.10 deg F MEANP 1.33 1.46 0.00 0.00 1.84 1.02 5.58 5.27 2.83 0.00 0.93 2.48 in # WET 26.69 29.17 0.00 0.00 22.96 16.98 31.00 31.00 28.29 0.00 5.17 31.00




Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 19.2

2 Wildfire 2848 26 109.5

3 Prescribed fire

217.6 3 72.5

4 Thinning 19.2 45 0.4

5 Low access roads

0.6 to 3.5 1 0.6 to 3.5

6 High access roads

1.4 to 6.8 1 1.4 to 6.8

64


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 1356.8 26 52.2

3 Prescribed fire

89.6 3 29.9

4 Thinning 6.4 45 0.1

5 Low access roads

0.4 to 2.0 1 0.4 to 2.0

6 High access roads

0.7 to 4.7 1 0.7 to 4.7

65


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 32

2 Wildfire 3955.2 26 152.1

3 Prescribed fire

320 3 106.7

4 Thinning 25.6 45 0.6

5 Low access roads

0.7 to 4.2 1 0.7 to 4.2

6 High access roads

1.7 to 7.3 1 1.7 to 7.3

66

Tanbark Canyon area modeling results


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 19.2

2 Wildfire 2848 26 109.5

3 Prescribed fire

217.6 3 72.5

4 Thinning 19.2 25 0.8

5 Low access roads

0.6 to 3.5 1 0.6 to 3.5

6 High access roads

1.4 to 6.8 1 1.4 to 6.8

67


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 1356.8 26 52.2

3 Prescribed fire

89.6 3 29.9

4 Thinning 6.4 25 0.3

5 Low access roads

0.4 to 2.0 1 0.4 to 2.0

6 High access roads

0.7 to 4.7 1 0.7 to 4.7

68


Climate





Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 32

2 Wildfire 3955.2 26 152.1

3 Prescribed fire

320 3 106.7

4 Thinning 25.6 25 1.0

5 Low access roads

0.7 to 4.2 1 0.7 to 4.2

6 High access roads

1.7 to 7.3 1 1.7 to 7.3

69

Bear Creek/Rio Bonito area modeling results.


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 4428.8 26 170.3

3 Prescribed fire

268.8 3 89.6

4 Thinning 12.8 45 0.3

5 Low access roads

1.2 to 6.4 1 1.2 to 6.4

6 High access roads

3.0 to 12.7 1 3.0 to 12.7

70


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 4428.8 26 170.3

3 Prescribed fire

268.8 3 89.6

4 Thinning 12.8 45 0.3

5 Low access roads

1.2 to 6.4 1 1.2 to 6.4

6 High access roads

3.0 to 12.7 1 3.0 to 12.7

71


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 45 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 0

2 Wildfire 3264 26 125.5

3 Prescribed fire

134.4 3 44.8

4 Thinning 6.4 45 0.1

5 Low access roads

0.6 to 3.3 1 0.6 to 3.3

6 High access roads

1.3 to 5.6 1 1.3 to 5.6

72

Bear Creek/Rio Bonito area modeling results.


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 4428.8 26 170.3

3 Prescribed fire

268.8 3 89.6

4 Thinning 12.8 25 0.5

5 Low access roads

1.2 to 6.4 1 1.2 to 6.4

6 High access roads

3.0 to 12.7 1 3.0 to 12.7

73


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 0

2 Wildfire 3264 26 125.5

3 Prescribed fire

134.4 3 44.8

4 Thinning 6.4 25 0.3

5 Low access roads

0.6 to 3.3 1 0.6 to 3.3

6 High access roads

1.3 to 5.6 1 1.3 to 5.6

74


Climate


Soil texture loam



Buffer length 50 ft

Wildfire cycle 26 y


Thinning cycle 25 y





(ton mi-2)


(y)




1 6.4

2 Wildfire 4435.2 26 170.6

3 Prescribed fire

230.4 3 76.8

4 Thinning 12.8 25 0.5

5 Low access roads

0.8 to 5.9 1 0.8 to 5.9

6 High access roads

1.9 to 11.8 1 1.9 to 11.8

75

Table 11.0 WEPP FuMe Output Summary Result for Bonito with dominant soil texture

description

Erosion Rate for first year

of disturbance (yd3/mi

2/yr)

(clay loam soil) (loam soil) (clay loam soil) (loam soil) (clay loam soil) Tanbark Canyon (wilderness and non-wilderness area)

Bear Creek/Rio Bonito

(wilderness and non-wilderness

area)

Philadelphia Canyon (non-wilderness)

Magado Canyon (non-wilderness)

Wilderness (near S.E. end of project boundary)

Undisturbed Forest 6.4 - 32 0 - 6.4 6.4 - 12.8 0 - 6.4 12.8 - 25.6

Thinning 6.4 - 25.6 6.4 - 12.8 6.4 - 185 0 - 6.4 19.2 - 32

Prescribed Fire 89.6 - 320 134 - 269 70 - 230 51 - 205 192 – 268.8

Wildfire 1356 - 3955 3264 - 4429 1292 - 3123 2054 - 2400 2796.8 – 3795.2

Low Road Access .4 - 4.2 .6 - 6.4 .9 - 1.7 2.2 - 4.6 no roads

High Road Access .7 - 7.3 1.3 - 12.7 2.9 - 6.5 7.3 - 9.6 no roads

Erosion Rate for first year

of disturbance (yd3/ac/yr)

(clay loam soil) (loam soil) (clay loam soil) (loam soil) (clay loam soil)

Tanbark Bear Creek/ Philadelphia Canyon Magado

Wilderness (near S.E. end of project boundary)

Undisturbed Forest .01 - .05 0 - 0.01 .01 - .02 0 - 0.01 .029 - .04

Thinning .01 - .04 .01 - .02 .02 - .29 0 - 0.01 .029 - .04

Prescribed Fire .14 - .5 .21 - .42 .1 - .36 .08 - .32 .36 - .51

Wildfire 2.1 - 6.2 5.1 - 6.9 2.0 - 4.8 3.2 - 3.7 4.37 – 5.93

Low Road Access .001 - .006 .001 - .01 .001 - .002 .003 - .007 no roads

High Road Access .001 - .01 .002 - .02 .004 - .01 .01 - .015 no roads

76

Appendix B - Maps, Tables, Figures, and Charts

ATTACHMENT A: FIGURES

LIST OF FIGURES

1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) Map of the Bonito watershed

2. Soil Condition Rating Guide

3. Index of TEU Map Units for the Bonito watershed TES

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

Appendix C – Watershed Condition Class

CEO document contents:

WATERSHED CODES LINCOLN NATIONAL FOREST

WATERSHED WATERSHED CODE # DISTRICT EST. MAR CLASS

RIO GRANDE 13

RIO GRANDE CLOSED BASIN 1305

TULAROSA VALLEY 13050003

WESTSIDE SIERRA BLANCA 1305000367 SMOKEY BEAR CLASS II

WESTSIDE SACRAMENTO 1305000368 SACRAMENTO CLASS II

SALT BASIN 13050004

SACRAMENTO - SALT FLAT 1305000469 SACRAMENTO CLASS II

WESTSIDE GUADALUPE 1305000470 GUADALUPE CLASS II

UPPER PECOS 1306

ARROYO DEL MACHO 13060005

DEL MACHO - SALT CREEK 1306000575 SMOKEY BEAR CLASS III

RIO HONDO 13060008

RIO BONITO 1306000877 SMOKEY BEAR CLASS II

RIO RUIDOSO 1306000878 SMOKEY BEAR CLASS III

ALAMO - MAVERICK 1306000879 SMOKEY BEAR CLASS II

CHAVES - ESCONDIDO 1306000880 SMOKEY BEAR CLASS III

RIO PENASCO 13060010

UPPER RIO PENASCO 1306001081 SACRAMENTO CLASS III

AQUA CHIQUITA 1306001082 SACRAMENTO CLASS III

ELK - BURNT CANYO 1306001083 SACRAMENTO CLASS II

LOWER RIO PENASCO 1306001084 SACRAMENTO CLASS II

BLUEWATER CREEK 1306001085 SACRAMENTO CLASS III

UPPER PECOS - BLACK 13060011

NORTH GUADALUPE 1306001186 GUADALUPE CLASS III

SOUTH GUADALUPE 1306001187 GUADALUPE CLASS II

CLASS I 0 WATERSHEDS

CLASS II 9 WATERSHEDS

CLASS III 7 WATERSHEDS

84

(Note: Watershed code numbers seen above was used in 1990s are not the same

Hydrologic Unit Code # used today. Some watershed names have changed).

Appendix D - BMP's Specific to the Bonito Watershed Project.

From the Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook, Southwestern Region (R3)

known as handbook on “Best Management Practices.” There are certain BMPs that need

to be made aware for this project. Suggested chapters where certain activities may fall

under will need to follow required BMPs.

CHAPTER 20 - RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

CHAPTER 30 - RESOURCE PROTECTION ACTIVITIES

CHAPTER 40 - RESOURCE ACCESS AND FACILITIES

85

Supplement to Hydrology and Soils Report

For

The Bonito Forest Restoration Project

Authors: April Banks, Lincoln National Forest Hydrologist

Jennifer Hill, Lincoln National Forest Soils Scientist

Date: June 21, 2011

86

Watershed Report Supplement

/s/ Jennifer Hill

Jennifer Hill

Forest Soils Scientist

/s/ April Banks

April Banks

Forest Hydrologist

June 25, 2011

87

Watershed Condition- The project area watersheds has been re-evaluated since the Bonito

Soil and Hydrology report was completed. In 2010 the Lincoln National Forest conducted

a forest wide watershed assessment at the HUC 6 level. The watershed condition has

changed in the project area. It is also important to note that there are differences in how

the watershed condition was rated when the Bonito Watershed project area was originally

rated based on a HUC 5 watershed which is larger than a HUC 6 watershed. The

watersheds were also rated based on a different method that met the same objective in

defining condition.

The Upper Bonito Watershed is now rated as an impaired watershed Class III. Most of

the project area is in the Upper Bonito Watershed. Middle Rio Bonito and Magado

Canyon watersheds are functioning at risk, Class II. The watershed condition in the

Bonito project area was classified as a Class II watershed, a watershed functioning at risk.

The watershed experienced a severe flood in July 26-27th

of 2008 which impacted the

watershed condition.

Twelve indicators were used to evaluate the watersheds that were divided into four

attribute scores: Aquatic physical, aquatic biological, terrestrial physical and terrestrial

biological. Differences in condition based on changes in the watershed will be discussed

below. Changes have occurred in the riparian vegetation indicator and water quantity

indicator.

The riparian vegetation condition is part of the aquatic biological score. The riparian

vegetation indicator addresses the function and condition of riparian vegetation along

streams, water bodies, and wetlands. The riparian condition has changed in the project

area since the 2007 riparian survey. The current riparian condition is impaired in the Upper

Rio Bonito, and Magado Canyon. The Middle Rio Bonito riparian condition is functioning at

risk. The flood in 2008 caused by Hurricane Dolly removed many riparian plants and the site

is recovering.

Water Quantity is part of the aquatic physical score. The Water quantity indicator addresses

changes to the natural flow regime with respect to the magnitude, duration, or timing of the

natural stream flow hydrograph. The rating is based on conditions to historic conditions and

reference conditions. The natural hydrograph baseline is stream flows unaltered by

anthropogenic actions. Emphasis is on the permanent, long-term effects of water diversions

and water control features rather than flow changes due to vegetation management.

This score is impaired due to the dam at Bonito Lake and historical activities in the Bonito

Project Area that impact current conditions. Streams that feed into the project area such as

Littleton were straightened to accommodate historical mining and agricultural activities.

Many of these channels lack connectivity to the floodplain and sinuosity. This means that the

channels flow faster and do not store water in wetlands. Streams that lack connectivity to the

floodplain or sinuosity do not accommodate floods as well as those streams that are

connected to the floodplain. Floodplain connectivity allows flows to overtop the channel and

lower velocity of flow and decrease height of the water and this allows water to be absorbed

into soils which retain the water. The decrease in the water quantity score is a reflection of

88

the streams not able to accommodate the 2008 flood. Upper Bonito, Magado Canyon and

Middle Rio Bonito are all rated impaired for the water quantity indicator.

The Bonito Project will still meet its objective even though there have been changes to

the overall classification of the watershed and condition. The purpose of the Bonito

Project Watershed is to address the high likelihood of losing defining ecosystem

components due to the absence of fire. The vegetative species and cover types are

influenced by the fire regime and results in periods of fuel accumulation with infrequent

intense fires. Since fire suppression has occurred in this project area to protect private

property, and human valued resources, such as a municipal water supply, the project area

has a high fuel rating. A high fuel rating results in large high severity burns, which are

likely to produce vegetation mortality, loss of soil organic matter, and poor protection to

soil and water. Currently the Fire Effects Indicator is impaired for all watersheds in the

Bonito project area. The fire effects regime has not changed since the project was

initiated. It is in an impaired state. The Bonito Project will address this and help aid in

restoring the overall health of the watershed.

Below is a table of the reductions in sediment delivery for the two roads proposed for

reconstruction. The assumptions are based on the use of water bars based on BMP

spacing on soil type and slope. An average slope of road was used to calculate the

values. If these roads were going to be heavily used the BMP is to gravel the roads since

the erosion would be extreme. Comparison is made from a closed road that still has a

prism, not vegetated and has not been maintained.

NFSR 601 Reconstruction Road Prism Erosion

Reduced

Sediment Leaving

Buffer Reduced

Low Volume Treated, Native 90.3% 98.9%

High Volume Treated, Gravel 92.3% 6.8%

Treated and nonuse 90.6% 99.1%

NFSR 989C Reconstruction Road Prism Erosion

Reduced

Sediment Leaving

Buffer Reduced

Low Volume Treated, Native 85.9% 89.8%

High Volume Treated, Gravel 46.4% 64.2%

Treated and nonuse 87.2% 92.9%

89

90

Corrected soil erosion potential for the project area for table 6.

Documents

BONITO WATERSHED PROJECT - a123.g.akamai.neta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akamai... · planned upcoming Bonito Watershed Project on the Lincoln National