BONITO WATERSHED PROJECTa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Bonito Watershed project (28,466 acres) on historic resources. NHPA (Section 106) is the primary law that

1

BONITO WATERSHED

PROJECT (Bonito Forest Restoration Project)

Heritage Resources Specialist Report

March 20, 2009

Revised

April 1, 2011

Prepared by:

Eric Dillingham

/s/ Eric Dillingham

For:

Smokey Bear Ranger District

Lincoln National Forest

April 1, 2011

2

Abstract: The National Historic Preservation Act, NEPA, NAGPRA, FPMA and other

federal law, policy and agreements with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation

Office require that the Lincoln National Forest account and manage the effect of the

Bonito Watershed project (28,466 acres) on historic resources. NHPA (Section 106) is

the primary law that we need to consider. The required Native American Consultation

process has not shown that any Traditional Cultural Properties (also considered an

historic property under NHPA) are present, after more than a year of repeated attempts to

contact tribal authorities. Archaeological survey of the project area was only 20%

complete as of March 2009 so that additional cultural resources survey became necessary

and can be phased in over several years using the Appendix J, Wildland Urban Interface

(WUI) agreement (USDA – Forest Service, Region 3 2009).

Known archaeological resources in the project analysis area include: mines, cabins,

homesteads, Monjeau Lookout, other historic sites, a prehistoric pueblo, rock art and

artifact or lithic scatters (38 total known historic properties). Aerial photography and GIS

can assist survey needs. Unit-by-unit analysis shows where additional survey is

necessary and where potential impacts to historic resources might occur without

protection (avoidance) or other mitigation measures. Indirect effects can include impacts

to the viewshed of historic properties that are eligible to the National Register under

criteria A-C. This report is intended as specialist input for NEPA analysis and does not

meet the requirements for Section 106 clearance.

Proposed Action

The project area encompasses 28,466 acres of wilderness and non-wilderness lands.

Vegetation includes ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper woodland, and mixed conifer.

Overstocked timber has led to current conditions unfavorable to structural diversity of the

forest and T&E species habitat while favorable to large scale stand replacement fire and

unwanted sediment flow into Bonito creek and reservoir. The proposed action will:

treat vegetation by thinning; burn excess forest fuels; reduce non-desirable plants;

improve riparian crossings, and restore meadows. Primary goals include restoration of

fire-adapted ecosystems, wildlife habitat, riparian zones, watershed conditions and

recreational values. Thinning treatments can include manual felling, mechanical felling,

mechanical grinding such as mastication, mechanical pushing, mechanical extraction,

ground-based log removal, cable log removal, skyline log removal and felling with no

removal.

Reference is made to the Proposed Action (Public Scoping Letter, November 21, 2008)

for specific treatments in specific forest types.

Additionally, for access to treatment units and removal of forest products, up to four

miles of temporary roads would be constructed.

No Action Alternative

Under this EA, if this alternative is chosen, activities described in the proposed action

such as timber treatments, thinning, road work and prescribed fire would not occur.

Related areas with activities and management direction include wildlife and fish, water

3

and soils, human and community development, and wildland fire protection. Standard

management practices outlined in the Forest Plan could continue to occur, including

those previously authorized or under review, such as the Travel Management Plan. Two

scenarios to be analyzed under the No Action alternative is continuation of forest

conditions and trends including containing wildfires to 10 acres or less and the potential

for large wildfires.

No Additional Roads Alternative

The No Additional Roads Alternative is the same as the proposed action minus the four

miles of new roads. While no new roads would be constructed, the same treatment

acreage would occur. Acreage alterations would occur on a unit-by-unit basis.

Wilderness Alternative

The Wilderness Alternative is a supplement to any of the other three alternatives. It

allows for the use of chainsaws in the White Mountain Wilderness to selectively thin up

to 300 acres for fuelbreaks. Cut materials may be hand-piled and burned. Fireline can

include uncured vegetation, blacklines, wetlines, or line dug to mineral soil. Ignition of

burning may be hand-applied or by aerial ignition.

Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide specialist (archaeologist) input for management

of heritage resources that could be within and therefore impacted by the proposed action.

The proposed action occurs along Bonito Creek, close to Alto, New Mexico. Permanent

water from this area is shared by Holloman Air Force Base, Alamogordo, Nogal,

Carrizozo and Fort Stanton. The proposed action is occurring within the watershed

feeding Bonito Creek.

Background Information – Cultural Resources

Numerous archaeological reports are on-file at the Lincoln National Forest that are within

the project proposed action units. Much of the information has been placed onto

corporate GIS layers available to archaeologists (sites) and other specialists (surveyed

areas, Lincoln Geodatabase, Heritage Resources, survey_pl, survey_routes). Detailed

background information is available in a report by Eric Dillingham dated January 23 ,

2008, submitted to the Bonito project team. The analysis area is based on a shapefile

titled “Bonito_Watershed”.

Prehistoric finds span over 10,000 years with most formal heritage properties falling

within the last 3,000 years. The majority of these sites are late Archaic or Formative.

Puebloan architecture is found at a few sites across the Smokey Bear Ranger District,

including within the analysis area. Prehistorically at the pueblos, there were semi-

permanent occupations that included corn agriculture. Hunting-and-gathering and other

activities were responsible for the creation of many related sites that were not permanent

locations, including gathering and processing of chert (flint) for stone tools, hunting and

kill sites, and short-term camps.

4

The Nogal District (Bonito is a sub-district) started with 1865 placer gold discoveries

with the American and Helen Rae mines dating to 1868 (operated by Ft. Stanton

soldiers). Mineral exploration and exploitation occurred for gold, silver, copper, lead and

and zinc with molybdenum being known but never exploited (Griswold 1959). Placer

operations were common through the early 20th

Century. Underground operations were

also in place by 1904 in the following operations: Ibex, Rockford, Parsons, America,

Cross-cut, Old Abe, Helen Rae, Iowa and New Mexico Mines. There were stamp mills

located at the Rockford, American and Parson mines by 1883.

The National Register site Parsons mine included a glory hole with ore carts on

tramways, amalgamation plant (prior to 1914) and a cyanide plant built in 1914. The

Parsons mine was originally named the Hopeful Mine and is still in the Hopeful claim.

The gold deposit was discovered in 1880 with the most productive period between 1900-

1918 (Griswold 1959).

Figure 1. The Parsons mine area in the early 1900s.

The Vera Cruz mine had a similar history, starting in 1889. The mines were beginning to

close by 1910 across most of the district, with no taxable value at any mine by 1922.

Mine re-openings were brief, in 1931 (Silver Plume and Bonita) and in the 1960s for

molybdenite (26 mines, many of them re-openings of historic-based locations). This

information is summarized from Ackerly (1997: 155-156).

Other historic activities in the area have included tourism (guiding, day-use and

camping), Forest Service-related management, City of Alamogordo and Holloman’s

water development, and homesteading.

Objectives

For a finding of No Effect, ground-disturbing activities should completely avoid

archaeological sites (salvage and commercial logging, hazard-tree felling, skid-trails,

transportation). Approval would be immediate upon completion of the archaeological

report to NM SHPO. Sites previously determined non-eligible to the National Register of

5

Historic Places would not necessarily be avoided, since these are not managed for

protection.

For a finding of No Adverse Effect, hand-crews could fall trees in-and-around most

archaeological sites, with stipulations (hand-removal), as long as National Register

characteristics of these sites are not affected. Prescribed burning is allowed under low-

intensity conditions in certain site types. Approval would take a 30-day consultation

period with the NM SHPO. Other ground-disturbing activities would avoid sites.

The Lincoln National Forest reached a finding of No Adverse Effect on July 22, 2008

prior to a NEPA decision, after consulting with the New Mexico State Historic

Preservation Office (Lincoln National Forest report 2008-08-053). A letter from the

Lincoln National Forest to the NM SHPO dated 12/18/2008 requested archaeological

survey be limited to slopes less than 30% instead of the usual 40%. This was based on

the nature-and-distribution of sites in the project area.

Phasing will allow archaeological survey and project design features for archaeological

site protection and mitigation to occur post-decision. Phasing is allowed under the

Wildland Urban Interface agreement between Region 3 of the USDA Forest Service and

the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office.

Since 2008, two of the phased archaeological survey reports have been completed

(Dillingham 2009, 2010). The surveys updated previously recorded archaeological sites

(table 2 of this report) and recorded thirty-nine new archaeological sites. The majority

are small mine sites (adits and prospect pit clusters) that are ineligible to the National

Register of Historic Places. Other sites are larger or more intact mining locales that are

or might be National Register eligible, a small, prehistoric pueblo, a new segment of the

National Register-listed Bonito pipeline, and several prehistoric artifact scatters.

The Native American consultation process was required (see below).

Regulatory Framework

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, as amended in 1992, provided the

framework for requiring archaeological survey, the Native American consultation process

and agency determination of effect to historic resources (Adverse Effect, No Adverse

Effect, No Effect). Generally, once these requirements are met, discussion for NEPA

documents can be completed. The National Forest Management Act requires that the

agency follow federal heritage laws (see Lincoln National Forest Plan, pp. 1-2, principles

5 and 6). Unanticipated discovery situations or impacts can lead to protection of historic

resources and Native American human remains via the Archaeological Resources

Protection Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. NHPA,

NEPA and Executive Order 11593 all require consultation with tribal governments.

Forest Service policy and manuals carefully follow federal law. The Lincoln National

Forest plan provides direction for implementation of laws on the Forest.

6

The guiding specialist on the Lincoln National Forest is the Forest Archaeologist who

receives advice from the archaeologist assigned to this project (Eric Dillingham,

Assistant Forest Archaeologist).

Native American Consultation Process

In early 2008, the Lincoln National Forest consulted with the Mescalero Apache Tribe

and Zuni Pueblo for the presence and management of Traditional Cultural Properties

(TCP), sacred locations, and access to religious locations prior to completing consultation

with the New Mexico SHPO’s office.

Generally, the Forest provides a description of project activities, polygon maps and a

cover letter to each tribal government. Follow-up procedures will include telephone

calls, FAXes and additional letters, as deemed necessary, to complete a good-faith effort

to notify each tribe of the undertaking and provide an opportunity to exchange

information. If a TCP, sacred area or other use location is identified, then the Lincoln

National Forest can enter into a consultation phase with the government regarding the

nature of the resource and mitigation. At any time, within good-faith, the government

can cease exchange of information and/or consultation efforts after determining: whether

such efforts have been reasonably undertaken; resources are not present or present or

present and not affected; and/or if present, if a mitigation plan is sufficient and necessary.

Following completion of the consultation process, the Lincoln National Forest will

present its findings to the SHPO.

Tribal governments have never forwarded any detailed information regarding TCPs in the

analysis area. There are no TCPs currently recorded as historic properties on the Smokey

Bear Ranger District.

The Lincoln National Forest heritage resources department has contacted tribal

governments as shown in Table 1, below.

Table 1. Tribal Contacts

Date Contact Subject

2005 Zuni, Hopi, Mescalero

Apache

Annual Project List

2006 Zuni, Hopi, Mescalero

Apache

Bonito 2 – 500 acre local project

2/20/2008 Governor Norman

Cooeyate, Pueblo of Zuni

Bonito (31,000 acres) and two other

projects (letter and project description)

2/20/2008 Jonathan Damp, Tribal

Historic Preservation

Officer, Pueblo of Zuni



2/20/2008 Wayne Taylor, Tribal

Council Chair, Hopi

Tribe


projects (letter and project description).

2/20/2008 Leigh Kuwanwisiwma,

Director, Cultural



7

Preservation Office, Hopi

Tribe

2/20/2008 Carlton Naiche-Palmer,

President, Mescalero

Apache Tribe



2/20/2008 Holly Houghten, Tribal


Officer, Mescalero

Apache Tribe



3/3/2008 Governor Norman

Cooeyate, Pueblo of Zuni

Follow-up letter to 2/20/2008

(mentions project and previous letter)






3/3/2008 Wayne Taylor, Tribal

Council Chair, Hopi

Tribe




Director, Cultural


Tribe



3/3/2008 Carlton Naiche-Palmer,

President, Mescalero

Apache Tribe





Officer, Mescalero

Apache Tribe





Officer, Mescalero

Apache Tribe

FAXed follow up to letters dated

2/20/2008 and 3/3/2008


Director, Cultural


Tribe


2/20/2008 and 3/3/2008





2/20/2008 and 3/3/2008



Officer, Mescalero

Apache Tribe

Eric Dillingham phoned Mescalero

THPO office regarding three attempted

communications. Ms. Houghten was

not present; left message.


Director, Cultural


Eric Dillingham called Leigh

Kuwanwisiwma regarding three

attempted communications. Mr.

8

Tribe Kuwanwisiwma was not present; left a

message.




Eric Dillingham called and left a

message with the receptionist or

specialist at Historic Preservation as

Mr. Damp was out. The receptionist

confirmed that all three earlier contacts

had been received and were on-file.

Findings: Following the procedures above, Lincoln National Forest efforts to consult

with the Mescalero Apache and Hopi tribes and Zuni Pueblo were in good faith.

However, there was no response on this project with the conclusion that either tribal

authorities did not make the effort to obtain the information; were unable to obtain it; or

concluded that the project would not affect any known or unknown TCPs in the project

area. Avenues to tribes for communication with the Lincoln National Forest remain open

so that if new specific information regarding resources regarded as sensitive to tribes is

received, the Forest can act to protect those, as deemed necessary, and if the information

is received in a timely manner.

Section 106 Consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office

Archaeologists with the Lincoln National Forest submitted report 2008-08-053

(Dillingham 2008) to the New Mexico SHPO on July 9, 2008. The report discussed the

anticipated project description and general effects; cultural background and expected

resources; nature-and-distribution of those resources; and the Native American

consultation process. One report recommendation included phasing archaeological

survey prior to implementation rather than completing all survey in all locations prior to

reaching a NEPA decision. Further reports will be necessary to consult on site eligibility

and project effect with the New Mexico SHPO for the phased surveys. Any mitigation or

site avoidance will be a site-by-site basis for cultural resources. Fire-sensitive sites in the

project area exist but prescribed burning may occur through non-fire-sensitive sites with a

finding of No Adverse Effect. Glenna Dean of New Mexico’s Historic Preservation

Division concurred with the report’s approach without comment on July 22, 2008, and

Diane White (Prather), Forest Archaeologist, approved the approach with No Adverse

Effect on July 28, 2008. A letter sent December 18, 2008, requested elimination of

archaeological survey for hillslopes exceeding 40% grade. The SHPO did not respond

within 30 days. Per the USDA Forest Service Region 3’s Agreement with the New

Mexico SHPO, if no response is received in that time limit, then the request is granted.

Methodology for Analysis

Specialist consultations included the following: the Lincoln National Forest Plan, cultural

resources survey and site files (site locations are confidential), GIS coverages for the

Bonito analysis area, proposed action, existing archaeological survey through 2005, and

known archaeological sites through 2005. Overlying GIS layers of the proposed

treatment units for hazard tree-felling and salvage operations atop cultural resources files

allowed for establishing the nature-and-distribution of archaeological sites in-and-

adjacent to the proposed treatments. Most treatment areas at least close to existing

9

archaeological surveys, if not partially or fully surveyed. Traditional Cultural Properties,

if located in the project areas, will be considered as historic properties under the NHPA.

Continued analysis should occur during phasing of archaeological survey as treatment

units are chosen for implementation. Survey is sufficient on slopes less than 30%, per the

letter dated December 18, 2008.

Archaeological survey should include the unit itself and ancillary activities such as access

routes, staging locations and skid trails. If the ancillary activities are within the unit, no

additional survey is required outside the unit.

Affected Environment

Existing Condition

A general description of the Bonito analysis area’s existing condition can be found in the

report sent for public scoping (no date), titled Bonito Watershed Project, Lincoln

National Forest, Smokey Bear Ranger District.

For the archaeological survey that already exists across the estimated 20-25% of the

analysis area, site types include mines or mine-related sites (20), cabins or homesteads

(3), Monjeau Lookout (1), other historic (5), a prehistoric pueblo (1), and prehistoric rock

art, artifact or lithic scatters (5). This is representative of the prehistoric and historic

human presence in the Bonito analysis area, as described in Background section, above.

Of these sites, the Great Western Mine, the Parsons Mine and the Monjeau Lookout are

listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Table 2, below, is a list of known sites

in the project area. There are ten more sites, especially on private lands adjoining the

projects, close but not in the project area. These will not be affected by project activities

but are useful in determining the nature-and-distribution of sites in the area.

Mining-related sites can be found anywhere in the project area, especially in or adjacent

to upland drainages. More can be expected to be recorded during survey. Homesites and

other historic sites will generally be found along main drainages. Prehistoric sites tend to

be found in areas near springs, along drainages, low-relief slopes and saddles, and

ridgelines. Rock art and pueblos have only been located along main drainages.

Table 2. Archaeological Sites in the Project Area (from Dillingham 2008).

FS_SITE_NUM TYPE NR_STATUS

ST_SITE

_NUM Descr Notes

03080100015 HIS Unevaluated 49797 mine

Great

Western

03080100016 HIS Eligible 49796 mine

03080100062 MUL Eligible 49795 stone foundation

03080100065 HIS Eligible 54193 camp, mining

03080100066 HIS Eligible 54194 cabin

03080100067 PRE Eligible 54195

Pueblo

roomblocks

03080100068 HIS Unevaluated 54196 stone foundation

10


03080100070 HIS Not Eligible 54198 mine adit

03080100071 HIS Not Eligible 54199 mine


03080100073 HIS Not Eligible 54201 grave ???

03080100082 PRE Eligible 56945 lithic scatter

03080100083 PRE Unevaluated 56946 artifact scatter

03080100084 PRE Unevaluated 56947 lithic scatter

03080100095 HIS Listed 64831 Monjeau LO

03080100099 HIS Unevaluated 72884 cabin

03080100100 HIS Unevaluated 61001 homestead

03080100177 HIS Unevaluated 75824 grave ???

03080100204 HIS Listed 31784 Mine - Parsons


03080100227 HIS Unevaluated 84637 Mine – Rock #1 Adits - 3

03080100228 HIS Not Eligible 84638 Mine adit

03080100229 HIS Unevaluated 84639

Mine – Old Red

Fox adit

03080100230 HIS Unevaluated 84640

Mine – Renowned

O.K.


Renowned

OK

03080100232 HIS Unevaluated 84644 mine Soldier


03080100234 HIS Not Eligible 84647

Mine – Silver

King

Not Parsons

mine

03080100239 PRE Unevaluated 85708 Mine - adit



03080100406 PRE Eligible 113055 rock art

03080100407 HIS Eligible 113056 pipeline

03080100450 PRE Eligible 118042 artifact scatter

03080100451 PRE Unevaluated 118043 artifact scatter

03080100452 PRE Eligible 118044 lithic scatter

3080100748 HIS Not Eligible 154703 mine

adit, dugout,

art scatter

3080100749 HIS Eligible 154704 camp, mining FS_SITE_NUM = Forest Service site number; PRE = prehistoric; HIS = historic; ST_SITE_NUM = New Mexico’s

Laboratory of Anthropology number; LO = fire lookout.

11

Figure 2. A section of the ca. 1908 Bonito water pipeline exposed in the South Fork trail, recorded

during the phased archaeological survey in 2010. The Bonito pipeline is wood wrapped in wire and is

fire-sensitive.

Desired Condition

The Lincoln National Forest plan is mostly general in nature toward heritage resources,

geared toward following Federal historic preservation law. Specific direction is fairly

minimal.

A02, E06: Protect and manage historic resources (including those on the Smokey Bear

Ranger District).

Area 1F (White Mountain Wilderness): cultural resources and ecosystems will remain

unmodified by air pollutants.

1G (Rio Bonito): no specific mention of cultural resources. G09 states that an inventory

of abandoned mining areas should be prepared for hazard elimination. (As CERCLA

mine-reclamation is on-the-increase in New Mexico on Forest Service-managed lands,

there may eventually be entry into the Rio Bonito for hazard reduction without benefit of

NEPA analysis. For cultural resources, the Regional Office generally will meet the intent

of the NHPA, sometimes without SHPO consultation). For the Bonito vegetation

management area, NHPA compliance applies.

1H (South Fork Bonito): no specific guidance.

Future decisions related to desired condition could include interpretation (brochures,

websites, and signs) at Puebloan, historic pipeline, and mining sites. Mining related sites

could be reviewed for National Register nomination as a multiple-property nomination or

12

historic district. The Monjeau Fire Lookout tower should continue to receive regular and

deferred maintenance necessary to maintain its historic character and provide a means for

public outreach.

Environmental Consequences

Wildfire could be more frequent and intense. Proposed treatments include salvage

logging, comparable to commercial logging; and hazard-tree falling. For management of

cultural resources, units should be analyzed both for logging and access. Using existing

survey or phased archaeological survey, future site-specific historic property management

strategies can be designed and implemented. In 2008, survey was 20-25% complete

(estimated) but with phased surveys, coverage has improved to 40-50%.

The following may damage or alter National Register qualities of archaeological sites:

Timber harvest

Placement and/or burning of slash piles

Skidding or use of heavy machinery

Staging of timber (landings), equipment and supplies

Road construction, closure or overland vehicle transportation, especially if

resulting in alteration of railroad grades, if used as transportation corridors.

Erosion channels and sediment deposition related to logging activities.

Purposeful hazard-tree falling could result in direct damage to archaeological

features, similar to treefall.

Prescribed burning and black-lining, especially to fire-sensitive sites containing

artifact of feature types that can be damaged by flame, heat or smoke (for

example, wickiups, rock art, the Bonito pipeline and cabins).

Fireline construction, if ground-disturbing.

Project Design Elements and Monitoring / Proposed Action

Complete archaeological survey prior to implementation on treatment units and

ancillary activities (such as transportation corridors, landings and skids), if

phasing is used. Provide and implement specific project design elements for

units, as necessary to avoid impacts beyond a finding of No Adverse Effect.

Even when previous archaeological survey exists, provide for re-survey when

historic and mining records and aerial photography indicate that historic resources

may exist and could retain integrity. Phase, as necessary.

Avoid archaeological sites from ground-disturbing activities. Flag-and-paint

archaeological sites at or near ground-disturbing activities for avoidance.

Allow hand-crews to fall small-diameter trees in and adjacent to archaeological

sites, with specific guidance (generally, hand-cut and hand-carry materials within

sites; no slash piles in sites). If this is costly or burdensome, the alternative

project design feature is to avoid the archaeological site altogether.

Post-treatment, monitor 10-25% of archaeological sites, dependent on initial

findings.

Design, use and close roads and skid trails to minimize erosion.

13

Do not place slash in or adjacent to archaeological sites, especially if sites are

NR-eligible under criteria A-C.

Minimize the construction of roads, skid trails and landings and placement of

slash piles around the National Register mine sites (Parsons and Great Western

mines) to maintain National Register characteristics of historic properties.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct effects would be minimized. Because fuels would not be reduced, there would be

some increased danger from wildland fire that could also impact archaeological sites.

Many of the historic period mining sites should be considered fire-sensitive because these

contain flammable or otherwise potentially fire-affected features. Safety closures could

possibly occur on a sporadic and temporary basis, preventing public access to areas with

scenic historic values but otherwise there would likely be no mitigation.

Indirect effects could be higher than other alternatives under the No Action alternative.

Wildfire and widespread forest disease and death of entire tree stands each have

consequences for cultural resources. Intense wildfire can remove vegetation cover and

cause intense erosion of archaeological sites. Alteration or destruction of artifacts and

archaeological features will generally exceed prescribed burning. Attempts to control

fires outside of wilderness often include mechanical control lines (bulldozer lines) that

can destroy archaeological sites.

Stands of disease-killed trees can topple, causing vertical and horizontal displacement of

buried archaeological deposits.

Not building proposed roads would result in no fewer archaeological sites disturbed since

a design element is to avoid direct impacts to archaeological sites.

Cumulative effects from taking No Action would be similar to adjacent portions of the

Forest where no vegetation management projects are or will be undertaken. They are as

described above under indirect effects except under a more widespread scale.

No Action With Crown-Fire

Without thinning or burning treatments, there is a risk of a high intensity fire in the

project area. Such an event would pose a great risk to heritage resources. Heritage sites

in and surrounding the area could be damaged or destroyed by a high severity fire and its

after effects. Combustible portions of archeological remains and historic structures could

be partially or completely consumed by a wildfire. Noncombustible materials, such as

the remains of stone tools, masonry architecture and metal artifacts, could become

blackened or glazed; these materials can also spall, melt, and experience irreversible

physical or chemical changes to their composition.

The removal of vegetation by high severity wildfire can result in exposure of bare

surfaces and accelerate erosion, particularly from water. This erosion taking place

14

following a wildfire could damage or destroy heritage resources. Archeological deposits

could be displaced or completely removed by erosion. Historic structures such as road

related features could be inundated, buried, and structurally undermined by increased

sediment loads carried in streams and intermittent drainages. Flooding and other large

erosion events could damage or destroy access trails to the traditional cultural property,

creating a short-term or long-term loss of access to the property by members of the

community.

The falling of trees killed by fire could also result in blocking access to traditional

cultural property. Impacts to heritage sites would also likely occur from typical wildfire

suppression activities. The use of heavy equipment and hand tools to construct fire

containment lines can damage or destroy subsurface deposits of an archeological site, and

surface features of archeological sites and in use historic sites. The use of water and fire

retardant spread from engines and aircraft may also cause damage, particularly to in use

historic structures such as recreation residences and other domestic buildings.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Fuels reduction, five-acre wildlife openings, riparian restoration and any related activities

would be implemented in site-specific units, as designed. Archaeological survey,

previous survey documentation, and designed units would be phased per specific unit and

its ancillary transportation routes, skid trails, landings, etc. Consultation with the New

Mexico SHPO would occur with phased archaeological reports.

Direct effects to cultural resources should be minimized as a result of design elements for

cultural resource protection. Despite implementation of the proposed action, it is likely

that some wildfire, natural treefall and visual impacts will continue to occur.

Implementation of the mitigation measures and monitoring (above) should result in no

archaeological sites in treatment areas having their National Register characteristics

altered to the point that eligibility or listing status is lost. Discussion here will be further

developed in archaeological reports to be placed on-file at the Lincoln National Forest,

Supervisor’s Office, Alamogordo, New Mexico.

Indirect effects could include erosion from project effects to soils and vegetation. If

erosion measures and fuels reduction occurs, indirect effects to sites should be

minimized. Archaeological site marking may lead to illegal surface artifact collection or

looting at specific locations, especially those close to roads and trails. Prehistoric

archaeological sites or hard-to-locate historic sites (especially mining-related claims and

prospects) could be overlooked during cultural resources survey and therefore impacted.

Additional roads would be placed in the project area which, even if closed and

rehabilitated, would result in some land scarring. There is potential for visual impacts.

Cumulative effects are unlikely to increase beyond current levels as a result of the

proposed action. Even when mitigation measures occur or are supposed to have

occurred, some minimal direct impacts and indirect visual or erosional impacts can

happen on a limited or temporary basis. If recreation increases as a result of the Travel

15

Management Rule (TMR) process (on-going NEPA), there could be minimal impacts to

historic resources via vandalism, looting, and erosion from ATV use. TMR and the

Bonito Vegetation Project should not mutually increase effects to archaeological sites.

While roads would be added, there have been no new roads in the area for a long-time,

probably since the 1960s or 1970s. While these are locally visible, these are unobtrusive

from a distance and not expected to be substantial for any historic resource. Project

design features would avoid non-visual impacts to historic archaeological sites.

Alternative 3 – No Additional Roads alternative

Direct effects from the no additional roads alternative would mostly be similar to

proposed alternative because in the proposed action, effects are minimized by project

design features provided to avoid impacts to archaeological sites. Visual impacts to any

historic-aged cultural resources eligible under criteria A-C would not occur.

Indirect effects from erosion and re-deposition related to road construction, use and

maintenance would not occur. No project design features would be necessary.

Cumulative effects are not expected to occur beyond the Proposed Action.

Alternative 4 – Wilderness Supplemental alternative Direct effects from allowing chainsaw use on approximately 300 acres would not differ

substantially from the proposed action as long as project design features are followed.

Hand-cutting vegetation is allowed within archaeological sites but leaving or burning

slash within the sites is not. Material may be hand-carried off-site. If the project design

features are burdensome or costly, then crews or contractors would avoid cutting

vegetation in archaeological sites as a project design feature.

Indirect effects and cumulative effects will not differ substantially from the proposed

action.

Timeline

The Lincoln National Forest has used the Programmatic Agreement, appendix J, for

guidance to consulting with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office and

various tribal governments. Appendix J discusses large-scale vegetation management

projects that include the Bonito Forest Restoration Project.

The Native American Consultation process was completed in good-faith in late March,

2008, after attempts to obtain information regarding TCPs from tribes did not result in

any information regarding any resources present that are sensitive to tribal governments.

Consultation with the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office was first concluded

on July 22, 2008, but amended on December 18, 2008, to exclude survey beyond 40%

slopes.

Continue phased archaeological surveys as necessary to manage and protect

archaeological sites prior to project implementation within the Bonito project area.

16

Continue to consult with the New Mexico SHPO and tribal groups as necessary, per types

of resources encountered.

Provide maps and other information to the project leadership after survey but prior to

implementation.

During and after project implementation, archaeologists may monitor archaeological

sites, with a preference toward National Register-listed or –eligible sites. Non-

archaeologist project monitors can assist in this effort by visiting flagged or painted-off

archaeological sites to ensure no damage occurs.

REFERENCES:

Dillingham, Eric

2008 Bonito Watershed Vegetation Management Previous Survey Documentation and

Recommendations for Further Survey and Phasing, Smokey Bear Ranger District,

Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County, New Mexico. Lincoln National Forest

cultural resources report 2008-08-053. NMCRIS 110629, New Mexico Historic

Preservation Division Login number 084754.

2009 Bonito Watershed Management – First (Northeast) Phase of Archaeological

Survey, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest, Lincoln County,

New Mexico. Lincoln National Forest cultural resources report 2009-08-043.

NMCRIS 114381.

2010 Bonito 2 Vegetation Management: Second (South-Central) Phase of

Archaeological Survey, Smokey Bear Ranger District, Lincoln National Forest,

Lincoln County, New Mexico. Lincoln National Forest cultural resources report

2010-08-039. NMCRIS 118988, New Mexico Historic Preservation Division

Login number 090839.

Griswold, George

1959 Mineral deposits of Lincoln County, New Mexico. Bulletin 67. New Mexico

Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources. New Mexico Institute of mining and

Technology: Socorro, New Mexico.

USDA – Forest Service, Region 3

2009 Appendix J: Standard Consultation Protocol for Large-Scale Fuels Reduction,

Vegetation Treatment, and Habitat Improvement Projects. In, First Amended

Programmatic Agreement Regarding Historic Property Protection and

Responsibilities Among New Mexico Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona

State Historic Preservation Officer and Arizona State Historic Preservation

Officer and Oklahoma State Historic Preservation Officer and Advisory Council

on Historic Preservation and United States Department of Agriculture, Forest

Service, Region 3.

17

Documents

BONITO WATERSHED PROJECTa123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic...Bonito Watershed project (28,466 acres) on historic resources. NHPA (Section 106) is the primary law that