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
Bonito (31,000 acres) and two other
projects (letter and project description)
2/20/2008 Wayne Taylor, Tribal
Council Chair, Hopi
Tribe
Bonito (31,000 acres) and two other
projects (letter and project description).
2/20/2008 Leigh Kuwanwisiwma,
Director, Cultural
Bonito (31,000 acres) and two other
projects (letter and project description)
7
Preservation Office, Hopi
Tribe
2/20/2008 Carlton Naiche-Palmer,
President, Mescalero
Apache Tribe
Bonito (31,000 acres) and two other
projects (letter and project description)
2/20/2008 Holly Houghten, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, Mescalero
Apache Tribe
Bonito (31,000 acres) and two other
projects (letter and project description)
3/3/2008 Governor Norman
Cooeyate, Pueblo of Zuni
Follow-up letter to 2/20/2008
(mentions project and previous letter)
3/3/2008 Jonathan Damp, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, 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
Follow-up letter to 2/20/2008
(mentions project and previous letter)
3/3/2008 Leigh Kuwanwisiwma,
Director, Cultural
Preservation Office, Hopi
Tribe
Follow-up letter to 2/20/2008
(mentions project and previous letter)
3/3/2008 Carlton Naiche-Palmer,
President, Mescalero
Apache Tribe
Follow-up letter to 2/20/2008
(mentions project and previous letter)
3/3/2008 Holly Houghten, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, Mescalero
Apache Tribe
Follow-up letter to 2/20/2008
(mentions project and previous letter)
3/19/2008 Holly Houghten, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, Mescalero
Apache Tribe
FAXed follow up to letters dated
2/20/2008 and 3/3/2008
3/19/2008 Leigh Kuwanwisiwma,
Director, Cultural
Preservation Office, Hopi
Tribe
FAXed follow up to letters dated
2/20/2008 and 3/3/2008
3/19/2008 Jonathan Damp, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, Pueblo of Zuni
FAXed follow up to letters dated
2/20/2008 and 3/3/2008
3/26/2008 Holly Houghten, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, Mescalero
Apache Tribe
Eric Dillingham phoned Mescalero
THPO office regarding three attempted
communications. Ms. Houghten was
not present; left message.
3/26/2008 Leigh Kuwanwisiwma,
Director, Cultural
Preservation Office, Hopi
Eric Dillingham called Leigh
Kuwanwisiwma regarding three
attempted communications. Mr.
8
Tribe Kuwanwisiwma was not present; left a
message.
3/26/2008 Jonathan Damp, Tribal
Historic Preservation
Officer, Pueblo of Zuni
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
03080100069 HIS Unevaluated 54197 mine
03080100070 HIS Not Eligible 54198 mine adit
03080100071 HIS Not Eligible 54199 mine
03080100072 HIS Not Eligible 54200 mine adit
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
03080100226 HIS Not Eligible 84635 mine adit
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.
03080100231 HIS Unevaluated 84641 mine
Renowned
OK
03080100232 HIS Unevaluated 84644 mine Soldier
03080100233 HIS Not Eligible 84645 mine adit
03080100234 HIS Not Eligible 84647
Mine – Silver
King
Not Parsons
mine
03080100239 PRE Unevaluated 85708 Mine - adit
03080100240 PRE Unevaluated 85709 lithic scatter
03080100258 PRE Unevaluated 89981 lithic scatter
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