West Escudilla Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · West Escudilla Restoration Project Environmental Assessment . Alpine Ranger

United States Department of Agriculture

West Escudilla Restoration Project Environmental Assessment Alpine Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona

U.S. Forest Service Southwestern Region May 2017

In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: [email protected].

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender

West Escudilla Restoration Project Environmental Assessment

~ 1 ~

Table of Contents Chapter 1: Introduction ................................................................................................................9

Restoration Initiatives ..................................................................................................................9 Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) .....................................................................................9 West Escudilla Restoration Project ..............................................................................................9 Location of the Proposed Project Area ......................................................................................10

Need for the Proposal ..................................................................................................................12 Desired Condition ......................................................................................................................12

Ponderosa Pine PNVT: ...........................................................................................................13 Pinyon Juniper Woodland PNVT: ..........................................................................................14 Pinyon Juniper Savanna PNVT: .............................................................................................14 Great Basin Grassland and Montane Subalpine Grassland PNVT: ........................................14 Dry Mixed Conifer PNVT: .....................................................................................................15 Wet Mixed Conifer PNVT: ....................................................................................................16 All Riparian PNVTs ...............................................................................................................17 Management Areas .................................................................................................................18

General Forest: ....................................................................................................................18 Natural Landscape:..............................................................................................................18 High Use Recreation Site: ...................................................................................................19 Community Forest Intermix: ...............................................................................................19

Existing Condition ......................................................................................................................20 Purpose and Need .......................................................................................................................21 Public and Agency Involvement ................................................................................................21 Tribal and State Historic Preservation Office Consultation .......................................................22 Issues ..........................................................................................................................................22 Significant Issues ........................................................................................................................23 Key Issues ..................................................................................................................................23

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives ...........................................................................25 Alternative 1: No Action ............................................................................................................25 Alternative 2: Proposed Action ..................................................................................................25

Forest, Woodland and Grassland Health and Restoration ......................................................25 Pinyon-Juniper ........................................................................................................................25 Mixed Conifer/Ponderosa Pine ...............................................................................................26 Habitat Stratification for Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk ...............................27

Aspen ..................................................................................................................................30 Seedling Plantings ...............................................................................................................30 Riparian Areas .....................................................................................................................30

Mechanical Treatment Design ................................................................................................31 Slash Management ..............................................................................................................32

Prescribed Fire ........................................................................................................................32 Aquatic and Watershed Improvements (Streams and Wet Meadows) ...................................33 Soils ........................................................................................................................................33 Roads ......................................................................................................................................33

Stream Crossings .................................................................................................................34 Road Construction and Reconstruction ...............................................................................35

System Road Decommissioning .........................................................................................35 Unauthorized Road Obliteration .........................................................................................35 Additional Road Activities ..................................................................................................35

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences .................................36 Vegetation ..................................................................................................................................36

Desired and Existing Conditions ............................................................................................36 Affected Environment .........................................................................................................36 Existing Condition ..............................................................................................................37

Grassland PNVTs ............................................................................................................37 Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodland / Savannas: Pinyon Juniper PNVT .......................37 Ponderosa Pine and Pine-oak: Ponderosa Pine PNVT ....................................................38 Mixed Conifer: Dry and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVT .......................................................38 Aspen: Inclusions within other PNVTs. ..........................................................................39 Riparian PNVTs ..............................................................................................................39

Forest Health .......................................................................................................................39 Stand Density ......................................................................................................................40 Insects and Diseases ............................................................................................................41 Current conditions ...............................................................................................................42 Other Effects to Forest Health.............................................................................................44

Forest Structure – Goshawk Forest Habitat .....................................................................44 Forest Structure – Mexican Spotted Owl ........................................................................45

Woodland Structure - Pinyon Juniper Woodlands and Savannas .......................................46 Old Growth .........................................................................................................................46 Fire Regime .........................................................................................................................48 Desired Conditions ..............................................................................................................49

General Desired Conditions ............................................................................................49 Stand Density ...................................................................................................................50

Insects and Disease .............................................................................................................51 Forest Structure ...................................................................................................................52 Goshawk Habitat (USDA 2015) .........................................................................................52

Desired Conditions for Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (MSO Recovery Plan 2012) ......53 Old Growth ......................................................................................................................54

Environmental Consequences .................................................................................................54 Suitable Timberlands .......................................................................................................54

Alternative 1 – No Action ...................................................................................................55 No Action: Direct and Indirect Effects ............................................................................55

Stand Density ...............................................................................................................55 Insects and Disease ......................................................................................................56 Forest Structure ............................................................................................................56 Goshawk ......................................................................................................................56 Mexican Spotted Owl ..................................................................................................57 Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands ..........................................................................57 Pinyon Juniper Savannas .............................................................................................57 Grasslands ....................................................................................................................57 Old Growth ..................................................................................................................57

Alternative 1 Summary (and consistency with LMP) .....................................................58


~ 3 ~

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action .........................................................................................64 Restoration .......................................................................................................................64 Restoration: Direct and Indirect Effects ..........................................................................65

Stand Density ...............................................................................................................65 Insects and Disease ......................................................................................................66 Forest Structure ............................................................................................................67 Goshawk ......................................................................................................................67 Mexican Spotted Owl ..................................................................................................69 Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands ..........................................................................69 Pinyon Juniper Savannas .............................................................................................69 Grasslands ....................................................................................................................69 Old Growth ..................................................................................................................70 Treatment Longevity ....................................................................................................70 Reforestation ................................................................................................................70 Windthrow ...................................................................................................................71

Alternative 2 Summary (and consistency with LMP) .........................................................71 Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives ................................................................72

Climate Change ...............................................................................................................79 Monitoring ..........................................................................................................................80

Fire and Fuels .............................................................................................................................80 Desired and Existing Conditions ............................................................................................80

Affected Environment .........................................................................................................80 Desired and Existing Conditions .........................................................................................81 Desired Conditions for Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs) ...............................82 Desired conditions for Wildland Fire Management across all PNVTs ...............................83 Existing Conditions .............................................................................................................84 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................86 Direct and Indirect Effects ..................................................................................................88 Air Quality ..........................................................................................................................89 Cumulative Effects ..............................................................................................................90

Transportation Resources ...........................................................................................................90 Project-Specific Travel Analysis.........................................................................................91 Desired Future Conditions ..................................................................................................91 Description of Affected Environment .................................................................................91 Environmental Consequences .............................................................................................93 Cumulative Effects ..............................................................................................................94

Wildlife .......................................................................................................................................95 Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife.................................................................................................95

Desired Conditions .................................................................................................................95 Desired Conditions for Wildlife and Rare Plants ................................................................95 Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences ........................................................97

Federally Listed Species .........................................................................................................97 Mexican Wolf ..................................................................................................................98 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse ..........................................................................101 Mexican Spotted Owl ....................................................................................................104 Southwestern willow flycatcher ....................................................................................111

Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat ..........................................................................114 New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Critical Habitat ................................................119 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Critical Habitat .........................................................121

Aquatic Species .................................................................................................................124 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................124

Reptiles and Amphibians ..................................................................................................126 Narrow-headed gartersnake ...........................................................................................126 Narrow-headed Gartersnake Proposed Critical Habitat ................................................130 Chiricahua leopard frog .................................................................................................136

Fish ....................................................................................................................................143 Apache trout ..................................................................................................................143 Little Colorado Spinedace (LCS) and LCS Critical Habitat .........................................148 Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Spikedace (Meda fulgida) and their Critical Habitat ...........................................................................................................................155 Roundtail Chub ..............................................................................................................162

Bald and Golden Eagles ........................................................................................................167 Bald Eagle .........................................................................................................................167 Golden Eagle .....................................................................................................................167

Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................................169 Take Statement ..............................................................................................................173

Important Bird Areas ............................................................................................................173 Sensitive Species ..................................................................................................................173

Environmental Consequences .......................................................................................175 Common to Mammal, Bird, and Rare Plant Forest Sensitive Species-Alternative 1 175

Mammals ...........................................................................................................................176 Bats ................................................................................................................................176

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat ..................................................................................176 Spotted bat .................................................................................................................176 Allen’s lappet-browed bat ..........................................................................................177

Voles ..............................................................................................................................178 Navajo Mogollon vole ...............................................................................................178 Arizona montane vole ................................................................................................179

Chipmunks, Squirrels, Mice and Shrews ......................................................................181 White Mountains chipmunk .......................................................................................181 White Mountains ground squirrel ..............................................................................181 Springerville silky pocket mouse ...............................................................................183 American water shrew ...............................................................................................184

Birds ..................................................................................................................................187 Northern goshawk .........................................................................................................187 Gray catbird ...................................................................................................................190 American peregrine falcon ............................................................................................192 Bald Eagle .....................................................................................................................194

Invertebrates ......................................................................................................................196 Stoneflies and Caddisflies .............................................................................................196

Fish ....................................................................................................................................202 Desert, Sonora, and Rio Grande suckers .......................................................................202


~ 5 ~

Rare Plants ........................................................................................................................206 Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, and Pinyon/Juniper ....................................................207

Gooding’s onion, villous groundcover milkvetch, Gila Thistle, Wislizeni gentian, Mogollon Hawkweed .................................................................................................207

Wetland/cienega and Riparian species ..........................................................................209 Mogollon clover, Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock, Parish’s Alkali grass...................209

Watershed .................................................................................................................................213 Soils ......................................................................................................................................213

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................213 Soil Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Guidelines .......................................................215 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................219 Cumulative Effects to Soil Resources ...............................................................................221 Cumulative Effects Summary ...........................................................................................222

Hydrology, Air, and Climate ................................................................................................223 Existing Conditions ...........................................................................................................223

Water Resources ...................................................................................................................224 Desired Conditions ............................................................................................................226 Affected Environment .......................................................................................................229 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................234 Cumulative Watershed Effects ..........................................................................................241

Range ........................................................................................................................................244 Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................................244 Desired Conditions ...............................................................................................................247

Range.................................................................................................................................247 Noxious Weeds .................................................................................................................248 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................249

Range .............................................................................................................................249 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................249 Noxious Weeds ..............................................................................................................249 Cumulative Effects ........................................................................................................250

Recreation .................................................................................................................................250 Existing Conditions ..............................................................................................................250

Affected Environment .......................................................................................................252 Desired Conditions for Overall Recreation Opportunities ................................................253 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................261 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................266

Cultural Resources ...................................................................................................................268 Affected Environment and Existing Conditions ...................................................................268

Existing Conditions .......................................................................................................268 Affected Environment ...................................................................................................269

Desired Conditions ............................................................................................................269 Environmental Consequences ...........................................................................................271 Cumulative Effects ............................................................................................................272

Other Requirements Considered under NEPA .........................................................................275 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice .........................................................................275

Population and Demographics ..........................................................................................275

Environmental Justice ...........................................................................................................276 Potential Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action...................................................277

Climate Change ....................................................................................................................277 Predicted Future Conditions ..............................................................................................277 Impact of the Proposed Action on Climate Change ..........................................................280 Impact of Climate Change on the Proposed Action ..........................................................280

Irreversible Resource Commitments and Irretrievable Losses (General) .............................281 Effects on Floodplains and Wetlands ...................................................................................281 Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 ............................................281

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination ...........................................................................282 Agencies and Persons Consulted ..............................................................................................282

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: .....................................................................................282 Tribes: ...................................................................................................................................283 Others: ...................................................................................................................................283

Laws, Regulations, and Policies ...............................................................................................284 Appendix A .................................................................................................................................291

Best Management Practices/Design Features for the West Escudilla Restoration Project ..291 Appendix B .................................................................................................................................293

West Escudilla Project Maps ................................................................................................293 Appendix C .................................................................................................................................295

West Escudilla Old and Large Tree Retention Strategy .......................................................295 Appendix D .................................................................................................................................297

West Escudilla Project: Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring, and Adaptive Management .........................................................................................................................297

Appendix E .................................................................................................................................299 Glossary ................................................................................................................................299

Appendix F .................................................................................................................................301 References .............................................................................................................................301

List of Tables

Table 1 - Apache-Sitgreaves, West Escudilla, and Project Percentage for each major PNVTs in LMP .............................................................................................................................................. 12 Table 2 - Management Areas in the West Escudilla project showing the number of acres. ......... 18 Table 3 – Summary of proposed treatment acres .......................................................................... 31 Table 4 - Ground based logging systems ...................................................................................... 32 Table 5 – Proposed Modifications by Road or Route Designation ............................................... 34 Table 6 - Existing (2017) and desired forest density. .................................................................... 40 Table 7 - Existing and desired condition for Grassland and Pinyon Juniper Woodland /Savanna........................................................................................................................................................ 41 Table 8 - Acreage percentages of existing stand level dwarf mistletoe infection by severity class within the West Escudilla project area. (Hawksworth and Weins 1996). ................................. 43 Table 9 - Relationship of degree of infection within individual trees to growth, mortality, and cone production for ponderosa pine. (Hawksworth and Weins 1996). ...................................... 43


~ 7 ~

Table 10 - Current Goshawk Foraging stands by acreage percent. ............................................... 44 Table 11 - Current Goshawk PFA by acreage percent. ................................................................. 44 Table 12 - Existing condition for MSO recovery foraging habitat ............................................... 45 Table 13 - Acres and percent of area showing potential developing old growth .......................... 47 Table 13a - Acres and percent of potential developing old growth areas ..................................... 47 Table 14 - MSO recovery habitat requirements for nest/roost habitat. (MSO Recovery Plan 2012)....................................................................................................................................................... 53 Table 15 - Suitable and non-suitable timber acres on the West Escudilla Project. ....................... 54 Table 16 - Post-treatment (Cutting and 1st Rx Burn Year 2022) stand density, basal area, beetle hazard and canopy cover. .............................................................................................................. 59 Table 17 - Post-treatment following two burn entries (2037) average stand density, basal area, beetle hazard and canopy cover. ................................................................................................... 60 Table 18 - Goshawk Habitat diameter comparison in 2022 after cutting and 1st Rx burn treatment. (Including treated and non-treated stands). .................................................................. 61 Table 19 - Goshawk Habitat diameter comparison in 2037. ......................................................... 62 Table 20 - Dwarf mistletoe severity by Stand DMR in 2022 by alternative, for stands with current infections (12,826 Acres). ................................................................................................. 63 Table 21 - Dwarf mistletoe severity in 2037 by alternative. (12,826 Acres). ............................... 63 Table 22 - MSO recovery habitat in 2022. .................................................................................... 64 Table 23 - MSO recovery Nesting/Roosting habitat in 2022 based on modeling. ....................... 64 Table 24 - Projects common to all alternatives. ............................................................................ 72 Table 25 - Summary of Acres by Ecological Response Units for the Luna Planning Area .......... 75 Table 26 - Fire regimes by PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs .............................................. 81 Table 27 - Crown Fire Potential for Current Conditions, No Action and Action Alternatives ..... 87 Table 28- Fire Regime Conditions Class Rating ........................................................................... 88 Table 29 - Existing Road Mileage ................................................................................................ 92 Table 30 - Existing Road Densities Compared to Proposed Action Road Densities .................... 93 Table 31 - Federally listed species occurring on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and their status in the project area. ................................................................................................................................... 97 Table 32 - Mexican spotted owl treatments in each PAC (and core) within the Action Area, presented in acres. ....................................................................................................................... 107 Table 33 - Existing critical habitat conditions for mixed conifer and pine-oak forest types. ......115 Table 34 - Summary of Determinations of Effect for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat. ............................................................. 167 Table 35 - Migratory Bird Analysis ............................................................................................ 170 Table 36 - Forest Service Sensitive Species and their status in the project area. ....................... 174 Table 37 - Summary of Determinations of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species ............ 212 Table 38 - Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) Map Unit Extent, Classification, and Selected Characteristics for the West Escudilla Restoration Project. ........................................................ 217 Table 39 - Class I and II Airsheds in vicinity of project boundary. ............................................ 230

Table 40 - PFC Results within the Project Boundary.................................................................. 232 Table 41 - Watershed Condition Classes. .................................................................................... 233 Table 42 Summary of Effects on Watershed Condition Indicator Scores. .................................. 241 Table 43 - Grazing allotment acres within the West Escudilla Restoration Project area. ........... 245 Table 44 - Summary of Permitting on Grazing Allotments within Project Area. ....................... 245 Table 45 - Noxious weeds acres within the West Escudilla Restoration Project area. ............... 247 Table 46 - The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification within the analysis area...................................................................................................................................................... 250 Table 47 - Management Areas and Acreage in the project area. ................................................. 251 Table 48 - Developed Recreation Sites Located Within the Project Area. ................................. 254 Table 49 - Non-motorized Forest System Trails within the Project Area. .................................. 256 Table 50 - Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) Within the Project Area. .................................... 258 Table 51 - Scenery Management System (SMS) Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) Located Within the Project Area. .............................................................................................................. 259

List of Figures

Figure 1 - West Escudilla Restoration Project analysis area. .........................................................11 Figure 2 - Treatment acres proposed stratified by vegetation type. .............................................. 27 Figure 3- Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat stratification and acres. ....................................... 28 Figure 4 - Northern goshawk (NOGO) habitat stratification and acres. ....................................... 29 Figure 5 – Diameter Comparison for the year 2022 for goshawk habitat. ................................... 62 Figure 6 –Diameter Comparison for the year 2037 for goshawk habitat. .................................... 63


~ 9 ~

Chapter 1: Introduction Restoration Initiatives Restoration has become necessary for many forests and watersheds of the western United States and is a main objective of the United States Forest Service (USFS). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has a national goal (Strategic Goal 2) to restore our nation’s forests and watersheds and reduce risk of catastrophic wildfire (USDA 2014). The USDA identifies four objectives that apply to USFS activities to achieve this goal: improvement of forest health through management, implementation of climate adaptation strategies, protect and improve water and soil quality, and reduce the risk of catastrophic wildfire (USDA 2014, page 13-17). The USFS has a strategic goal to sustain national forests, and identifies restoration work as key to achieving that goal. As discussed in the USFS Strategic Plan, restoration aims to improve air and water quality, improve recreation opportunities, maintain scenic character, provide forest products, maintain cultural sites, and improve a full suite of habitats for plant, aquatic, and wildlife species (including threatened and endangered species) (USFS 2015a, page 10).

The Southwest Region of the USFS has a focus on restoration in the region, and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) Land Management Plan (the forest plan) outlines standards, guidelines, objectives, and desired conditions to help guide restoration actions on the forests (USFS 2015b).

Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) The overall goal of the four-forest effort is to create landscape-scale restoration approaches that will provide for fuels reduction, forest health, and wildlife and plant diversity. A key objective is doing this while creating sustainable ecosystems in the long term. The goals of the 4FRI are to 1) accelerate large restoration efforts to support natural fire regimes, healthy diverse forests and rangelands, and abundant populations of native plants and animals; 2) facilitate community fire protection and preparedness; and 3) enhance local economies through the use of excess trees. This project falls within the footprint of 4FRI and is considered a “bridge project”. Bridge projects are intended to support existing industries in the White Mountains by “bridging the gap” between the end of the White Mountain Stewardship Contract and the completion of the second 4FRI EIS - Rim Country.

West Escudilla Restoration Project The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Alpine Ranger District prepared this environmental assessment to determine whether effects of the proposed activities may be significant enough to prepare an environmental impact statement. By preparing this environmental assessment, we are fulfilling agency policy and direction to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) and other relevant Federal and State laws and regulations. For more details of the proposed action, see the “Proposed Action and Alternatives” section of this document on p. 17.

The purpose of this project is to improve or restore ecological function and resilience and move the project area toward Forest Plan desired conditions. The project area contains a wide range of vegetation communities across an elevation range from 7,020 to 9,340 feet. Vegetation communities include Great Basin Grassland, Pinyon-juniper Savannah and persistent Woodland, Riparian Wet Meadows, Dry Montane Meadows, Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer Forest. Additionally, 15,014 acres within the project area were burned in the Wallow Fire of 2011. The majority of this area (67%) burned with low to moderate severity. Only 3% of the area burned with high severity, while 29% of the area remained unburned. The entire Wallow fire burned 538,049 acres across the Alpine, Clifton and Springerville Ranger Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest, the Quemado Ranger District of the Gila National Forest, parts of the White Mountain Apache Reservation and many private lands.

Activities proposed would include restoration of areas where varying levels of burn severity occurred. Proposed activities include vegetation treatments, prescribed fire, aquatic, and watershed activities on approximately 66,000 acres.

Location of the Proposed Project Area The project area is located to the north, east, and southeast of Escudilla Mountain. The project area is 68,559 acres and consists of approximately 66,000 acres of National Forest System lands on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Inside the perimeter there are approximately 2,400 acres of non-National Forest System lands including private, state, and county ownership. The legal land description of the project area is: Townships 8 North, Ranges 29 East; 8N, 30 E; 8N, 31E; 7N, 30E; 7N, 31E 6N, 31E; 5N, 30 E; 5N, 31E, 4 ½ N 32E; Gila and Salt River Meridian in Apache and Greenlee Counties, Arizona.

The project is bounded on the west for much of the way by FSR 275 and along the east boundary the AZ/NM state line. The project area contains portions of the following watersheds: Coyote Spring-Coyote Creek, Long Lake, Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek, Pratt Lake, Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek, Rudd Creek, Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek, Trout Creek, Stone Creek-San Francisco River, San Francisco River-Luna Lake, and Dry Blue Creek. See Figure 1 below.


~ 11 ~

Figure 1 - West Escudilla Restoration Project analysis area.

Need for the Proposal Desired Condition Desired conditions are based on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan (Forest Plan) (USDA, 2015) direction. While federal laws like the National Forest Management Act establish the regulatory requirements of forest management for federal agencies, the programmatic guidance that directs the project-level vegetation analysis being undertaken in this proposed action are contained in the Land Management Plan (LMP) for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (USDA 2015). These include the desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines for each of the 14 major Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs). PNVTs are coarse-scale groupings of ecosystem types that share similar geography, vegetation, and historic ecosystem disturbances, such as fire, drought and grazing by native species. PNVT represent the vegetation type and characteristics that would occur when natural disturbances regimes and biological processes prevail (USDA 2015). Table 1 shows a breakdown of the forest and project PNVT acres based on the forest wide PNVTs from the LMP. During project analysis some PNVTs were changed due to site specific analysis, specifically in the Pinyon Juniper and Great Basin Grassland PNVTs. Table 1 reflects this project specific change.

Table 1 - Apache-Sitgreaves, West Escudilla, and Project Percentage for each major PNVTs in LMP

PNVT Acres Forest Wide

Acres Project Wide

Percent of West Escudilla Project

Wetland/cienega riparian areas 17,900 754 1.1%

Montane willow riparian forest 4,808 147 0.2%

Cottonwood-willow riparian forest 15,876 259 0.4%

Ponderosa pine forest 602,206 19,726 29.9%

Dry mixed conifer forest 147,885 659 1.0%

Wet mixed conifer forest 177,995 2,497 3.8%

Pinyon-juniper persistent woodland

3,290 5.0%

Pinyon-juniper savanna Not determined

9,574 14.5%

Pinyon-juniper Woodland 222,166 7,850 11.9%

Great Basin grassland 185,523 19,675 29.9%

Montane/subalpine grasslands 51,559 1,479 2.3%

Totals 2,011,102 65,910 100.0%

* Water, Urban, and quarry account for discrepancy of acres from the forest and project acres total.

The West Escudilla Restoration Project is designed to be in compliance with the Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (USDA 2015). A full list of desired conditions for each PNVT can be found in the LMP. Some important desired conditions for major PNVTs in the West Escudilla Project area are as follows:


~ 13 ~

Ponderosa Pine PNVT: • The ponderosa pine forest is a mosaic of structural states ranging from young to old trees.

Forest structure is variable but uneven-aged and open in appearance. Sporadic areas of even-aged structure may be present on 10 % or less of the landscape to provide structural diversity.

• Ponderosa pine forest is characterized by variation in the size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. The more biologically productive sites contain more trees per group and more groups per area, resulting in less space between groups. Interspaces typically range from 10 % in more biologically productive sites to 70 % in the less productive sites. Tree density within forested areas ranges from 20 to 80 square feet basal area per acre.

• The forest arrangement consists of individual trees, small clumps, and groups of trees with variably-sized interspaces of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Vegetation associations are similar to reference conditions. The size, shape, and number of trees per group and the number of groups per area vary across the landscape. Tree density may be greater in some locations, such as north-facing slopes and canyon bottoms.

• Old growth occurs throughout the landscape, in small, discontinuous areas consisting of clumps of old trees, or occasionally individual old trees. Other old growth components are also present including dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

• Frequent, low to mixed severity fires (fire regime I), occurring approximately every 2 to 17 years, are characteristic in this PNVT.

• Coarse woody debris, including logs, ranges from 3 to 10 tons per acre. Logs average 3 per acre within the forested area of the landscape.

• The tree group mosaic composes an uneven-aged forest with all age classes, size classes, and structural stages present. Occasionally, patches of even-aged forest structure are present (less than 50 acres). Disturbances sustain the overall age and structural distribution.

• Trees typically occur in irregularly-shaped groups and are variably spaced with some tight clumps. Tree crowns in the mid- to old-aged groups are interlocking or nearly interlocking providing for species such as Abert’s squirrel.

• Interspaces surrounding tree groups are variably shaped and composed of a grass, forb, and shrub mix. Some may contain individual trees or snags.

• Trees within groups are of similar or variable ages and may contain species other than ponderosa pine. Tree groups are typically less than 1 acre and average ½ acre. Mid- to old-aged tree groups consist of approximately 2 to 40 trees with interlocking canopies.

• Northern goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs) may contain 10 to 20 % higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than northern goshawk foraging areas and the surrounding forest.

• Northern goshawk nest areas have forest conditions that are multi-aged and dominated by large trees with relatively denser canopies than the surrounding forest.

Pinyon Juniper Woodland PNVT: • A mix of desired species, ages, heights, and groupings of trees create a mosaic across the

landscape.

• Tree canopy cover is closed (greater than 30 %), shrubs are sparse to moderate, and herbaceous cover is patchy.

• Snags, averaging one to two per acre, and older trees with dead limbs and tops are scattered across the landscape. Coarse woody debris averages 2 to 5 tons per acre.

• Old growth includes old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

• Fire is less frequent and more variable than in the savanna due to patchiness of ground cover. The fires that do occur are mixed to high severity (fire regimes II, III, IV, and V).

Pinyon Juniper Savanna PNVT: • The piñon-juniper savanna is open in appearance with trees occurring as individuals or in small

groups and ranging from young to old. Overall, tree canopy cover is 10 to 15 %, but may range up to 30 %.

• Scattered shrubs and a continuous herbaceous understory, including native grasses, forbs, and annuals, are present to support a natural fire regime.

• Grasses, forbs, shrubs, needles, leaves, and small trees support the natural fire regime. The larger proportion (60 % or greater) of soil cover is composed of grasses and forbs as opposed to needles and leaves.

• Old growth occurs in isolated locations scattered throughout the landscape, as individual old trees or as clumps of old trees. Other old growth components may also be present including dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity.

• Fires are low to mixed severity (fire regime I), occurring every 1 to 35 years.

Great Basin Grassland and Montane Subalpine Grassland PNVT: • Perennial herbaceous species dominate and include native grasses, grass-like plants (sedges

and rushes), and forbs, and in some locations, a diversity of shrubs.

• Herbaceous vegetation and litter provide for and maintain the natural fire regime (fire regime I and II). In semi-desert grasslands, the natural fire return interval is approximately every 2 to 10 years. In Great Basin grasslands the natural fire return interval is approximately every 10 to 30 years. In montane/subalpine grasslands it ranges from approximately 2 to 400 years, depending on the adjacent forested PNVT.

• Landscapes associated with montane/subalpine grasslands vary from natural appearing where human activities do not stand out (high scenic integrity) to unaltered where only natural ecological changes occur (very high scenic integrity).

• Woody (tree and shrub) canopy cover is less than 10 %.


~ 15 ~

• Prairie dogs are present and support healthy grassland soil development and the diversity of associated species (e.g., western burrowing owl).

• Average herbaceous vegetation heights range from 7 to 29 inches in Great Basin grasslands, 7 to 26 inches in montane/subalpine grasslands, and 10 to 32 inches in semi-desert grasslands. Ungrazed herbaceous vegetation heights vary by grassland PNVT and yearly weather conditions.

• During the critical pronghorn antelope fawning period (May through June22), cool season grasses and forbs provide nutritional forage; while shrubs and standing grass growth from the previous year provide adequate hiding cover (10 to 18 inches) to protect fawns from predation.

Dry Mixed Conifer PNVT: • The dry mixed conifer forest is a mosaic of conditions composed of structural states ranging

from young to old trees. Forest structure and density are similar to ponderosa pine forest. Forest appearance is variable but uneven-aged and open. Sporadic areas of even-aged structure may be present on 10 % or less of the landscape to provide structural diversity.

• The dry mixed conifer forest is characterized by a variety of size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. The more biologically productive sites contain more trees per group and more groups per area, resulting in less space between groups. Interspaces typically range from 10 % in more biologically productive sites to 50 % in less productive sites. Tree density within forested areas ranges from 30 to 100 square feet basal area per acre.

• The forest arrangement consists of small clumps and groups of trees with variably-sized interspaces of grass, forb, and shrub vegetation associations similar to reference conditions. Size, shape, number of trees per group, and number of groups per area are variable across the landscape. Where they naturally occur, groups of Gambel oak are healthy and maintained or increased. Tree density may be greater in some locations, such as north-facing slopes and canyon bottoms.

• The dry mixed conifer forest is composed predominantly of vigorous trees, but declining, top-killed, lightning-scarred, and fire-scarred trees provide snags and coarse woody debris. Snags and coarse woody debris are well distributed throughout the landscape. Snags are typically 18 inches in diameter or greater and average 3 per acre.

• Coarse woody debris, including logs, ranges from 5 to 15 tons per acre. Logs average 3 per acre within the forested area of the landscape.

• Southwestern white pine is present with the ability to reproduce on capable sites.

• Grasses, forbs, shrubs, needles, leaves, and small trees support the natural fire regime. The larger proportion (60 % or greater) of soil cover is composed of grasses and forbs as opposed to needles and leaves.

• Old growth occurs throughout the landscape, in small, discontinuous areas consisting of clumps of old trees, or occasionally individual old trees. Other old growth components are also present including dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

• Frequent, low to mixed severity fires (fire regime I) occurring every 10 to 22 years are characteristic in this PNVT.

• The mosaic of tree groups is composed of uneven-aged forest. All age classes and structural stages are present. Occasionally, there are small patches (less than 50 acres) of even-aged forest present. Disturbances sustain the overall age and structural distribution.

• Fire burns primarily on the forest floor and does not spread between tree groups as crown fire.

• Trees typically occur in irregularly-shaped groups and are variably spaced with some tight clumps. Tree crowns in the mid- to old-aged groups are interlocking or nearly interlocking providing for species such as red squirrel.

• Interspaces surrounding tree groups are composed of a grass, forb, and shrub mix. Some may contain individual trees or snags.

• Trees within groups are of similar or variable ages and one or more species. Tree group sizes typically are less than 5 acres, but often less than 1 acre, and at the mature and old stages consist of approximately 2 to 50 trees.


• Northern goshawk nest areas have forest conditions that are multi-aged but are dominated by large trees with relatively denser canopies than the surrounding forest.

Wet Mixed Conifer PNVT: • The wet mixed conifer forest is a mosaic of structural stages and seral states ranging from

young to old trees. The landscape arrangement is an assemblage of variably-sized and aged groups and patches of trees and other vegetation associations similar to reference conditions.

• All seral states are present across the landscape, with each state characterized by distinct dominant species composition, biological and physical conditions, and enough of each state is present to develop into the next state progressively over time.

• Canopies are more closed than dry mixed conifer. An understory, consisting of native grass, forbs, and/or shrubs, is present.

• Tree density ranges from 30 to 180 square feet basal area per acre depending upon time since disturbance and seral states of groups and patches.

• Old growth occurs over large, continuous areas. Old growth components include old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

• Mixed severity fire (fire regime III) is characteristic of this forest. High severity fires (fire regimes IV and V) rarely occur.

• The size and number of groups and patches vary depending on disturbance, elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. Patch sizes vary but are frequently hundreds of acres and rarely thousands of acres. Groups of tens of acres or less are relatively common. There is a mosaic of


~ 17 ~

primarily even-aged groups and patches, which vary in size, species composition, and age. Grass, forb, and shrub openings created by disturbances may compose 10 to 100 % of the area depending on the type of disturbance.

• Uneven-aged groups and patches, comprising about 20 % of this PNVT, provide for species such as the black bear and red-faced warbler that need multistoried canopies with dense low- to mid-canopy layers.

• Tree density ranges from 30 to 180 square feet basal area per acre depending upon time since disturbance and seral states of groups and patches.

• There are 20 or more snags greater than 8 inches in diameter per acre and 1 to 5 of those snags are 18 inches or greater in diameter.

• Coarse woody debris, including logs, varies by seral state, ranging from 5 to 20 tons per acre for early-seral states; 20 to 40 tons per acre for mid-seral states; and may be as high as 35 tons per acre, or greater, for late-seral states. These conditions also provide an abundance of fungi including mushrooms and truffles used by small mammals.

• In mid-aged and older forests, trees are typically variably spaced with crowns interlocking (grouped and clumped trees) or nearly interlocking providing for species such as red squirrel. Trees within groups can be of similar or variable species and ages.

• Small openings are present as a result of disturbances (e.g., wind, disease).

All Riparian PNVTs • Each PNVT contains a mosaic of vegetative conditions, densities, and structures. This mosaic

occurs at a variety of scales across landscapes and watersheds. The distribution of physical and biological conditions is appropriate to the natural disturbance regimes affecting the area.

• Natural ecological disturbances (e.g., flooding, scouring) promote a diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species of all ages and size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian-dependent species.

• Vegetation and root masses stabilize stream banks, islands, and shoreline features against the cutting action of water.

• Willows (e.g., Bebb, Geyer, Arizona, Goodding’s) are reproducing with all age classes present, where the potential exists.

• Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and animal species.

• Vegetation is structurally diverse, often dense, providing for high bird species diversity and abundance, especially neotropical migratory birds. It includes large trees and snags in the cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forests to support species such as beaver, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagles, Arizona gray squirrel, and various bat species.

If during landscape scale analysis or during implementation of the project it is discovered that the PNVTs in the forest plan are not accurate, the desired future conditions for the treatment areas will be adjusted to meet the actual PNVTs based on the ground examinations. All

alternatives will be compared in terms of how well they meet the desired conditions listed above and in the LMP.

Management Areas The Apache-Sitgreaves LMP gives general direction through the use of management areas. Management areas are areas that have similar management intent and a common management strategy (USDA 2015). This direction does not substitute for, or repeat, forest-wide direction. In the West Escudilla Project area there are four management areas. Table 2 shows the number of acres in each area. Each of the management areas have specific desired conditions.

Table 2 - Management Areas in the West Escudilla project showing the number of acres.

Management Area Acres

General Forest 64142

Natural Landscape 858

High Use Developed Recreation Site - Luna Lake 591

Community Forest Intermix - Alpine 530

Community Forest Intermix - Nutrioso 23

General Forest: The emphasis of this area is to restore priority 6th level HUC watersheds, restore fire-adapted ecosystems, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire, and provide forest products. A wide variety of management activities occur and a wide variety of forest products are available within this management area. Lands identified as suitable for timber production have a regularly scheduled harvest of commercial timber. Some key desired conditions are:

• Watershed condition rating is at satisfactory.

• Landscapes in the General Forest Management Area vary from moderately altered where human activities are evident (low scenic integrity) to natural where generally only ecological changes occur (very high scenic integrity).

• Recreation opportunities range from semi-primitive non-motorized to rural.

Natural Landscape: These are generally undeveloped areas that are natural appearing and provide primitive and semi-primitive recreation opportunities. Management activities are allowed but are primarily focused on ecosystem restoration. This management area includes most of the inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. IRAs are managed to protect and conserve their roadless character. Some key desired conditions are:


~ 19 ~

• Succession, fire, insects, disease, floods, and other natural processes and disturbance events primarily shape the composition, structure, and landscape patterns of the vegetation (although management activities may also have a minor influence).

• Roads and human structures may be present, although uncommon.

• Landscapes vary from natural appearing where human activities do not stand out (high scenic integrity) to natural where generally only ecological changes occur (very high scenic integrity), except as described below.

• While emphasizing semi-primitive nonmotorized and primitive recreation opportunities, motorized travel may occur on designated NFS roads and motorized trails.

• Natural landscapes contribute to preserving natural behaviors and processes that sustain wildlife populations.

High Use Recreation Site: The High Use Developed Recreation Area Management Area includes places with relatively high levels of visitor use that are managed to provide a wide variety of opportunities to a broad spectrum of visitors. High use developed recreation areas contain one or more facilities and may accommodate large numbers of people. They are associated with, and often provide, access to popular destinations, transportation corridors, scenic byways, scenic vistas, lakes, and streams. Interaction among visitors is high. The West Escudilla project has one high use recreation site, Luna Lake, which is a popular campground and picnic area on the Alpine Ranger District. Some key desired conditions for Luna Lake area in terms of woody vegetation are:

• The evidence of management activities is common.

• The surrounding landscape is natural appearing, pastoral, or historic with variations created by the recreational facilities.

Community Forest Intermix: The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands that are within one-half mile of communities-at-risk. Due to the threat of fire moving into or from developed areas, more intensive treatments (including regular maintenance) may be needed to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and restore fire-adapted ecosystems. This management area may act as a zone in which fire suppression activities can be safely and effectively conducted. Likewise, it can act as a buffer to protect forest resources. Some key desired conditions are:

• The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area is composed of smaller groups of trees that are more widely spaced than other forested areas. These conditions result in fires that burn primarily on the forest floor and rarely spread as crown fire.

• As a result of forest management, most wildfires are low to mixed severity surface fires resulting in limited loss of structures or ecosystem function.

• Native grasses, forbs, shrubs, and litter (i.e., fine fuels) are abundant enough to maintain and support natural fire regimes, protect soils, and support water infiltration.

• The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of vegetative conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local communities and forest ecosystems.

• Ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer forest structure is similar to forestwide conditions or is composed of smaller and more widely spaced tree groups than in the general forest.

• Wet mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests are growing in an overall more open condition than the wet mixed conifer forest outside of the Community-Forest Intermix Management Area. These conditions result in fires that burn primarily on the forest floor and rarely spread as crown fire.

• Where potential occurs, pure deciduous stands (e.g., aspen, Gambel oak) act as natural firebreaks and enhance scenery.

• Grasslands have less than 10 % woody canopy cover.

• Piñon-juniper stands have open canopy conditions.

• The integrity of riparian areas is maintained.

Existing Condition In many areas throughout the project area the following existing conditions exist;

• Forest vegetation at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability;

• Forest stands are heavily stocked (high density) and are susceptible to insects and disease;

• Encroachment by pinyon-juniper into grasslands and infill of pinyon-juniper into savannah;

• Degraded understory in persistent pinyon-juniper woodlands;

• Conifer encroachment into wet and dry montane meadows;

• Degraded streams and watershed conditions due to historic land use practices and the Escudilla and Wallow wildfires;

• Roads (unauthorized roads and forest system roads) causing sedimentation and erosion;

• Higher risk of insect damage or mortality by bark beetles due to increasing density of stands and periodic drought.

• Heavy fuel loading: in areas which burned at high severities in the Wallow fire;

from surface fuel accumulations from trees killed in the years following the Wallow fire;

in high density stands in areas burned at low severity in the Wallow fire;

in areas that continued to accumulate fuels where there was low severity burning or no burning has occurred.


~ 21 ~

Purpose and Need The purpose of this project is to authorize landscape restoration activities within the West Escudilla Project Area. There is a need for ecological restoration focusing on re-establishing composition, structure, pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial, riparian and aquatic ecosystem sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions. Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that is degraded, damaged, or destroyed. Resiliency increases the ability of the ponderosa pine forest and other vegetation types in the project area to survive natural disturbance such as fire, insects, disease, and anticipated climate changes. Watershed restoration actions would improve and/or maintain critical resource values such as water quality and quantity, wetland and riparian conditions, minimize sediment loss, and contribute to proper watershed functioning condition. Project goals of the West Escudilla Restoration are to move the project area from existing conditions to desired conditions by reducing tree density, reducing the threat of large stand-replacing wildfire, improve watershed conditions and water quality, maintain scenic character, provide forest products, and improve a full suite of habitats for plant, aquatic, and wildlife species, including threatened and endangered species.

Further details on the existing and desired conditions for different resources specific to this project and used in development of this purpose and need are in the “Existing and Desired Conditions” sections for each resource area.

Public and Agency Involvement The USFS listed the proposal for this project in the ASNFs’ Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA) on September 8, 2015, and continued to publish the proposal in each quarterly SOPA since. The USFS also listed the proposal by project name on the ASNFs’ projects web page at http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/asnf/landmanagement/projects in September 2015, providing general project information.

On September 3, 2015, the ASNFs sent a letter to agency and local government officials, landowners bordering the project area, and any identified possibly interested parties. This letter provided an overview of the proposed action, notification of a combined scoping and official comment period, and notice of a public meeting held on September 23, 2015, from 5:00-7:00 p.m. at the Alpine Community Center, Alpine, AZ. A legal notice published in the White Mountain Independent Newspaper, both Apache and Navajo County editions on September 8, 2015, initiated the combined scoping and official comment period on the project and provided information on the project and how to comment. The published notice included a brief description of the proposed action for the project and an announcement of the public meeting. The comment period extended the required 30-calendar days closing on October 7, 2015, as required by 36 CFR 218).

http://www.fs.usda.gov/projects/asnf/landmanagement/projects

All documentation associated with these public outreach efforts is included in the project record available at the Alpine Ranger District Office

Tribal and State Historic Preservation Office Consultation Seven traditionally associated tribes were engaged in tribal consultation with the ASNFs regarding the West Escudilla Restoration project. Initial consultation letters were mailed on September 2, 2015 to inform the tribes about and invite participation in the project. Tribes who received the letters included White Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, Pueblo of Zuni, Pueblo of Acoma, Navajo Nation, Ramah Chapter of the Navajo Nation, and Hopi Tribe. The letter informed the tribes about the types of activities proposed for West Escudilla, the number of known sites in the project area, the number of previously surveyed acres, and plans for additional, phased cultural resource surveys.

The ASNFs received responses from the Hopi, San Carlos Apache, and White Mountain Apache Tribes. The response from Hopi tribe was dated September 15, 2015 and expressed interest in the review of all cultural resource survey reports generated for the project area. The San Carlos Apache Tribe responded via a letter that was received on September 22, 2015 and deferred consultation to Hopi and White Mountain Apache Tribes and the Pueblo of Zuni, especially in regards to cultural landscapes and Traditional Cultural Properties. San Carlos Apache stated they are relying on the ASNFs to make sound judgements regarding the appropriateness of mechanical treatments. The White Mountain Apache Tribe’s email response on September 15, 2015 indicated a desire for continual agency-to-agency involvement throughout the project. Such involvement would include face-to-face office and field meetings to discuss sites, artifacts, project phases, and protection measures.

The ASNFs will continue to engage with the respondent tribes at the level indicated in their respective responses. Survey reports developed as a result of project-related surveys will be shared with both the Hopi and White Mountain Apache Tribes. Survey strategies and protection measures will be shared with White Mountain Apache Tribe to ensure appropriate levels of inventory and mitigation are developed and executed throughout the project. The ASNFs will continue to follow the Region 3 Programmatic Agreement and all applicable federal laws, policies, and regulations regarding consultation, cultural resource inventory, site evaluation, and mitigation practices. The project record, available at the Alpine Ranger District Office, includes documentation associated with tribal coordination.

Issues An issue is a point of discussion, debate, or dispute about the environmental effects of the proposed activities. Issues are cause-effect relationships directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. Using comments provided from the public, other agencies, and industry representatives during scoping, issues were separated into key issues and issues eliminated from detailed study.


~ 23 ~

Significant Issues There were no significant issues raised during the public involvement process.

Key Issues Several key issues were used to focus the analysis:

1. How do the actions proposed move the existing condition toward desired conditions? a. Agency Response: See Purpose and Need section along with the Proposed Action that

describes how the actions proposed move the landscape to desired conditions and goals set in the Forest Plan. Chapters 1 and 2.

2. What are the effects to access to the area and how would road closures not only affect access but affect economic opportunities? a. Agency Response: Roads selected for closure and decommissioning are based on

whether they are causing resource damage and/or are not needed for access i.e. duplicative to other roads, and/or are level 1 (already closed to public) and not needed for future administrative or timber treatment access, and/or are unauthorized and were never on the system and officially open for public travel. The percentage of road decommissioning is relatively small compared to what is left for access into the area. Those who want to recreate, gather fire wood, or access the area for other needs will still have the opportunity to do so. Therefore, since opportunities to access the area still exist there would be little to no effect to the economics to the community. Access to the area shall be maintained and opportunities to continue to recreate will remain. See Transportation and Recreation sections in Chapter 3, and network changes proposed in the Transportation maps in Appendix B.

3. What are the effects of burning to logging, firewood gathering, and other products? a. Agency Response: Prescribed fire is a tool that is done with consideration and

sometimes in conjunction with logging operations. The general goal is to introduce low intensity, frequent fire into the area to mimic nature’s methods for producing healthy forests and reducing fuel loading that can contribute to uncharacteristic wildfire. Many times these are conducted post logging and firewood gathering. Logging and firewood gathering are part of the proposed action where the opportunity exists in order to help reach desired conditions, therefore there would be opportunity for logging, firewood, and other forest product gathering. See Proposed Action, Chapter 2; Vegetation and Fuels-Fire sections in Chapter 3.

4. What effects would thinning and logging have on MSO critical habitat, including the need for large and old tree retention? a. Agency Response: Practices would be compliant with the 2012 MSO Recovery plan. A

large tree and old tree retention site specific plan has been developed for the West Escudilla Restoration Project (see Vegetation section in Chapter 3 and Large and Old Tree Retention Strategy in Appendix C). Critical habitat with active PACs are generally avoided. Some practices may have some minor short-term effects, but produce long-term enhancements to habitat. See Proposed Action, Chapter 2, and in particular habitat

stratification for Mexican spotted owls; Wildlife section in Chapter 3 for effects analysis on Mexican spotted owls and their critical habitat. All treatments were determined by the District to “may affect, not likely to adversely affect” the Federally listed species and their critical habitat and affirmed by the US Fish and Wildlife Service through consultation (Letter of Concurrence, April 28, 2017). See Wildlife sections, Chapter 3 and Table 34 for a summary of effects to listed species and their critical habitat.

5. What is the frequency based on and what are the effects to various vegetation types for prescribed fire? a. Agency Response: Frequency and fire prescriptions are based on how to best meet

desired conditions, historical range of variability (HRV) by vegetation type. Actions proposed for prescribed fire and effects are in Proposed Action, Chapter 2 and in Vegetation, Fire and Fuels, Soils, and Hydrology sections of Chapter 3.

6. How are Pinyon-Juniper, grassland, savannah, and persistent woodland areas going to be treated? a. Agency Response: The treatment activities for ponderosa, mixed conifer, pinyon-

juniper, grassland, savannah, and persistent woodland areas are reflected in the Proposed Action. Reasons are provided in the Purpose and Need (see Chapters 1 and 2).

7. What was the process for determining which roads would be decommissioned? a. Agency Response: The project-specific transportation system that is being proposed

involved a field survey of the existing roadway network, the correction of mapped route alignments based on field review and aerial photography, public comment, and an inter-disciplinary review and analysis process to identify and modify the road network to recommend a roadway system for project implementation and recreational usage. A detailed description of the road system, reasons and rationale can be found in the Purpose and Need-Chapter 1, Proposed Action-Chapter 2, and Transportation section-Chapter 3.

Some issues were eliminated from detailed study as they fit categories determined by regulation and policy, or outside the scope of the proposed action; various concerns were identified that are addressed in this environmental assessment and other documents that will be included in the project record, and several supportive comments were provided.


~ 25 ~

Chapter 2: Proposed Action and Alternatives Alternative 1: No Action Under the No-Action Alternative, natural ecosystem processes would continue. Forest stands within the project area would not be treated. Conifers are encroaching on grasslands and wet meadows would continue, and increase. Fire hazard would continue to increase, including crown fire potential. Wildlife habitat improvements for northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl would not occur. No road decommissioning or rehabilitation of unauthorized roads would occur, therefore water quality and watershed function would not improve. The project area would not move toward desired conditions, as outlined in the ASNFs Land Management Plan (USDA, 2015).

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Forest, Woodland and Grassland Health and Restoration The proposed action would implement approximately 66,000 acres of forest restoration activities on National Forest System lands. Activities would include prescribed fire and vegetation treatments of various forest, woodland, and grassland ecosystems. Implementation of the project is expected over a multi-year time period (approximately10-15 years). See summary of treatment acres in Table 3 below.

Pinyon-Juniper Pinyon-Juniper occurs on approximately 29,800 acres of the project area. Treatments would be designed to move areas towards a natural range of variability based on vegetation PNVT and soil type. Three types of treatment could occur in pinyon-juniper areas and include:

Treatment of Pinyon-Juniper Persistent Woodland:

• Site-specific determinations amongst project resource specialists would be used to assess the use of mechanical treatment in the form of selection cuts and intermediate thinning coupled with recurring prescribed fire as a restoration technique in selected areas across areas of pinyon-juniper persistent woodland. A mix of ages, heights, and groupings of trees create a mosaic across the landscape with canopy cover range 30 – 65 %. Treatment viability and consideration is not limited to, but could be evaluated based upon the following criteria: a) where the extent of encroachment trees in a stand is depleting understory herbaceous species of site resources, resulting in vegetative ground cover conditions departed from the desired condition and b) where fuel loads and herbaceous cover are adequate enough post mechanical treatment to carry fire and further improve vegetative ground cover conditions.

Treatment of or conversion to Pinyon-Juniper Savannah:

• Mechanical treatment in selected areas across areas of potential pinyon-juniper savannah in the form of selection cuts and intermediate thinning coupled with recurring prescribed fire to

reduce canopy cover to a range of 15 – 30 % and to maintain a diverse tree size class distribution within tree groupings. Lop and scatter via hand-thinning with chainsaws would be used post mechanical tree removal to prep sites for prescribed fire. Prescribed fire would also be used as a restoration technique to meet or maintain desirable herbaceous vegetation growth / vigor and to restore a historical fire recurrence interval.

Treatment of Great Basin Grassland:

• Mechanical treatment in selected areas across areas of potential Great Basin grassland in the form of selection cuts and intermediate thinning coupled with prescribed fire to reduce canopy cover to a range of 0 – 10 %. Lop and scatter via hand-thinning with chainsaws would be used post mechanical tree removal to prep sites for prescribed fire. Prescribed fire would also be used as a restoration technique to meet or maintain desirable herbaceous vegetation growth / vigor and to restore a historical fire recurrence interval.

Mixed Conifer/Ponderosa Pine Mixed conifer/ponderosa pine occurs on approximately 23,200 acres of the project area. Treatments would be designed to move areas towards a natural range of variability based on vegetation PNVT and soil type. Three types of treatment could occur in mixed conifer/ponderosa pine areas and include

Treatment of Dry and Wet Mixed-Conifer:

• Mechanical treatments in dry mixed conifers in selected areas across areas that would result in smaller and more widely spaced tree groups with openings ranging from 10 – 50 %. Treatments would be used to obtain more open conditions and increase native understory of grass, forbs, and/or shrubs. Forest structure is similar to ponderosa pine forests, variable uneven-aged and open.

• Mechanical treatments in selected areas would be utilized to treat wet mixed conifer to obtain more open conditions and increase native understory of grass, forbs, and/or shrubs. Canopies are more closed than dry mixed conifer and even aged patches more common.

• Prescribed fire would be used as a restoration technique to meet or maintain desirable herbaceous vegetation growth / vigor and to meet desired levels of fuel loading, while decreasing potential effects from uncharacteristic high severity wildfires.

Treatment of Ponderosa Pine:

• Mechanical treatments in selected areas across areas would be utilized to thin ponderosa pine with emphasis on an uneven age stand structure and a relative open arrangement of trees. Stand density would depend on the aspect and soil productivity. Forest openings would vary in size (10 to 70 %, depending on soil productivity), dominated by native grasses, forbs and shrubs (60 to 85 % cover or greater). Treatments would improve vigor and growth of Gambel oak, aspen, and other hardwood trees and shrubs. Mechanical treatments would support the use of prescribed fire used as a restoration technique to meet or maintain stand structure, desirable herbaceous vegetation growth / vigor, to reduce hazardous fuels, and to restore a historical fire recurrence interval.


~ 27 ~

Figure 2 - Treatment acres proposed stratified by vegetation type.

Figure 2 above displays how the proposed treatment acres are stratified by forest (ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, riparian, and aspen), woodland (pinyon/juniper, woodland Savanna and riparian), or non-forested (grasslands, meadows, wetlands, private land, reservoirs, power lines, and a gravel pit). Some woodland PNVT is shown as forested in this figure as there is a transitional element between the ponderosa pine and woodland PNVT and some woodland classified as Northern Goshawk Habitat. See Map in Appendix B.

Habitat Stratification for Mexican Spotted Owl and Northern Goshawk Mexican Spotted Owl habitat was stratified according to guidelines outline in the MSO Recovery plan (2012). This stratification breaks down the amount of protected and recovery habitat along with a breakdown of pine oak and mixed conifer habitat located within the project (Figure 3). For each stratum, the area is further broken down into the amount of nesting / roosting and foraging habitat. In looking at existing conditions, there are currently 5,170 acres that are classified as MSO recovery habitat with only 75 acres in three stands that currently meet MSO recovery nesting / roosting habitat requirements. The MSO recovery plan guidelines require that a minimum 25% of mixed conifer and 10% of pine oak habitat are designated to be managed for recovery nesting / roosting habitat. Due to the current deficit of nesting / roosting habitat in the project area 18 mixed conifer stands totaling 480 acres and 19 pine oak stands totaling 499 acres in MSO recovery habitat were selected to be managed towards nesting / roosting conditions. These stands were selected by:

1. Best potential of meeting nesting / roosting conditions.

West Escudilla treatment area,

66,145 acres

Forested

30,012 acres

Non-Forested Lands

Northern Goshawk Habitat (NOGO) 21,342 acres

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Habitat

8,670 acres

Woodland

17,484 acres

2. Geographic proximity to MSO protected habitat. Appendix B shows a map that identifies designated nesting / roosting habitat.

Goshawk habitat was stratified according to areas inside Post Fledging Areas (PFA’s), areas outside PFA’s (Foraging Areas), and nest habitat (Figure 4). The PFA and foraging areas were further stratified by even aged or un-even aged structure. 1,266 acres of PFA’s are located within the West Escudilla project area. 814 acres of these PFA’s are also classified as MSO habitat and therefore must be managed under the MSO guidelines. 58% of the goshawk habitat is currently considered uneven aged with the remaining as even aged.

It is important to point out that while the desired conditions for each stand within the West Escudilla restoration project are based on the PNVT, the recommendations of the MSO recovery plan (2012) will be followed. While the desired conditions for MSO and goshawk are met, in some cases by following these recommendations will limit the ability to fully meet other the desired conditions as outlined in the LMP.

Figure 3- Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat stratification and acres.

Mex

ican

Spo

tted

Ow

l (M

SO) H

abita

t (ac

res)

Protected Activity Center (PAC) (acres)

Pine-Oak (acres) 1

901

Mixed Conifer w/Aspen (acres) 1,4

1,120

Ponderosa Pine w/ Aspen , Riparian,

and Grassland (acres) 1

3,524 1,503

Rec

over

y H

abita

t (ac

res)

Pine-Oak (acres)

Recovery Nest/Roost (Min of 10% of acres) 1

574 (17.5%)

Recovery Foraging (Max 90% of acres) 2, 3


~ 29 ~

3,284 2,710 (82.5%)

Mixed Conifer (acres) 4

Recovery Nest/Roost (Min. 25% acres) 1

456 (24.5%)

Recovery Foraging (Max 75% of MC acres) 2, 3

8,670 5,146 1,862 1,406 (75.5%) 1 100% of the area would be managed for old growth structure.

2 MC recovery allocation varies by ecosystem management unit (2012 MSO Recovery Plan).

3 Uneven-aged forest would be managed towards allocation of 40% of the recovery acres to mature structural stages. Mature even-aged forest structure would be managed towards uneven-aged forest conditions, by group selection cutting methods.

*See map in appendix B.

4 Total mixed conifer shown is 2,982 acres which is 174 acres less than the PNVT mixed conifer acres shown for the West Escudilla Project area. This is due to some of the Mixed Conifer PNVT not meeting MSO plan definitions of Mixed Conifer.

Figure 4 - Northern goshawk (NOGO) habitat stratification and acres.

Northern Goshawk Habitat

(Ponderosa pine forest)

Nest Habitat

298 acres

Post Family Fledging Areas (PFA) Habitat

451 acres (1266 Total PFA – 814 acres of the PFA habitat is classified as MSO Habitat)

Uneven-aged

128 acres

Even-aged

323 acres

Areas Outside of PFAs

Uneven-aged

12,235 acres

Even-aged

(Foraging)

21,342 acres 20,593 acres 8,358 acres

See map in Appendix B.

Aspen • Aspen occurs as an early successional species which occurs in ponderosa pine and mixed

conifer in the project area. Stand improvements consisting of mechanical treatments that remove encroaching conifer species would occur where aspen is present in the project area. This includes areas within the Wallow fire burn where aspen are regenerating.

Seedling Plantings • In areas where the Wallow fire has resulted in understocked stands in forest vegetation types’

tree and/or shrub seedling plantings may occur.

• For all treatments that have group selection / created openings being implemented, all regeneration is planned to be natural. After implementation of this alternative, it is expected that approximately 1,500 – 3,000 acres in the Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed Conifer and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVTs will be shifted into smaller diameter structural stages through created opening / group selections. If after implementation and subsequent monitoring shows that natural regeneration has not occurred, planting in these created openings may occur depending the results of the monitoring. In the case that artificial planting needs to occur then planting of like species composition of the surrounding forest may be implemented to ensure the desired conditions of these PNVTs are being met.

Riparian Areas • Riparian areas would be enhanced by both riparian woody species planting and/or construction

of small exclosure structures to protect riparian vegetation from excessive browsing and ground disturbance by large ungulates (e.g. elk). Within the West Escudilla project area approximately 40 miles have identified for potential riparian enhancement activity.

• Removal of encroaching upland tree species within the potential extent of riparian wet meadows by means of hand-felling only. Within the potential extent of dry, montane meadows


~ 31 ~

encroaching upland tree species would be removed via mechanical treatment with seasonal operation restrictions or by hand-felling (site specific determinations).

• In riparian wet meadows and dry, montane meadows prescribed fire would be utilized after encroachment tree removal has been done (either hand thinning or mechanical tree removal) to help increase potential soil productivity and produce desirable herbaceous plant abundance and vigor.

Table 1 – Summary of proposed treatment acres

Proposed Treatments Alt 2

Goshawk Habitat (Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed Conifer PNVT)

Foraging Shelterwood with Reserves 581

Foraging Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning 11,513

Foraging Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning Old Growth < 18" 1,856

PFA Group Selection/ Intermediate Thinning 145

Prescribed Fire with Site Prep 3,337

Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed Conifer, Wet Mixed Conifer PNVTs)

Recovery Foraging Group Selection / Intermediate Thinning 1,385

Nest Roost Group Selection / Intermediate Thinning 265

MSO Protected Activity Center 523


Other PNTV’s (Great Basin, Subalpine Montane, PJ Woodland, Savanna)

PJ Persistent Woodland Treatment 3,297

PJ Savanna Woodland Restoration 9,764

Grassland Restoration 17,817

Riparian Treatment* 45


* This does not account for Riparian Treatments that are lumped in other stands.

Mechanical Treatment Design Mechanical cutting treatments would include the use of various types of mechanical equipment to cut trees, limb, buck slash, move material to landings along approved skid trails, chip wood, transport material, pile/arrange slash for removal, burning, erosion control and other activities as necessary for cutting and processing tree material. Various approaches for treatment would be thin from below, group selection, individual tree selection, seedtree, and shelterwood, harvests through pre-commercial or commercial timber sales. Typically mechanical cutting would be restricted to less than 40% slopes. Ground-based logging systems would be applied to treatment areas with a 25% maximum slope on sensitive soil types unless approved by Forest Service personnel. Table 4 displays example ground based logging systems that are likely to be used in implementing mechanical cutting treatments in the project area. All appropriate mechanized

equipment may be used in coordination with Alpine and Springerville District resource specialists.

Table 2 - Ground based logging systems

Ground Based System Notes

Whole Tree Logs are processed on the landing. Manual felling may be required in some stands for oversized trees.

Cut to Length Logs are processed in the woods. Manual felling may be required in some units for oversized trees.

Conventional Process logs in the woods or at the landing (if at landing, processor equipment such as a de-limber would be required).

Three ground based systems would be used in treating the proposed stands. The table above displays the recommended equipment configuration for ground based systems.

Typically log landings would be approximately ¼ to one acre in size with an average of one landing for every 20 acres treated. Log landings would be located on gentle ground and would be large enough to allow for some log processing (i.e. for units that would require whole tree skidding).

Post landing use and pile distribution-burning rehabilitation techniques would be used where and when needed.

Slash Management • Slash treatments would include lop and scatter, utilization (fuelwood) and piling.

• Pile burning may also occur in support of other restoration treatments (i.e., silvicultural treatments) to remove activity created slash.

• All residual activity fuels would be scheduled for prescribed fire (e.g. broadcast burn, jackpot burn and pile burn).

Prescribed Fire As shown in treatments above, prescribed fire would be a treatment utilized in this project. The proposed action would implement an estimated 54,000 acres of prescribed fire to create, enhance and maintain a more resilient landscape. Silvicultural or thinning activities (commercial/non-commercial) in some cases would enable the use of prescribed fire by reducing fuel loading. Prescribed fire treatments would occur in a wide array of fuel types, ranging from ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest to persistent pinyon-juniper woodland, pinyon-juniper savannah and Great Basin grassland. Low to moderate intensity prescribed broadcast burning would be utilized to reduce fire behavior potential, reduce existing fuel loading, and fuel loadings from manual and mechanical treatments. Burning operations would comply with air quality regulations and be limited to certain weather conditions allowing for safe execution of ignition


~ 33 ~

operations with qualified fire personnel from multiple jurisdictions. Burning would be broken up into multiple time periods and sections.

Aquatic and Watershed Improvements (Streams and Wet Meadows) Restoration of streams and wet meadows to improve stream habitat, stabilization of stream channels and streambanks, control of erosion and excess sediment movement within streams, and stabilization of headcuts are proposed. Approximately 170 stream miles and 700 acres of wet meadow have been identified for potential restoration activity. The number of structures would differ between streams, stream reaches, and wet meadow areas based on morphology, size (smaller reaches and areas require less), access and complexity of the site and restoration needs. See Appendix B map of Proposed Headcut and Road Crossing (streams) treatment locations.

• Pool depth would be increased to enhance pool quality for Apache trout.

• Stream and wet meadow stabilization structures would include, but are not limited to: rock dams, cement jacks, log weirs, cross vein weirs and Zuni bowls.

• Stabilization techniques would include hand or mechanical installation methods and riparian vegetation planting, depending on site needs, access and other resource concerns.

Soils Site specific determinations would be made for upland soil restoration opportunities (site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams). These would be adjacent to locations where other resources need protection, or a resource would benefit from upland soil stabilization (i.e. protection of a cultural site, in a location where upland soil conditions are contributing heavily to headcut formation in a stream channel, around stock tanks where erosion issues post Wallow fire are causing them to fill up with sediment, etc.).

Roads Watershed restoration activities would include forest system road and unauthorized road decommissioning and obliteration, stream crossing improvements, or other activities to prevent further soil and water degradation. Approximately 290 miles of roads would be needed for proposed activities that are currently in the forest system road network in the project area.

Some project routes may be closed to the public during project implementation operations. This would provide for public safety and reduce the need for additional turnout construction. It may also provide for more efficient administrative and contractor use of the travel routes during treatment activities.

The proposed action would allow use of approximately 61 miles of currently closed Maintenance Level (ML) 1 roads that would be opened temporarily to facilitate access for project activities. The roadways would be opened sequentially, as segments are needed. Opening these roads

would necessitate the removal of existing closure treatments (e.g., earth berms, boulders, logs). These roads would be closed again as soon as access is no longer required for treatment activities.

Approximately 13.5 miles of ML1 roads, 2.12 miles of ML2 roads, and 122.31 miles of unauthorized routes have been identified as not needed. Actions ranging from blocking the entrance, scattering boughs on the roadbed, scarifying, seeding, and water barring, to removing fills and culverts, reestablishing drainage-ways, pulling back shoulders, and recontouring the slopes for full obliteration would be taken to decommission the system routes (ML 1 and ML 2 roads). Actions similar to the ones used for decommissioning would be taken to remove the unauthorized routes and return them to a natural setting. Proposed decommissioning of system roads and removal of unauthorized routes would reduce road densities within the project area to 2.33 miles per square miles (ML1 through 5) and the open road density would be 1.81 miles per square mile (ML2 through 5). See Transportation section in the EA, Chapter 3, and Appendix B for Transportation maps.

Table 3 – Proposed Modifications by Road or Route Designation

Route Designation

Existing Mileage

Re-designate NFSR to:

Decommission Proposed Remaining Mileage

Affected Resource

ML1 ML2 ML3 Decommission 7.32 1.98 0.37 20.6 Watershed

Aquatics ML1 61.34 - 0.37 - 13.50 53.96 Watershed

Aquatics ML2 145.57 3.83 - - 2.12 143.45 Watershed

Aquatics ML3 24.07 - - - - 24.07 - ML4 4.9 - - - - 4.9 - ML5 14.01 - - - - 14.01 - Total:* 249.89 15.62 240.39 Unauthorized roads

122.31 122.31 0 Watershed Aquatics

USFS 2016.

Stream Crossings Stream crossings and stream interactions with roads would be evaluated and actions taken to reduce impacts from the roads to streams, soils and watershed. Hardened low-water crossing, road relocations, surfacing and rock lining culverts and ditches may be a few options to minimize the impacts to the streams. These treatment methods would be evaluated with engineering, fisheries, hydrology and soils to determine to most effective treatments.


~ 35 ~

Road Construction and Reconstruction Opening ML 1 roads to allow access for restoration treatments would include the removal of closure treatments already in place (i.e., dirt berms, boulders, etc.). Some ML 1 roads would require clearing of established vegetation since the previous closure. Upon completion of treatments, these roads would be re-closed and returned to a ML 1 using water bars, dirt berms, signs, boulders or other barriers per Forest Road Maintenance Best Management Practices (BMPs).

System Road Decommissioning Forest system roads that are not needed for future treatment activities or public use and access would be decommissioned. Actions ranging from blocking the entrance, scattering boughs on the roadbed, scarifying, seeding, and water barring, to removing fills and culverts, reestablishing drainage-ways, pulling back shoulders, and recontouring the slopes for full obliteration would be taken to what is needed to reduce resource impacts and allow the ground to return to a natural setting. Approximately 15.6 miles of ML 1/ML 2 forest system roads would be decommissioned.

Unauthorized Road Obliteration Unauthorized roads are any roads that are not part of the forest transportation system. Actions ranging from blocking the entrance, scattering boughs on the roadbed, scarifying, seeding, and water barring, to removing fills, reestablishing drainage-ways, pulling back shoulders, and recontouring the slopes for full obliteration would be taken remove approximately 123 miles of unauthorized roads to prevent further resource damage (i.e., erosion, soil compaction, stream sedimentation) and allow the landscape to return to a natural setting.

Additional Road Activities Road maintenance on project roads will be conducted as required for drainage and safety compliance. Temporary roads will be built to access treatment areas then completely closed and rehabilitated when completed. Considerations for archeological, soil, wildlife or other resources are given when locating and building temporary roads.

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences Vegetation

Desired and Existing Conditions

Affected Environment The current condition was shaped by natural processes and past human activities. Significant human activity was first recorded as occurring during the 1880s, when livestock (cattle, sheep, and horses) were introduced to the White Mountains by travelers and settlers.

Unregulated grazing greatly impacted grass/forb/shrub forest understories, in many cases so severely that naturally-occurring frequent fire activity was ceased (Greco et al. 2015). In some locations no fire has occurred since the 1880s time period. This has resulted in regeneration and development of uncharacteristic forest tree densities and downed woody fuels, posing a high risk of uncharacteristically severe fire effects.

The first timber harvest entries in the area occurred in the 1950s. These actions focused on removal of large dying trees and high-grade lumber. From the 1950s-1970s, management focused on sanitation or salvage of imminent tree mortality and diseased or damaged trees. Minimal forest density management occurred during this period. In the 1960s, the practice of cutting snags to reduce fire hazard also reduced the number of snags currently standing but may have increased the number of logs present in some areas.

Starting around 1980, management was focused on even-aged forest management strategies, such as the shelterwood silviculture system. Treatments were conducted on selected stands and large blocks throughout the project. Individual stand treatments focused on overstory removals of mature trees where a younger age class was present.

Where mature trees dominated, regeneration treatments, focused on removal of most overstory trees and retention of scattered low-density seed trees. Where sapling or mid-aged trees dominated, treatments focused on thinning to manage stand density. Much of the thinning treatments yielded pulpwood products, and the removal and regeneration treatments yielded sawtimber.


~ 37 ~

Existing Condition

Grassland PNVTs These include Great Basin Grassland and Montane / Subalpine PNTV’s. The power lines within the project are maintained on a five year basis as grassland, and are therefore classified as grassland rather than forest because they are excluded from goshawk management. Many of the grassland areas have encroaching conifers with some areas of the Great Basin Grassland PNVT being highly departed from the desired conditions with greater than 10% canopy cover. Many areas that appear to be pinyon-juniper woodland are actually historic Great Basin grassland that has been encroached by woody species.

Grassland acres within the Montane / Subalpine PNVT are now trending toward patchy to nearly continuous tree cover, as post-European settlement ponderosa pine seedling/sapling encroachment has progressed into these sites in the absence of frequent fire. Many of the wet meadows are being encroached by conifer species which reduces perennial herbaceous ground cover in these areas.

Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodland / Savannas: Pinyon Juniper PNVT The pinyon-juniper woodland can be divided into two subgroups: savanna and persistent woodland. Savanna, with an herbaceous-dominated understory, generally occurs on flats, basins, gentler east-, south-, and west-facing foothills, gentle uplands, and transitional valleys at generally lower elevations. The soils associated with savanna are moderately deep to deep and biologically productive. The persistent woodland, having a sparse discontinuous understory of some grasses and/or shrubs, generally occurs on flats, ridgetops, rugged uplands, and steep slopes at various elevations, and occurs on soils that are shallow and rocky.

Pinyon Juniper woodlands and Savannas occur mainly in the northern portion of the West Escudilla project area. The pinyon juniper areas are mainly composed of alligator juniper, one-seed juniper, pinyon pine, Gambel oak and isolated pocket of ponderosa pine that occur in micro sites in persistent woodland areas. The fire return interval in these stands can be quite long and overtime the canopy cover continually increases.

When compared to desired conditions, there are many medium to very large trees, while there are too few seedlings, saplings, and small trees. Herbaceous understory vegetation within the piñon-juniper woodland is severely departed from desired conditions with large areas lacking the desired amount of grass and forbs mainly due to high canopy cover within these stands which prevent grass and forb development. Much of the Pinyon Juniper Savanna areas have departed from the desired conditions with canopy cover in some stands reaching well over 30 % in many areas. Stand exams and modeling within these savanna areas show that much of what historically

was pinyon juniper savanna has shifted to more of a persistent woodland density. Most of what was historically savanna now appears to be persistent woodland.

Ponderosa Pine and Pine-oak: Ponderosa Pine PNVT Ponderosa pine commonly grows in pure stands and currently is found in even-aged and uneven-aged structural conditions across the area (Figure 4). A portion of the stands have a large enough component of Gambel oak to be considered pine-oak habitat for Mexican spotted owl (MSO) (as described in the MSO Recovery Plan 2012). Limited remnant patches of aspen can be found throughout the middle and southern portion of the project within the pine stands. An alligator juniper component with large junipers and dense juniper regeneration occurs on the drier sites in the northern portion of the project. The majority of the ponderosa pine PNVT is departed from the desired conditions as described in the LMP and is in need of thinning to reduce basal areas, restore interspaces and openings, and to create a mosaic of structural stages within these stands. Average basal areas across the West Escudilla project are averaging over 110 square feet per acre which is much higher that the desired 20 – 80 square feet per acre with some stands topping out at as high as 277 square feet per acre. Many of these stands no longer have interspaces and have lost the grass, forb, and shrub mix. Fires have become infrequent and in many areas fire has been absent for over 50 years. Currently there is a lack a structural diversity across this PNVT as much of the area is dominated by mid-sized trees. Seedling, saplings and the larger tree component across the landscape is deficit.

Mixed Conifer: Dry and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVT Dry mixed conifer is composed of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, southwestern white pine, and Gambel oak. The majority of dry mixed conifer found in the project area is dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and is considered to be a historically dry low severity-frequent fire mixed conifer forest type. Portions of the dry mixed conifer PNVT are in mid-succession or climax condition with an understory of white fir. The cessation of frequent fire has resulted in increasing regeneration of shade-tolerant white fir. Over time, species composition has shifted from fire-resistant shade-intolerant species to non-fire-resistant shade-tolerant species dominance. Some stands within the project have currently transitioned to dominance of shade-tolerant species. The forest composition has shifted toward more shade-tolerant species that are not adapted to fire, such as true firs. It also has too many closed-canopy stands, and medium to very large size trees with an open canopy character are under-represented. Average basal areas across the West Escudilla project are averaging over 116 square feet per acre which is much higher that the desired 30 – 100 squared feet per acre for dry mixed conifer but within the range of wet mixed conifer (30-180 squared feet per acre) with some stands topping out at as high as 226 square feet per acre. Many of these stands no longer have interspaces and have lost the grass, forb, and shrub mix. Fires have become infrequent and in many areas fire has been absent for over 50 years in dry mixed conifer PNVTs. Currently there is a lack a structural diversity across these PNVT as much of the area is dominated by young to mid-sized trees. The large tree component across the landscape is deficient. There is a lack of aspen regeneration and too few


~ 39 ~

large to very large shade tolerant trees with a closed canopy characteristic. The herbaceous understory vegetation within the wet mixed conifer forest is highly to severely departed from desired conditions.

Aspen: Inclusions within other PNVTs. Aspen exists within the southern half of the project area in small isolated patches or within portions of the canyons. These patches typically consist of a few overstory trees with a sapling component of 3 to 8 inch diameter trees. Where aspen stands are limited elk can be particularly damaging to its growth and survival by browsing on aspen suckers, rubbing antlers on mid-sized trees and eating bark from larger trees. Aspen are regenerating successfully where fire and other naturally created openings have allowed for higher levels of suckering to occur (post-Wallow Fire). Some stands of aspen regeneration has elk browse occurring. There are 14 stands within the project area with aspen basal area greater than 10 ft2 per acre. These mainly occur directly east of Escudilla Mountain. Many of these stands with aspen no longer have pure aspen clones, and are now in decline as pine and mixed conifer species are overtaking them. Aspen clones co-exist with dense mixed conifer on several steep mountain slopes and canyon sides. This means that nearly all aspen acres now have coniferous ladder fuels and enough conifers in the main canopy to also carry a crown fire. These condition will continue to increase as conifers out-compete aspen for sunlight and ground water. Individual aspen trees also suffer rubbing and tooth-barking by elk, which introduces pathogenic fungi and stem decay. Overall across the West Escudilla landscape the future for aspen clones is in question.

Riparian PNVTs Riparian PNVTs make up 1,160 acres within the West Escudilla Project area (Table 1). Many forest stands contain parts of the riparian PNVTs within the stands. As stands are delineated by dominant vegetation type, topography and aspect, most of the riparian PNVT areas are included within stand delineation and therefore are part of other PNVTs such as Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed Conifer and Pinyon Juniper Woodlands. The existing conditions of these riparian inclusions within other forest stands are highly departed from the desired conditions for riparian PNVT. All of the riparian PNVTs overstory vegetation, except for the cottonwood-willow riparian forest PNVT, are considered departed from reference conditions. Most of this departure has occurred in response to past grazing and water diversions for agriculture. Changes in vegetation species composition has shift to be more dominated by conifers instead of riparian species. In much of the riparian areas, riparian species are not successfully reproducing.

Forest Health For the purposes of this analysis, forest health is defined by the vigor and condition of the forest stands, and the presence of insects and disease that affect the sustainability of the forest. A working definition of a healthy forest is a forest where:

1. Stand densities are at levels that facilitate overall forest development, tree vigor, and resilience to characteristic disturbances, and;

2. Native insect and disease activity is within the historic range of variability, and non-native insects/diseases are absent or incidental and;

3. Forest structure represents all age classes necessary for a sustainable balance of regeneration, growth, mortality, decomposition, and;

4. Overall forest conditions are resilient to natural biotic and abiotic disturbances (e.g., insects, diseases, fire, wind and flood).

5. Tree species composition is suited to the natural fire regime for each PNVT.

Stand Density Stand density is the dominant factor affecting the health and vigor of the forest (SAF 2005). Long (1985) divided Stand Density Index (SDI) percentages into four zones which consider the percent of a stand’s overall density relative to the biological maximum density (species-specific measure).

The Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) decided to analyze and group the West Escudilla project by important habitat type as the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan and Goshawk Management recommendations have specific management recommendations.

Table 6 - Existing (2017) and desired forest density.

Habitat Existing Acres**

Existing Condition BA Average**

Existing Condition BA Ranges**

Desired Condition BA

Existing Condition Average SDI% of Maximum

Desired condition SDI% of Maximum***

Mexican Spotted Owl

PAC 3524 105 12-226 N/A 42% N/A

Recovery Foraging

4092 116 26-193 70-90* 46% 25-40%

Recovery Nest / Roost

75 124 124-124 110-120* 40% N/A

Goshawk PFA 451 69 9-156 20-100* 40% 25-40%

Foraging 20,921 108 9-277 20-100* 42% 15-35%

* Within stand matrix (not including regeneration group openings).

** Not all acres require for treatment and may already meet desired conditions. Existing density statistics reflect regenerating and other young stands that are not proposed for treatments.

*** Appendix C of Silviculturist Specialist Report in project record describes stand density index calculations and the basis for desired density conditions related to the forest plan vegetation standards and guidelines and project purpose and need. The desired condition density ranges represent the zone where attainment of both forest health objectives and uneven-aged forest development/maintenance objectives are biologically feasible.


~ 41 ~

Table 7 shows the existing and desired conditions for the Great Basin Grassland and Pinyon Juniper PNVTs. Some stands for each of these PNVTs are currently meeting desired conditions while others are not. Some of the data in these areas was minimal and use of remote sensing (aerial photos) and site visits helped to quantify and adjust much of the data in these areas. In general, these areas comprise a large diversity of stand structure, composition, and densities, and due to the various states many are outside of the desired condition from the LMP.

Table 7 - Existing and desired condition for Grassland and Pinyon Juniper Woodland /Savanna.

PNVT Average Existing Canopy Cover

Existing CC Ranges

Desired Condition

Great Basin Grasslands 15% 3 - 35% < 10%

Pinyon Juniper Savanna 23% 12 - 40 % 10-30%

Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodland 26% 12 - 40% > 30%

Insects and Diseases The 2015 annual insect and disease aerial surveys on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (USDA 2015b) conducted in the late summer of 2014 show a continuation of bark beetle-related mortality in the mixed conifer. Bark beetle activity in Douglas-fir (Douglas-fir beetle) and white fir (fir engraver beetle) have been increasing over the past few years on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.

Forests across the Southwest have become increasingly overstocked during the past century. Overstocked forests are increasingly susceptible to large-scale disturbances such as bark beetle outbreaks. While beetle outbreaks and associated tree mortality are natural components of the ecosystem, in recent years the outbreaks have become larger and more destructive than historically recorded (Bentz et al. 2009). In addition, overstocked stands are at a higher risk of fires and fire injured trees are more likely to be attacked by beetles. Proactive restoration efforts are often the most effective and feasible management tool managers have to reduce the severity of insect related outbreaks.

Thinning treatments have been shown to be effective at reducing stand susceptibility to bark beetle attacks. Thinning increases the health of residual trees by reducing competition for resources and appears to also change the microclimate, making it more difficult for beetles to locate suitable hosts (Fettig et al. 2007). For example, studies have found that trees in less stocked stands have higher levels of defense, as measured by the amount of resin or resin ducts (Kolb et al. 1998; Kane and Kolb 2010). In addition, surveys in stands after beetle epidemics have found that stands with lower basal areas have a lower percentage of bark beetle associated tree mortality than stands with higher basal areas (Fettig et al. 2007). Furthermore, in the Southwest, droughts are strongly correlated with beetle outbreaks. Reducing competition in the

stand has been shown to reduce water stress in residual trees (Kolb et al. 1998). Fire and dwarf mistletoe stress also increase the susceptibility of trees to bark beetle attacks.

Current conditions Endemic levels of insect activity are found in both the pinyon and ponderosa pine. Scattered mortality of ponderosa pine was evident across the landscape and inspections of galleries, as well as identification of beetle specimens excavated from the tree, indicated western (Dendroctonus brevicomis) and roundheaded (D. adjunctus) pine beetles were present. In addition, based on past surveys, it is likely that engraver beetles (most likely pine engraver, Ips pini) are present. Southwestern dwarf mistletoe (DM), Arceuthobium vaginatum subsp. cryptopodum, in ponderosa pine was also present across the landscape, but distribution of DM infection is localized and not continuous. Ponderosa pines with heavy infections of dwarf mistletoe are more likely to be attacked by bark beetles (Kenaley et al. 2006). Similar scattered pinyon mortality was noted at the lower elevations due to bark beetles. Pinyon trees also had evidence of pitch moths (Synanthedon spp.). This insect causes the tree to produce large, conspicuous pitch masses along the main bole and can weaken trees. Weakened trees are generally more likely to be attacked by bark beetles.

Treatment assessment based on numerous studies across multiple forest types that have examined the relationship between stand density and bark beetle attacks. Thinning treatments will decrease the likelihood of widespread bark beetle mortality in the stands (reviewed in Fettig et al. 2007).

Bark beetle risk is high over the analysis area. In general, ponderosa pine stands that have an average diameter greater than 12 inches are risk-rated based upon stand basal area (BA): BA greater than 120 ft2/acre are considered at high risk to bark beetle attack; BA of 80 – 120 ft2/acre are considered moderate risk; and BA less than 80 ft2/acre are considered low risk (McMillin 2004).

Dwarf mistletoe infection in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir is common throughout the area. Dwarf mistletoes continue to have a major impact on growth and mortality of conifers1 in the Southwest (USDA 2015b). The incidence of dwarf mistletoe is quantified during stand exams. Approximately 27.7% of the acres within the project area have some level of infection. Southwestern dwarf mistletoe was observed in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe in the Douglas-fir. Table 8 displays the stand rating by infection severity class.

1 Conifers – cone bearing trees which are found within the project area including: ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, Southwestern white pine, rocky mountain juniper, alligator juniper, pinyon pine, one-seed juniper.


~ 43 ~

Table 8 - Acreage percentages of existing stand level dwarf mistletoe infection by severity class within the West Escudilla project area. (Hawksworth and Weins 1996).

Infection Severity Class

Uninfected Light Medium Heavy Severe Acres

Stand DMR Rating

0 0.1 – 25% 0.26 -0.99 1.0 – 1.99 2.0+

Percent of all host trees 1” + DBH suffering any level of infection

0 0.1 – 20% 0.1 – 20% 20 – 50% 50%

Existing Condition 49,975 16,691 1,755 344 381 69,145

% of Acres 72.3% 24.1% 2.5% 0.5% 0.6% 100.0%

The relationship of tree dwarf mistletoe rating (DMR) to growth, mortality, and cone production is summarized in Table 9 for ponderosa pine. Dwarf mistletoe infection in Douglas-fir has slightly higher reductions than ponderosa pine. In general, measurable effects are observed with tree DMRs of 3 or greater. Infections in the lower portion of crowns tend to have less significant effects than equal infections in upper portions.

Table 9 - Relationship of degree of infection within individual trees to growth, mortality, and cone production for ponderosa pine. (Hawksworth and Weins 1996).

Tree DMR

Item 0 1 2 3 4 5 6

% DBH Growth Reduction 0 0 0 2 14 27 50

% Height Growth Reduction 0 0 0 4 8 11 15

Cone Production Rating 2.9 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.6 0.8 0.04

% Increase in 10-year Mortality rate 0 1 4 8 15 23 34

White pine blister rust (an exotic disease) has recently been detected in eastern Arizona on both the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (NF) and the Fort Apache Indian Reservation. The effects of this disease are well-known throughout the United States. White pine blister rust poses a threat to southwestern white pine, causing severe mortality throughout its range. Some genetic resistance to this disease has been identified on selected individual white pines on the Lincoln NF. For this reason, it is critical that the full genetic diversity of southwestern white pine be maintained throughout its range. Healthy white pines should be retained, favored and regenerated wherever possible (Conklin et al 2009).

Other Effects to Forest Health Browsing of hardwood and conifer regeneration by livestock and native ungulates is heavy throughout the area. The only tree species unaffected by browsing is southwestern white pine. Aspen is being browsed but due to the use of barley seeding after the Wallow fire which reduced the browse pressure for 1 to 2 years, many of the aspen clones are regenerating successfully. Light fire and increased browsing may impact aspen in the near future.

Forest Structure – Goshawk Forest Habitat The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan (2015) states that the mid-scale desired condition for forest structure in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer is to have tree group mosaics that compose an uneven-aged forest with all age classes, size classes and structural stages present. Tables 10 and 11 display the existing forest structure within the goshawk foraging and PFA habitat areas. Stand-level characteristics are most relevant to analysis of management treatments, so the stand level analysis was used throughout this report to represent existing condition and for simulation modeling of alternatives. The acreages for the stands were combined below for the West Escudilla area.

Table 10 - Current Goshawk Foraging stands by acreage percent.

Structural Description Tree Diameter Ranges

Existing % of Area

Deficit / Surplus

1 – Grass/Forb/Shrubs 0.0 – 0.9” 2.5% Deficit 2 – Seedling/Sapling 1.0 – 4.9” 0.0% Deficit 3 – Young Forest 5.0 – 12” 55.3% Surplus 4 – Mid-age Forest 12.0 – 17.9” 27.8% Surplus 5 – Mature Forest 18.0 – 23.9” 13.9% Deficit 6 – Old Forest 24”+ 0.5% Deficit

Table 11 - Current Goshawk PFA by acreage percent.

Structural Description Tree Diameter Ranges

Existing % of Area

Deficit / Surplus

1 – Grass/Forb/Shrubs 2 – Seedling/Sapling

0.0 – 0.9” 1.0 – 4.9”

24.8% Deficit 12.5% Near

Desired

3 – Young Forest 5.0 – 12” 61.1% Surplus 4 – Mid-age Forest 12.0 – 17.9” 0.0% Deficit 5 – Mature Forest 18.0 – 23.9” 1.6% Deficit 6 – Old Forest 24”+ 0.0% Deficit


~ 45 ~

The existing even-aged stands are not desired for goshawk forest habitat except as nesting stands. The existing uneven-aged forest structure does not comprise a range of diameters classes, and habitat components, such as openings2. Interspaces between groups of trees consisting of mixtures of grasses, forbs, and shrubs are lacking or limited in most stands. Young and mid aged trees are over-represented, and seedlings, saplings, mature and old trees are deficit relative to a balanced age/structure uneven-aged condition within the foraging areas. Goshawk PFAs have an excess of young to mid aged trees and are lacking the larger tree components.

Overall, uneven-aged stand conditions currently represent 57% of all goshawk habitat within the project area with the remainder being even-aged. Of the even-aged stands, 30% is mid-aged to Old (12.0”+ DBH), and 70% is immature (0 - 11.9” DBH).

In examining diameter ranges, the overall structure is determined by the predominant structural sizes within the group. This table does not clearly show that there are many smaller trees, 1 to 5 inches in diameter that are being overtopped by larger trees. These smaller trees are often not free to develop. Similarly, many of the larger trees in the greater than18 inches DBH range, are competing with the densely stocked mid-aged trees for water and nutrients. This decreases the vigor and longevity of these large trees.

Forest Structure – Mexican Spotted Owl Structural habitat required for MSO recovery nest/roost habitat is below the required minimums. Currently there are only three stands totaling 77 acres in MSO recovery habitat that meet the recommended minimum desired conditions for MSO Recovery nesting / roosting habitat. Stands from the MSO recovery habitat were evaluated individually and averaged in Table 12 prior to selection of MSO nest/roost habitat. Other attributes of MSO habitat can be found in Table 6 above.

Table 12 - Existing condition for MSO recovery foraging habitat.

Forest Type Acres % of BA in 12-18 inch dbh trees

% of BA in >18 inch dbh trees

Average BA sq. ft.

Average density of trees > 18 inches

Mixed Conifer 1,886 16% 13% 141 7

Pine-oak 3,456 29% 23% 99 9

2 Openings are defined as regeneration of seedlings and saplings up to 5 inches in diameter.

In total, 37 stands totaling 979 acres in MSO Recovery foraging habitat were selected to be managed as nesting / roosting habitat to meet the desired conditions for MSO as outlined in the 2012 recovery plan (Figure 2).

Woodland Structure - Pinyon Juniper Woodlands and Savannas Structural diversity within the Pinyon Juniper Woodlands and Savanna PNVT is severely lacking throughout the West Escudilla project area. Much of these areas contain that same size class trees across much of the stands. Diversity in many of the smaller size classes is missing. Spatially across the landscape there is also a lack in diversity as much of the historic interspaces within these PNVTs have filled in with trees and many stands are uniform. Groups of trees no longer exist and interspaces are lacking.

Old Growth “Old growth” refers to specific forest components that occur in forests and woodlands: old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure diversity (USDA 2015). These important habitat features may occur in small areas, with only a few components, or over larger areas as stands or forests where old growth is concentrated (Kaufmann et al., 2007). In the Southwest, old growth is considered “transitional” (Oliver and Larson, 1996), given that the location of old growth on the landscape shifts over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

The 2011 Wallow fire which burned throughout much of the Alpine and Springerville districts and through parts of the West Escudilla project area. Due to these changed conditions in many potential old growth stands, an analysis was completed where areas of moderate to high severity fire, where basal area loss is estimated at 50%-100%. It is assumed that these stands no longer meet the definition of old growth due to high mortality and the loss of old growth components such as large tree components, snags and down wood debris. A complete field analysis was not performed to verify all stands but stands were examined through aerial photos to cross verify the RAVG results.

The interdisciplinary team used the above information, associated stand exam data, goshawk PFAs, and Mexican spotted owl protected and recovery nest/roost habitat to identify stands with potential developing old growth in order to successfully manage for these elements during implementation. Table 13 compares acres previously identified for potential old growth management on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts for both pre and post Wallow fire for selected PNVTs.


~ 47 ~

Table 13 - Acres and percent of area showing potential developing old growth on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts for select PNVTs showing pre and post wallow fire.

PNVT Alpine

Springerville District Acres

Current District Potential Old Growth

Acres (Pre-Wallow Fire)

Current District Potential Old Growth Acres (Post-

Wallow Fire)*

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 106,769 29,089 (27.2%) 13,598 (12.7%)

Ponderosa Pine Forest 193,657 20,939 (10.8%) 11,358 (5.9%)

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 180,418 57,569 (31.9%) 26,887 (14.9%)

* Showing acres of high and moderate burn severity removed.

The Wallow fire served as a transitional force in moving many of the old growth stands back to an earlier successional stage. Table 13a compares the potential developing old growth by PNVT post Wallow fire. The potential old growth acres are areas that have been identified as MSO protected habitat, MSO recovery nest/roost habitat, and Goshawk nest stands. The total percentages of each PNVT that will be managed as developing old growth is also shown.

Table 13a - Acres and percent of potential developing old growth areas in the West Escudilla Project area for select PNVTs.

PNVT West Escudilla Total Acres

W. Escudilla Developing Potential

Old Growth Acres (Post Wallow Fire)

West Escudilla Developing Old Growth Percentage

Dry Mixed Conifer Forest 659 338 51.3%

Ponderosa Pine Forest 19,726 4,465 22.6%

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest 2,497 1,069 42.8%

The percentages listed in table 13 and 13a show what has the potential to develop towards old growth under the West Escudilla project with the understanding that these old growth components will shift over time as forest structure and composition changes across the landscape and as a result of forest succession.

Little to no old growth was designated within the Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodland or Savanna PNVTs through the landscapes scale analysis. However, desired conditions for old growth in Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands and Savannas state:

Savanna - Old growth occurs in isolated locations scattered throughout the landscape, as individual old trees or as clumps of old trees. Other old growth components may also be present including dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity.

Persistent Woodland - Old growth includes old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris), and/or structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality).

Given these desired conditions it is expected that some Pinyon Juniper PNVT areas within the West Escudilla project may meet the old growth definition. However, due to data gaps in much of the Pinyon Juniper areas it is not possible to determine which areas would be designated as old growth at this time.

Fire Regime The fire regimes for most of the West Escudilla project are outside the desired conditions. Fire Regime Condition Classes (FRCC) are based on stand departures from their natural vegetation structure under natural disturbance regimes, such as periodic wildfire.

FRCC 1 is closest to the natural range of variability, which means those stands are most resilient to survive and recover from wildfire. No or very few fire cycles have been missed. Species composition, structure and pattern at all scales, as well as native insect/disease populations, are functioning within their natural historic range. Non-native species are currently not present, or only exist in a limited extent.

FRCC 2 is moderately departed from natural condition, such that risk of serious stand loss to crowning wildfire is reasonably high. Fire regime has been moderately altered with one or more missed fire return intervals. Species composition, structure and pattern at various scales, as well as native insect/disease populations, are moderately altered from functioning within their natural historic range. Non-native invasive species are present and increasing to the point that a potential risk exists for these populations to expand following disturbances, such as wildfire.

FRCC 3 is a major departure from natural condition, meaning total forest loss to stand-replacement fire, or other uncharacteristic disturbance such as insect/disease epidemic, is fairly certain. Fire regime has been substantially altered with multiple fire return intervals missed, and dramatic changes in fire behavior can be expected. Species composition, structure and pattern at various scales, as well as insect/disease populations, are substantially altered from functioning within their natural historic range. Invasive species may be common and any disturbance would potentially increase both their dominance and geographic extent.

A fire regime condition class (FRCC) analysis has been done on the West Escudilla project area which shows that 42% of the landscape is classified as FRCC 3, 37% is FRCC 2 and 21% is FRCC 1 See further analysis on FRCC in Fire and Fuels section, Chapter 3, which describes in


~ 49 ~

more detail how the existing conditions for much of the PNVTs across the West Escudilla project have departed from desired conditions.

Desired Conditions The project desired conditions have been developed based upon the project purpose and need and forest plan direction for forest vegetation management for each PNVT. Current best available science was used for analysis of conditions necessary to meet the project Purpose and Need. Science relative to historic reference conditions has informed this process. Key desired conditions for each PNVT relative to the need for the project is found in the Need for Proposal-Desired Conditions-Chapter 1.

General Desired Conditions The overall general desired conditions for the Escudilla landscape are to have an uneven-aged forest structures comprised of a distribution of age classes and seral stages. Overall, the West Escudilla project is dominated by early seral, shade intolerant forest species that are most resilient to fire effects. Aspen, oak, and other hardwood species are well-represented and are regenerating successfully across the landscape, where local forest bio-physical conditions are appropriate for development of these species. Overall, forests are generally vigorous with endemic levels of native insect and disease occurrences, and contain a dominant component of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and southwestern white pine. Southwestern white pine is present throughout the mixed conifer forest type, a wide range of genetic diversity is present, and the species is regenerating in suitable locations. Gamble oak is present across the landscape with an abundance of stands being classified as pine oak.

A variety of forest density, spatial arrangement, age, and structure conditions exists across the landscape comparable to historic conditions. Conifer forest types are composed of a distribution of age classes that comprise a sustainable balance of structural stages described in the following vegetative structure section, and meet forest plan guidelines (USDA 2015). Forest canopy gaps consisting of seedlings and saplings occur on 20% of each stand area (excluding MSO protected and recovery nest/roost habitat, and goshawk nesting areas). Canopy gaps and created openings mimic historic spatial patterns and provide for: regeneration of shade intolerant tree species, development of grass-forb-shrub interspaces, rooting zones for tree group development, and facilitate re-introduction and maintenance of frequent surface fire as an ecological process. Forest canopy gaps and interspaces are dynamic over time shaped by small-scale disturbances and vegetation development, with some areas developing into new tree groups and patches, while other areas remain as openings that contribute to ecosystem diversity by supporting tree group rooting zones and grass-forb-shrub interspaces (Reynolds et al 2013). Managed uneven-aged stands range from 20 to 120 square feet of basal area and are based upon project purpose and need objectives and the LMP. In areas outside of MSO protected and recovery habitats, basal areas average less than 80, and bark beetle hazard is low. Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest types exhibit uneven-aged characteristics (multi-storied), except for stands focused on

providing Goshawk nest and MSO protected and recovery nest/roost habitats as these stands will favor large trees and tend to shift towards even-aged over time.

Pinyon Juniper Savannas are open with canopy cover ranging from 10 – 30% with groups of large pre-settlement pinyon and juniper trees. Groups should strive to obtain structural diversity with all size and age classes represented across the landscape but should focus around large historic pre-settlement trees. In these Savanna areas, group interspaces should be highly variable and based on the presence of large historic pre-settlement trees.

Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands should have varying sized groups. Groups should strive to obtain structural diversity with all size and age classes represented across the landscape but should focus around large historic pre-settlement trees. Interspaces between groups should be at least 66 feet between groups but can be much larger depending on actual site conditions.

Grassland areas should be less than 10% canopy cover without encroaching conifers within the historic grassland areas. Perennial herbaceous species dominate and include native grasses, grass-like plants (sedges and rushes), and forbs, and in some locations, a diversity of shrubs

Riparian vegetation should consists mostly of native species that support a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and animal species. Riparian-obligate species within wet meadows, around springs and seeps, along stream banks, and active floodplains provide sufficient vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation, litter, and woody riparian species) to protect and enrich soils, trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize stream banks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs. Diversity and density of riparian forest vegetation provides for breeding, escape, hiding, and resting cover for wildlife and provides travel ways between other habitat areas and seasonal ranges.

Healthy forest conditions facilitate capacity to store carbon by minimizing tree losses to wildfires, insects, and diseases. Vigorous growth conditions promote resistance to insect and diseases. Products provided for biomass serve to reduce use of fossil fuels by society. Forests within the project area provide a sustainable supply of diverse uses and values while contributing to stabilization of the Earth’s climate.

Stand Density A great variety of stand and tree characteristics can be developed by varying the timing, scale, and intensity of density management. A few examples follow:

• Grassy stands of open canopy, large-diameter trees with long, heavy-limbed crowns can be produced by maintaining densities in zones 1 and 2.

• Regeneration of desired species can be initiated by maintaining stand density in zone 1 (based on desired species maximum SDI) and by artificial planting where needed.


~ 51 ~

• Stands of moderately dense canopy, intermediate-sized trees with thrifty, well-pruned crowns could be developed by maintaining densities in the upper half of zone 2 and the lower half of zone 3.

• Clumpy, irregular stands containing groups of varying ages might be developed through periodic creation of openings where growing space (regeneration group openings) is made available for seedling establishment. Growing space areas would fall into zone 1.

• Longevity of existing old-growth trees might be enhanced by thinning adjacent smaller trees to create zone 2 or 3 growing conditions.

• Avoiding density-related mortality and maintaining forest vigor can be achieved by maintaining densities at or less than the lower half of zone 3.

Insects and Disease Dwarf mistletoe is an element of the forest landscape. There is a varied level of mistletoe across the landscape, comparable with historic conditions such that it does not impede achieving and sustaining desired uneven-aged forest conditions. Desired stand dwarf mistletoe infection levels do not exceed 20% infection of the host species (trees per acre basis), or 25% of the area infected for any given tree species (Conklin and Fairweather 2010). Dwarf mistletoe infections are irregularly distributed among tree groups, such that effects are limited to the forest group and patch scale. The desired condition is to reduce the amount of infection with the majority of stands in the uninfected to moderate infection range. Bark beetle hazard is low to moderate with a BA of less than 100 square feet and a variety of tree size classes in groups across the landscape.

The LMP lists some specific desired conditions that address insects and disease for all PNVTs which include:

• The vegetative conditions and functions are resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of disturbances (e.g., fire, insects and disease, flood, climate change, management activities). The landscape is a functioning ecosystem that contains all its components and processes.

• Insect and disease populations are at endemic levels with occasional outbreaks. A variety of seral states usually restricts the scale of localized insect and disease outbreaks.

• Some isolated infestations of mistletoe provide for a diversity of habitat components (e.g., food, nesting, cover) for a variety of species such as owls, squirrels, and some birds and insects.

The LMP also lists several guidelines that relate to insect and disease that are relevant to the West Escudilla project and include:

• Insect and disease infected trees should be removed to prevent spread beyond endemic levels.

• Green slash and decked logs should be managed, in a timely manner, to make them unfavorable bark beetle habitat.

• Project implementation should include bark beetle monitoring within and adjacent to all active slash-creating projects to help prevent beetle outbreak.

Forest Structure Desired forest structure conditions are uneven-aged forests with a mosaic of structural stages (age classes), arranged in a clumped, open forest condition (excepting MSO protected and recovery nest/roost habitats, and goshawk nest habitats). A primary objective is the restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns with canopy gaps and forest created openings totaling 20% of stand areas to facilitate uneven-aged forest stand dynamics and other ecological functions. One element of the proposed treatments is the initiation of conditions conducive to regenerate or develop seedling and sapling classes (establish or release existing seedlings/saplings), totaling approximately 20% of the open area. The target regeneration gap size for foraging areas would be from 0.25 to 4 acres in size (most averaging 0.33 to 0.75 acres). The target regeneration gap size for Goshawk PFAs would be from 0.25 to 2 acres in size (most averaging 0.33 to 0.75 acres). When regeneration openings exceed one acre in size, 5 to10 desirable seed trees per acre would be retained, and 3 to 5 of these seed trees should be at least 15 inches DBH and larger. Regeneration openings smaller than 0.33 acre would not effectively facilitate conifer regeneration and future development of tree groups of sufficient area necessary to produce and sustain desired wildlife habitat conditions. No created regeneration would exceed four acres in size (goshawk foraging areas) or two acres in size (goshawk PFAs). The objectives for the remainder of the developed/maintained forest opening areas are to provide for other ecological functions.

Goshawk Habitat (USDA 2015) Goshawk habitat occurs in Ponderosa Pine and Dry Mixed Conifer PNVTs. The LMP outlines desired conditions for these PNVTs which have been informed by the management recommendation for the Northern in the Southwestern United States (Reynolds 1992). The LMP specifically states that northern goshawks are a management indicator species (MIS) of forest density and structure. Some selected desired conditions from the LMP that concern goshawk habitat include:

• Ponderosa pine forest is characterized by variation in the size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. The more biologically productive sites contain more trees per group and more groups per area, resulting in less space between groups. Interspaces typically range from 10 % in more biologically productive sites to 70 % in the less productive sites. Tree density within forested areas ranges from 20 to 80 square feet basal area per acre.



~ 53 ~

• The dry mixed conifer forest is characterized by a variety of size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. The more biologically productive sites contain more trees per group and more groups per area, resulting in less space between groups. Interspaces typically range from 10 % in more biologically productive sites to 50 % in less productive sites. Tree density within forested areas ranges from 30 to 100 square feet basal area per acre.

• The mosaic of tree groups is composed of uneven-aged forest. All age classes and structural stages are present. Occasionally, there are small patches (less than 50 acres) of even-aged forest present. Disturbances sustain the overall age and structural distribution.


• Northern goshawk nest areas have forest conditions that are multi-aged and dominated by large trees with relatively denser canopies than the surrounding forest.

Desired Conditions for Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (MSO Recovery Plan 2012) Vegetation conditions for Mexican spotted owl are not described in detail in the LMP. However the desired conditions listed for each PNVT are consistent with the habitat requirements specified in the MSO recovery plan 2012. All treatments in MSO critical habitat will follow the recommendations in the recovery plan.

MSO Protected Core Habitat: No mechanical treatments, hand thinning and broadcast burning allowed.

MSO Protected Habitat Outside Core: Trees greater than 16” DBH are retained following management treatments. Retain hardwood species.

MSO Habitat Recovery Nest/Roost: Manage for nest/roost replacement habitat and do not lower below those criteria found in table below. Emphasize attainment of nest/roost as soon as possible. Retain large trees which are defined as 18 inches DBH and larger.

MSO Habitat Recovery Foraging Habitat: Emphasize large hardwoods and retain key owl habitat elements.

Table 14 - MSO recovery habitat requirements for nest/roost habitat. (MSO Recovery Plan 2012)

Forest Type % of area % of BA in 12-18 inch dbh trees


Minimum BA sq. ft.

Minimum density of trees > 18 inches (TPA)

Mixed Conifer 25 >30 >30 120 12

Forest Type % of area % of BA in 12-18 inch dbh trees


Minimum BA sq. ft.

Minimum density of trees > 18 inches (TPA)

Pine Oak 10 >30 >30 110 12

Old Growth Desired conditions for old growth come directly from the Apache-Sitgreaves LMP. Appendix C contains the West Escudilla Old and Large Tree Retention Strategy. Desired conditions and guidelines are included for the PNVTs that are found within the project area.

Environmental Consequences Effects common to all alternatives Stands that would be left untreated in all alternatives would continue to become denser and decrease in vigor and health over time. Grass-forb-shrub presence would decrease, and growth would continue to decline. No canopy gaps would be created for seedling regeneration, or to restore forest interspace. Growth of trees would be slower than the treated stands.

Suitable Timberlands The National Forest Management Act requires that NFS lands be classified as to their suitability for timber production. NFS lands were reserved with the intent of providing goods and services to satisfy public needs over the long term, among these goods is the production of a sustainable supply of forest products. Therefore, some level of regulated forest production is necessary and appropriate from forested lands (USDA 2015).

Timber production is the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. The term “timber production” does not include the production of firewood. On those lands classified as suitable for timber production (also referred to as suitable timberlands), the objective is to manage toward desired conditions, including restoring natural fire regimes, on a planned and regulated basis. All wood volume resulting from project treatments would be a by-product of accomplishing restoration objectives. Timber production activities contribute to a viable wood products processing economy. Table 15 shows the amount of suitable and non-suitable timber acres in the West Escudilla project.

Table 15 - Suitable and non-suitable timber acres on the West Escudilla Project.

PNVT Suitable Acres

Non-Suitable Acres

Wetland/cienega riparian areas 0 779

Montane willow riparian forest 0 1,479

Cottonwood-willow riparian forest 0 238


~ 55 ~

PNVT Suitable Acres

Non-Suitable Acres

Ponderosa pine forest 11,914 7,822

Dry mixed conifer forest 88 571

Wet mixed conifer forest 960 1,557

Piñon-juniper woodland 0 20,642

Great Basin grassland 0 19,600

Montane/subalpine grasslands 0 1,479

Totals 12,962 54,167

The LMP also identifies which lands not suitable for timber production are however designated to be suitable for “tree cutting” to meet other resource objectives, such as restoration of grasslands by cutting tree encroachment, clearing communications sites, or thinning trees to reduce fire hazard in T&E species habitat. Treatments on non-suitable timberlands are authorized in order to meet the desired conditions for those specific PNVTs or LMP Management Areas, but resulting wood volumes cut from such areas are not included as part of the ASNF’s LMP allowable sale quantity (ASQ). The ASQ represents the maximum annual average amount of commercial wood volume (not including firewood or nonindustrial wood) that may be cut from lands suitable for timber production. Wood from non-suitable timberlands would also be available from this project.

Alternative 1 – No Action No vegetation management activities are proposed under Alternative 1. No opportunities for timber or other biomass products to be produced, and no costs would be incurred for thinning or burning treatments.

No Action: Direct and Indirect Effects

Stand Density Under this alternative, no forest vegetation treatment activities would occur. Stand densities would not be reduced from those displayed in Table 6. Stand densities, basal area and canopy cover in the years 2022 and 2037 are displayed in Tables 16 and 17. Assuming no disturbance such as wildfire or insect outbreaks, over the next 20 years, growth modeling simulation shows that stand densities would increase to levels ranging from an average of 49-63% of maximum stand density index in 2037. These density levels are well within zone 3 of density-related mortality and many stands would be approaching zone 4.

Insects and Disease Bark beetle hazard is moderate to high over much of the analysis area, and would increase as stands become denser. Alternative 1 has a higher bark beetle hazard as shown in Tables 16 and 17, and would result in higher probable tree mortality than Alternative 2-Proposed Action.

Dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir would continue to intensify within the areas of current infections, and the size of the current infection centers would slowly spread over time. Dwarf mistletoe would continue to impact regeneration, reduce cone production, reduce DBH and height, and reduce survival of sapling-sized trees. Over time (2 to 4 decades) this would severely limit sustainability of uneven-aged stands and interrupt the progression of existing age classes into larger trees over time wherever infection occurs. Tables 20 and 21, show the comparison of alternatives with around 30% of the stands projected to have a medium to severe infection by the year 2022 increasing to over 45% of the stands having medium to severe infection by the year 2037. Trees with severe dwarf mistletoe infection levels exhibit low vigor overall, and these trees are more susceptible to bark beetle and density-induced mortality (Tables 16 and 17). Resistance to bark beetle mortality would continue to decline due to increased density and rise of mistletoe infection.

None of the alternatives affect forest carbon storage to any measurable level.

Forest Structure The primary forest vegetation management direction found in the forest plan (USDA 2015) is to develop or maintain sustainable uneven-aged forest structure. Under Alternative 1, no conifer regeneration treatments would occur. Even-aged stands would remain even-aged in structure for the next several decades and no new age classes would be created and/or managed until the existing stands have natural mortality due to age or natural disturbances (i.e. fire, insects, wind, etc.). Uneven-aged stand structures would not be maintained over time, due to lack of regeneration of new age classes. Restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns with canopy gaps and forest openings would not occur, and canopy continuity would remain high throughout the project area. Mixed conifer forest stands would continue to be dominated by shade tolerant species, or would continue to convert to dominance of these species over time. No forest habitat or allocated old growth stands would be treated to improve health and vigor of the stand, or to manage forest structure towards desired conditions. Natural meadows and openings would not be maintained. Quaking aspen and Gambel oak patches would not be released or favored to develop. Opportunities to favor and regenerate Southwestern white pine would not occur under this alternative.

Goshawk Tables 18 and 19 and Figures 5 and 6 display the diameter classes for goshawk habitat over time. Approximately 81% of Goshawk habitat would be dominated by young to mid-aged tree with little change overtime. Many stands would lose the large tree classes as immature tree become


~ 57 ~

the dominant groups due to mortality in the large trees and the large number of trees in the smaller age classes across the landscape. This alternative moves away from the desired condition and becomes more even-aged overtime.

Mexican Spotted Owl This alternative more closely meets the MSO recovery plan recommendations for high density in the recovery nest/roost habitat than Alternative 2 as no broadcast burning or thinning would occur. Stands continue to get denser with a gradual increase in BA. However under this alternative the number of trees greater than 18” DBH remains low due to increase competition and stagnation within the stands. While overall desired density is met, this alternative fails to meet the large tree targets within the next several decades for sustainable MSO nest / roost habitat into the future (Table 22) due to competition for resources (sunlight, water, etc.) The high density prevents the development of larger trees.

Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands This alternative does not maintain pinyon juniper persistent woodlands at the desired conditions. Tables 16 and 17 show that under this alternative the average canopy cover across the stands will continue to increase overtime and move away from desired conditions. While many stand will be within the desired conditions they will slowly shift can become denser overtime, losing herbaceous ground cover and becoming more prone for insect and disease outbreaks.

Pinyon Juniper Savannas This alternative does not make any progress toward restoring pinyon juniper savanna areas. Very few savanna stands are currently meeting the desired conditions as outline in the LMP. With no action, the savannas will continue to convert into persistent woodlands with increasing densities leading to decrease herbaceous ground cover and developing increased issues with insects and disease. Canopy cover is expected to continue to increase well above the desired 10-30%.

Grasslands This alternative does not make any progress toward restoring either Great Basin or montane / subalpine grassland regimes. Conifer encroachment is expected to continue with more wet meadows filling in with trees and less herbaceous ground cover being available to wildlife species. While some grassland stands will remain under 10% canopy cover some will continue to range up to 30% cover converting into pinyon juniper savannas. The numbers were adjusted by professional judgement based on aerial photos observations and field visits.

Old Growth Stands would not be actively managed for old growth development and retention. Old growth and tree size development would be limited by existing high stand density and would not receive thinning or burning treatments to reduce the fire hazard or improve health and individual tree growth. Stand density would continue to increase reducing the growth and health of the larger

trees. Stands with potential to develop towards quality old growth characteristics may or may not achieve these objectives without receiving restorative management treatments. As seen in the 2011 Wallow fire, old growth stands left in this unmanaged condition are much more susceptible to total loss in uncharacteristic wildfire events.

Alternative 1 Summary (and consistency with LMP) This alternative does not make any progress in moving stand structures, species composition, tree densities, forest health issues and other forest conditions towards desired conditions as outlined in the LMP. This alternative would continue a deferred treatment strategy that has existed across many parts of this landscape for decades which would ultimately increase the issues that are currently being seen in terms of forest health and likelihood of uncharacteristic wildfire.

Some key desired conditions that would not be met with this alternative include:

• Each PNVT contains a mosaic of vegetative conditions, densities, and structures. This mosaic occurs at a variety of scales across landscapes and watersheds. The distribution of physical and biological conditions is appropriate to the natural disturbance regimes affecting the area.

• The vegetative conditions and functions are resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of disturbances (e.g., fire, insects and disease, flood, climate change, management activities). The landscape is a functioning ecosystem that contains all its components and processes.

• Natural processes and human and natural disturbances (e.g., wildland fire, mechanical vegetation treatments) provide desired overall tree density, structure, species composition, coarse woody debris, and nutrient cycling. Natural fire regimes are restored. Uncharacteristic fire behavior is minimal or absent on the landscape.

• Diverse vegetation structure, species composition, densities, and seral states provide quality habitat for native and desirable nonnative plant and animal species throughout their life cycle and at multiple spatial scales. Landscapes provide for the full range of with late seral states and old growth.

• Stand densities and species compositions are such that vegetation conditions are resilient under a variety of potential future climates.

• The composition, density, structure, and mosaic of vegetative conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local communities and forest ecosystems.

• Stand basal area densities are not within the LMP’s desired condition ranges by PNVT.

This alternative is not consistent with many parts of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 2015) relative to forest vegetation management desired conditions. While some stands may be currently meeting desired conditions, modeling (Dixon 2015) shows that over the next several decades these stands will continue to move outside the desired conditions. By deferring any management actions, stands will move away from desired conditions and be at risk for insect and disease outbreaks as well as uncharacteristic wildfires


~ 59 ~

across the landscape. Other stands are currently already outside the desired conditions and no action will continue to shift these stands further away and increase forest health problems.

Table 16 - Post-treatment (Cutting and 1st Rx Burn Year 2022) stand density, basal area, beetle hazard and canopy cover.

Description Alt 1 Max% SDI

Alt 2 Max% SDI

Alt 1 BA

Alt 2 BA

Alt 1 Beetle Hazard

Alt 2 Beetle Hazard

Alt 1 Canopy Cover

Alt 2 Canopy Cover

Goshawk Foraging Group Selection / Intermediate Thin

46% 27% 118 68 High Moderate 43% 27%

Group Selection / Intermediate Thin - Old Growth <18”

47% 36% 123 93 High Moderate 43% 35%

Prescribed Fire w/ Site Prep

48% 46% 119 112 High Moderate 45% 44%

Shelterwood 49% 26% 118 66 High Moderate 46% 27%

Goshawk PFA Group Selection / Intermediate Thin

55% 50% 129 115 High Moderate 53% 48%

Prescribed Fire with Site Prep

27% 28% 62 61 Moderate Moderate 27% 25%

MSO Protected Intermediate Thin <16”

59% 50% 148 123 High High 52% 46%


42% 39% 108 97 High Moderate 41% 40%

MSO Recovery Foraging

Group Selection / Intermediate Thin

41% 31% 110 73 High Moderate 43% 34%


48% 43% 150 127 High Moderate 50% 46%

MSO Recovery Nest / Roost

Group Selection / Intermediate Thin**

46% 36% 163 93 High Moderate 46% 36%


47% 42% 123 105 High Moderate 50% 47%

Woodland Savanna Thin 33% 14% 77 33 Moderate Low 25% 15%

Persistent Woodland Thin

27% 24% 66 48 Moderate Low 27% 26%


Alt 2 Max% SDI

Alt 1 BA

Alt 2 BA

Alt 1 Beetle Hazard

Alt 2 Beetle Hazard

Alt 1 Canopy Cover

Alt 2 Canopy Cover


27% 27% 62 60 Moderate Low 26% 26%

Grassland Grassland Restoration

29% 1% 70 18 Low Low 27% * 9%

* This amount represents grasslands where data was collected and is expected to be higher than actual average canopy cover.

** Minimum BA would be required even though modeling shows a drop below the required due to averaging of stands.

Table 17 - Post-treatment following two burn entries (2037) average stand density, basal area, beetle hazard and canopy cover.


Alt 2 Max% SDI

Alt 1 BA

Alt 2 BA

Alt 1 Beetle Hazard

Alt 2 Beetle Hazard

Alt 1 Canopy Cover

Alt 2 Canopy Cover

Goshawk Foraging Group Selection / Intermediate Thin

50% 28% 129 71 High Moderate 44% 29%

Group Selection / Intermediate Thin - Old Growth <18”

51% 31% 132 84 High Moderate 45% 30%


54% 34% 130 87 High Moderate 46% 33%

Shelterwood 49% 9% 117 26 Moderate Moderate 44% 12%

Goshawk PFA Group Selection / Intermediate Thin

61% 38% 141 95 High Moderate 54% 37%


37% 22% 81 49 Moderate Moderate 34% 24%

MSO Protected Intermediate Thin <16”**

63% 41% 156 106 High Moderate 53% 38%


49% 28% 123 70 High Moderate 46% 29%

MSO Recovery Foraging

Group Selection / Intermediate Thin

46% 24% 122 60 High Moderate 45% 26%


53% 29% 157 85 High Moderate 33% 52%


~ 61 ~


Alt 2 Max% SDI

Alt 1 BA

Alt 2 BA

Alt 1 Beetle Hazard

Alt 2 Beetle Hazard

Alt 1 Canopy Cover

Alt 2 Canopy Cover

MSO Recovery Nest / Roost

Group Selection / Intermediate Thin**

52% 31% 168 84 High Moderate 51% 31%

Prescribed Fire w/ Site Prep **

52% 27% 134 67 High Moderate 52% 31%

Woodland Savanna Thin 34% 11% 78 24 Low Low 27% 9% Persistent Woodland Thin

24% 21% 58 48 Low Low 32% 30%


36% 15% 78 35 Moderate Low 32% 16%

Grassland Grassland Restoration

36% 7% 85 13 Low Low 29%* 4%

* This amount represents grasslands where data was collected and is expected to be higher than actual average canopy cover.

** Broadcast burning that was modeled appears to have dropped the BA below the minimum due to averaging of stands.

Table 18 - Goshawk Habitat diameter comparison in 2022 after cutting and 1st Rx burn treatment. (Including treated and non-treated stands).

Diameter Ranges

Alternative 1 % of the Area Alternative 2 % of the Area

0 - 0.99” 2.0% 1.9%

1.0 - 4.9” 0.5% 0.5%

5.0 – 11.9” 52.1% 32.0%

12.0 – 17.9” 29.3% 27.3%

18.0 – 24.0” 15.5% 32.2%

24”+ 0.6% 6.0%

Figure 5 – Diameter Comparison for the year 2022 for goshawk habitat.

(Including treated and non-treated stands).

Table 19 - Goshawk Habitat diameter comparison in 2037. (Diameter development over time including treated and non-treated stands).

Diameter Range Alternative 1 % of the Area Alternative 2 % of the Area

0 - 0.99” 1.9% 5.2%

1.0 - 4.9” 30.0% 0.7%

5.0 – 11.9” 49.5% 19.4%

12.0 – 17.9” 28.5% 29.0%

18.0 – 24.0” 18.9% 35.2%

24”+ 0.9% 10.5%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 - 0.99” 1.0 - 4.9” 5.0 –11.9”

12.0 –17.9”

18.0 –24.0”

24”+

Alternative 1 2.0% 0.5% 52.1% 29.3% 15.5% 0.6%Alternative 2 1.9% 0.5% 32.0% 27.3% 32.2% 6.0%

Perc

ent b

y Di

amet

er C

lass

Diameter Comparison 2022 Goshawk Habitat


~ 63 ~

Figure 6 –Diameter Comparison for the year 2037 for goshawk habitat.

(Diameter development over time including treated and non-treated stands).

Table 20 - Dwarf mistletoe severity by Stand DMR in 2022 by alternative, for stands with current infections (12,826 Acres).

Infection Severity Class by Percent of infection

Very Light

Light Medium Heavy Severe

0-.09 .1-.25 .26-0.99 1.0-1.99 2.0+

Alternative 1 49.9% 21.3% 18.6% 6.9% 3.3%

Alternative 2 68.9% 16.3% 9.6% 4.9% 0.3%

*Does not include latent infections which may be present in the stand but not detected until after treatment.

Table 21 - Dwarf mistletoe severity in 2037 by alternative. (12,826 Acres).

Infection Severity Class by Percent of infection

Very Light

Light Medium Heavy Severe

0-.09 .1-.25 .26-0.99 1.0-1.99 2.0+

Alternative 1 28.2% 25.9% 27.2% 10.8% 7.9%

Alternative 2 51.6% 18.3% 25.7% 4.0% 0.4%

*Does not include latent infections which may be present in the stand but not detected until after treatment.

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

0 - 0.99” 1.0 - 4.9” 5.0 –11.9”

12.0 –17.9”

18.0 –24.0”

24”+

Alternative 1 2.0% 0.5% 52.1% 29.3% 15.5% 0.6%Alternative 2 1.9% 0.5% 32.0% 27.3% 32.2% 6.0%

Perc

ent b

y Di

amet

er C

lass

Diameter Comparison 2022 Goshawk Habitat

Table 22 - MSO recovery habitat in 2022.

Alternative Forest Type % of acres

% of BA in 12-18 inch dbh trees


Minimum BA sq. ft.*

Minimum density of trees > 18 inches

1 Mixed Conifer 42.1% 21.8% 16.9% 125 7.8

Pine oak 57.9% 29.1% 23.9% 106 9.4

2 Mixed Conifer 41.5% 18.8% 16.0% 102 6.0

Pine oak 58.5% 25.8% 27.8% 77 7.6

Table 23 - MSO recovery Nesting/Roosting habitat in 2022 based on modeling.

Alternative Forest Type

% of acres % of BA in 12-18 inch dbh trees


Minimum BA sq. ft.*

Minimum density of trees > 18 inches

1 Mixed Conifer

17.6% 18.6% 24.7% 128 8.9

Pine oak 13.2% 27.9% 18.8% 104 9.4

2 Mixed Conifer

16.5% 15.9% 17.6% 111 7.1

Pine oak 23.4% 26.0% 29.0% 115 12.1

*Minimum BA would be required in prescriptions.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Restoration Under Alternative 2 part of the proposed action includes conducting commercial and non-commercial vegetation thinning using mechanized equipment and / or hand crews. This alternative proposes management of forest density, species composition and structure by implementation of uneven-aged group and individual tree selection cutting in all stands managed for northern goshawk PFA and FA forest habitat, and all stands managed for MSO recovery foraging habitat and any deferrals in MSO PAC and nest / roost habitat. Meadow enhancement is proposed for small meadows and wetlands within the project area. MSO protected habitat stands would be thinned from below 16 inches DBH. Shelterwood with reserves would be used to reduce dwarf mistletoe infection on 581 acres resulting in two mechanized entries. MSO recovery nest/roost habitat would be thinned from below to meet the desired condition for MSO Recovery Plan criteria. Prescribed fire would be used to reduce natural and activity fuels in both thinned and un-thinned areas. Opportunities for timber or other biomass products would be produced, and costs would be incurred for thinning and burning treatments under Alternative 2.


~ 65 ~

See Table 3 in Chapter 2 for a summary of proposed treatments. A map that corresponds to this table in located in Appendix B which shows the location for each of the treatments. (Examples of typical silvicultural prescriptions and mitigations can be found in Appendix A under Silviculture). All treatments under this alternative would be consistent with the West Escudilla Old and Large Tree Retention Strategy outlined in Appendix C.

Restoration: Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 2 moves the treated areas towards healthier forest conditions by managing for uneven-aged conditions, species composition and restoring vigorous growth conditions and reducing losses due to tree mortality, high-severity wildfire, and insects and diseases.

Stand Density Compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 2 would be more effective in increasing forest health and vigor, thereby improving forest resiliency and sustainability to stresses such as insects, disease, and climatic variability. Based upon all forest stands (treated and untreated), 86% of northern goshawk habitat forest types (by area) and 80% of MSO recovery habitat foraging habitat (by area) are projected to meet desired maximum density conditions post-treatment. Old growth stands that retain all trees 18 inches DBH and greater are still in zone 2 and considered moderate density.

In MSO protected habitat outside core forest areas (where thinning is restricted to cutting trees up to a maximum 16 inches DBH), a minor reduction of excess density in understory trees would occur and overall forest canopy cover decrease with a small decrease in forest crown continuity. Effects on forest health and vigor would be minimal as a result of these treatments, but minor improvements in the ability to implement and control prescribed fire treatments would occur. It is important to point out that in the MSO protected habitat that the model runs as shown in Tables 16 and 17 for site prep and burn show an average decrease in the basal areas across the MSO Protected habitat stands below the recommendation that are outline in the MSO recovery plan 2012. While not all stands fall below the recommendations the burning does reduce the basal area in select stands which drop the stand averages down. Given this modeling data, it is important during implementation of any burning within the MSO habitat to ensure there is adequate existing basal area to ensure the recommended basal area targets are met with expected mortality from the burning. If stands are right at the recommendation basal area targets or already below the recommended basal areas the burning in the MSO habitat areas should be burned under conditions conducive to prevent any mortality. The modeled prescribed fire method was a broadcast burn across the entire stand with set moisture and temperature conditions. In stands where the models shows a drop in basal area other burning methods should be considered in different more suitable conditions. Jackpot burning, where only targeted areas within the stand are burned, is one method that was not modeled, that may be an effective alternative to broadcast burning which will prevent mortality due to the fire. In each case, the district wildlife biologist would be consulted in order to determine the best method for each individual stand. In some

cases, stands may need to be deferred from treatment entirely to maintain the stands above recommended thresholds.

Insects and Disease Of the two alternatives, this alternative is the best option for reducing bark beetle hazard as the majority of the area moves towards uneven-aged conditions. Decreasing stand densities would release dominant3 and co-dominant4 trees allowing them to become more vigorous, more resistant to insect and diseases (McMillin 2004), and grow at a faster rate into larger tree size classes. After treatment, it is projected that approximately 91% of the treated forested analysis area would be in the moderate hazard category for bark beetles (Tables 16 and 17). On 9% of the treated analysis area, beetle hazard remains high due to stands which would not receive treatments that reduce forest canopy density (broadcast burning treatment, or limited treatment –MSO protected and recovery habitats).

This alternative would provide opportunities to manage dwarf mistletoe severity, incidence, and distribution; in order to move towards desired endemic forest disease levels within the project area (Tables 20 and 21). Treatments would alternately focus on removal of infected trees in locations where new regeneration groups from the group selections would be established or favored, and where canopy gaps would be developed or restored. Elsewhere within the stands, treatment would focus on reduction of the percentage of severely infected trees. Severe dwarf mistletoe infection centers are typically circular in shape, but seldom exceed 4 acres in size. In some cases, larger trees will be left with minor mistletoe infections. In some circumstances due to the overstory remaining infected a slight increase in mistletoe in some stands will be expected.

The restoration of forest interspace openings would greatly reduce continuity of mistletoe occurrence, spread, and mortality; such that the host-pathogen biological dynamics function similar to historic conditions. Generally, the focus would be on treating dwarf mistletoe locations, severity and spread potential such that it is present at endemic levels that do not jeopardize short- and long-term attainment of desired forest vigor, structure, and species composition. In mixed conifer stands, non-host species would be favored over severely diseased trees, as local forest conditions permit. Where diseased single trees greater than 16 inches DBH exist, they would be removed to favor other trees or promote regeneration on forest lands managed for northern goshawk habitat.

3 Dominant – trees that receive full light from above the canopy and partially from the sides. Crowns extend above the general level of the canopy. 4 Codominant – Tree crowns receive full light from above, but comparatively little from the sides.


~ 67 ~

This alternative has the greatest overall reduction in the percent of mistletoe infection (Table 21). Individual tree DM ratings would be lower than Alternative 1 resulting in increased cone production, and the greatest percent increase of height and DBH growth (Table 9). Dwarf mistletoe infection does increase over time due to latent infections which cannot be seen until after treatments are completed and growth begins to increase as a result of more open stand conditions. Table 21 reflects the additional shelterwood removal in 2027 for stands with severe mistletoe infections which is reflected in the improved DM percentages in 2037 over Alternative 1.

This alternative also provides maximum flexibility to manage for maintenance or improvement of forest genetics. In some locations, historic high-grade cutting has resulted in mature seed trees with “poor-formed” (stunted) characteristics, relative to the original genetic diversity that existed prior to cutting (Mahalovich 1995). Some of these genetically-stunted trees do not develop into old forest structural stages or large individual trees, even at advanced ages. Therefore, these trees remain small in size relative to age, and neither these trees nor their progeny develop desirable mature forest habitat characteristics. In some locations, it would be advantageous to remove these individual “poor-formed” trees to favor seed trees with more desirable and “normal-formed” traits. On a case-by-case basis, alternative 2 permits the favoring of seed trees with desirable growth traits over those remnant examples of the poorest-formed individuals from the original forest stands following the West Escudilla Old and Large Tree Retention Strategy (Appendix C).

Appropriate cutting methods and/or fire are used to manage mistletoe and other insect and disease infestations. Large project areas (generally larger than 500 to 1,000 acres) creating green slash for 2 or more consecutive years are generally spaced over 2 miles apart from each other to help prevent bark beetle population buildup. To further reduce bark beetle occurrence, managers attempt to effectively treat slash within approximately 30 days of slash creation.

Forest Structure Existing even-aged stands would be managed to develop a new age class through group selections and should become two-aged stands within one decade post-treatment. Existing uneven-aged stand structures would be maintained as uneven-aged stands, and managed over time to develop a balance of age classes in a mosaic of tightly-interspersed structural groups. Restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns would occur, and the resulting forest canopy would be discontinuous and clumped throughout much of the area, based upon desired conditions.

Goshawk Stands would be evaluated to determine excess or deficit diameter class and groups/individual trees would be removed or favored to move towards the desired mosaic of structural stages. Alternative 2 moves forested vegetation conditions for goshawk closer to the desired conditions

than alternative 1. Tables 18 and 19 show the most balanced uneven-aged conditions. By 2037 the stands much closer to the desired structure than Alternative 1 and stands would be considered uneven-aged. Figures 5 and 6 show Alternative 2 having the greatest improvement towards reaching the desired condition of diameter distribution percentages for Goshawk habitat. These graphs under-represent the seedling and sapling structural stages due to each stand being classified by dominate stage. The Silviculture prescriptions for goshawk habitat would create regeneration opening in 10% – 20% of each stands. Due to the majority of the stand remaining in larger structural stages the smaller stages are typically under represented by the data.

The Eagar South example treatment on the Springerville Ranger District (Sitko and Hurteau 2010) represents the same silvicultural treatment strategy proposed under alternative 2 for management of goshawk PFA and FA forest habitats. The example area is an average to above average productivity ponderosa pine site on the Apache National Forest. Prior to treatment, all structural classes were represented to some degree and low/moderate severity of dwarf mistletoe was present throughout the stand. This stand is very similar to many of the uneven-aged stands existing within the West Escudilla project area. Regeneration openings and interspace were created on approximately 26% of the area (14% of the created openings ranged from 0.33 to 1.4 acres in size). After implementation of an uneven-aged selection cutting prescription, without diameter cap constraints, the following objectives were achieved on the Eagar South treatment area:

1. Regeneration group openings of sufficient size were established on sufficient areas to develop and maintain uneven-aged forest conditions; and

2. Grouped tree spatial patterns were maintained and created; and

3. Stand canopy continuity was broken (provide habitat diversity and greatly reduce crown fire potential) and;

4. Progress towards a balance of classes was promoted;

5. Survived 2011 Wallow fire, burned at low to moderated severity.

While each stand within the West Escudilla project varies by forest structure and other conditions, it is expected that many of the same post-treatment outcomes can be achieved in existing uneven-aged stands through implementation of the like treatment prescriptions proposed for Alternative 2. Many of the stands are existing even-aged forest structures. Application of Alternative 2 proposed selection cutting treatments would fully achieve results for objectives number 1, 2, and 3 above, and partially achieve result for number 4 but put treated aces on a better trajectory toward meeting LMP desired conditions of a well-balanced representation of all age classes (USDA 2015) A full representation/balance of age classes is not possible because the initial treatment would only begin the process of conversion from an even-aged to uneven-aged condition.


~ 69 ~

Mexican Spotted Owl In MSO protected habitat forest areas, where thinning is restricted to cutting trees up to a maximum 16 inches DBH, a reduction of excess density in understory trees would occur, but overall forest canopy cover and continuity would only slightly be reduced. Effects on forest health and vigor would be minimal as a result of these treatments, but minor improvements in the ability to implement and control prescribed fire treatments would occur due to the reduction of ladder fuels.

In the recovery nest/roost habitat and some protected habitat, broadcast burning appears to have dropped the minimum BA below recommended thresholds. Stand prescriptions however would be written to exceed the minimum BA requirement of 120 BA for mixed conifer and 110 BA for Pine-Oak stands (Table 23). By exceeding the minimum basal areas in the cutting treatments it will allow for fire related mortality and keep the stand at or above the desired conditions. Other burning techniques such as jackpot burning may need to be used on a case by case basis if expected fire mortality by implementing a broadcast burn would reduce the basal area of these stands below desired thresholds. In each case, the district wildlife biologist would be consulted in order to determine the best method for each individual stand. In some cases, stand may need to be deferred from treatment entirely to maintain the stands above recommended thresholds.

Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands In Pinyon Juniper Persistent Woodlands, this alternative would maintain much of the woodland area in the desired conditions as shown in the LMP. Reintroducing infrequent fire will help to maintain the woodlands at density levels that will help make the stands resilient to disturbances like wildfire and insects outbreaks and will help to promote herbaceous cover. A mosaic of woodland structural stages would be created and enhanced helping meet some of the desired conditions for this PNVT.

Pinyon Juniper Savannas This alternative would restore many of the savanna areas back towards desired conditions. Canopy cover in most stands would be reduced to under 30% and an increase in herbaceous ground cover is expected. Tables 16 and 17 show that average density and canopy cover under this alternative is quite lower than compared to Alternative 1. Groups within the savanna areas would contain all structural stages and interspaces between groups would be shifted towards the desired conditions for savanna stands.

Grasslands This alternative would restore many of the Great Basin and montane / subalpine grasslands areas back towards desired conditions. Canopy cover in most stands would be reduced to under 10% and an increase in herbaceous ground cover is expected. Table 19 and 20 show that average density and canopy cover is quite lower than compared to Alternative 1. Encroaching trees would be removed and the historic open spaces would be restored.

Old Growth This alternative proposes to manage identified stands for potential old growth as shown in Table 13a. It is expected that with many of the planned treatments in both Goshawk and MSO habitat that old growth conditions will develop across the project area due to the improved health and vitality of the forest stands. Existing old growth would be further enhanced by removing competition from smaller trees which will help these old growth trees be more resilient to disturbances like wildfire and insect attacks.

Treatment Longevity Based upon proposed irregular spacing and creation of regeneration group openings, forest interspace, the uneven-aged forest character would persist for 30+ years following the initial treatment and longer if low-severity fire occurs at frequent intervals for the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer PNVTs. Trees 5 to 9 inches DBH would develop interlocking crowns and closed forest canopy within the first one to two decades following treatment (based upon residual density ranges and average growth rates, and tree groups in the 12 to 18 inch DBH range would remain closed canopy following treatment (based on treatment objectives). Seedlings and saplings up to 5 inches DBH would not fully occupy the created canopy gaps or develop to a height approaching the 2/3 of the general forest canopy until tree age 40-60 years, maintaining the canopy gaps during this period. Also the forest interspace would be maintained for a like period (indefinitely if low-severity fire occurs at frequent intervals). Therefore the desired forest structure, biological diversity, and crown fire hazard reduction effects would be evident for at least 30 years following the proposed treatment.

Reforestation No tree planting is proposed initially with this alternative. While the Wallow fire did burn through the project area only around 3% or approximately 450 acres burned at high severity. While these high severity acres may need reforestation, most of them are located in inaccessible areas or are in un-suitable timberlands according to the LMP. Given these factors, natural regeneration is planned for all of these burned areas.

For all treatments that have group selection / created openings being implemented, all regeneration is planned to be natural. After implementation of this alternative, it is expected that approximately 1,500 – 3,000 acres in the Ponderosa Pine, Dry Mixed Conifer and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVTs will be shifted into a seedling and sapling structural stage through created opening / group selections. If after implementation and subsequent monitoring shows that natural regeneration has not occurred, appropriate follow-up actions in these created openings may occur (like site preparation planting/filling planting, and/or animal damage control) depending the results of the monitoring. In the case that artificial planting needs to occur then planting of like species composition of the surrounding forest may be implemented to ensure the desired conditions of these PNVTs are being met but species or elevational adjustment for climate change may also need to be considered.


~ 71 ~

Windthrow An important thing to consider in these proposed treatments is the potential for windthrow of the remaining trees after thinning treatments. When high density stands are thinned there is the potential for windthrow to occur where trees experience different wind patterns and intensities from how their root systems developed over time and are not wind firm enough to stay upright in high winds. This results in trees that were intended to remain after treatment falling over. This extra mortality can result in loss of important habitat components. To examine the windthrow potential, the West Escudilla project area was examined based on terrestrial ecological units (TEU). TEU are mapped units of land within which ecological structure, function, capabilities, responses, and management opportunities and limitations can be predicted. Windthrow potential is one of the attributes that can be determined from TEU shows a map of windthrow potential for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer PNVTs for the West Escudilla project area (Appendix B). Approximately 4,815 acres where treatments are to occur are considered to have a severe windthrow potential. In these areas with severe windthrow potential it is recommended that these stands are thinned at the higher range of densities as described in the treatment summaries (see Silviculture-Appendix A) to ensure wind firmness develops in the residual stands. Wonn and O’Hara 2001 show that ratios of tree height to diameter can be used to predict damage from storms. For ponderosa pine and Douglas fir trees, stability becomes jeopardized when the height:diameter ratios exceed a threshold of 80:1. They recommend that stands with borderline height:diameter ratios should receive a series of low intensity thinnings to allow residual trees to respond to the available growing space. Improper thinning in these stands can lead to windthrow. This ratio can be used along with the TEU data to help adjust site specific silvicultural prescriptions to mitigate the windthrow risk.

Alternative 2 Summary (and consistency with LMP) This alternative makes rapid progress in moving stand structures and other forest conditions towards desired conditions as compared to Alternative 1. Achievement of the following forest plan objectives, standards and guidelines and project purpose and need, vegetation management objectives is feasible under Alternative 2:

• Annually, treat 5,000 to 35,000 acres to reduce tree densities, restore natural fire regimes, promote species habitat and ecosystem health, reduce fire hazard, maintain desired conditions, initiate recovery from uncharacteristic disturbance, and provide forest products, leaving a desired mix of species with the range of desired densities that are resilient to changing climatic conditions.

• Where current forests are lacking proportional representation of late seral states and species composition on a landscape scale, old growth characteristics should be retained or encouraged to the greatest extent possible within the scope of meeting other desired conditions (e.g., reduce impacts from insects and disease, reduce the threat of uncharacteristic wildfire).

• The ponderosa pine forest is a mosaic of structural states ranging from young to old trees. Forest structure is variable but uneven-aged and open in appearance. Sporadic areas of even-aged structure may be present on 10 % or less of the landscape to provide structural diversity.

• The forest arrangement consists of individual trees, small clumps, and groups of trees with variably-sized interspaces of grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Vegetation associations are similar to reference conditions. The size, shape, and number of trees per group and the number of groups per area vary across the landscape. Tree density may be greater in some locations, such as north-facing slopes and canyon bottoms.


• Alternative 2 does not include any activities directed toward changing vegetation types. All treatments proposed would not change the vegetative cover types. Road obliteration proposed under Alternative 2 would provide a seed bed allowing for regeneration and restoration of the road beds. Road improvements proposed would have no effect to the vegetation or change in forest structure.

• Stand densities within LMP desired conditions basal area ranges for PNVTs in General Forest, Community-Forest Intermix, goshawk PFAs, and MSO habitat.

This alternative is more consistent with the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Land Management Plan (USDA 2015) when compared to Alternative 1 relative to forest vegetation management.

Cumulative Effects Common to all Alternatives Past, present (ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable future actions that have occurred over the last 25 years within and near the project area were evaluated are displayed in Table 24. The entire Escudilla Landscape Area is considered for this analysis which includes this project, the Luna Analysis project and Pueblo Park project on the Gila National Forest. All activities were pulled from the Forest Service Activity Tracking System (FACTS).

Table 24 - Projects common to all alternatives.

Past and present activity

Timeframe Location Comments

Multiple small sales and prescribed fire

1991 - 1999 Alpine RD For a detailed list of all the activities see Silvicultural specialist report in project record

Little Multiproduct Sale

2000 - 2001 Alpine RD Thinning and Rx fire This project boarder West Escudilla on the Southwest side of the project


~ 73 ~



Alpine Bark Beetle Sale

2003-2004 Alpine RD Removal of Bark Beetle infested trees in the Alpine WUI area

Alpine WUI Treatment Area

2003-2006 Alpine RD Thinning and Rx fire This project boarder West Escudilla on the Southwest side of the project

Nutrioso WUI Treatment Area

2006 - Present Springerville and Alpine RD

Thinning on 33,162 Acres with Rx Fire. This project boundary boarder West Escudilla on the Northwest side of the project

Hazard Tree Removal Around Luna Lake Campground

2010 Alpine RD Removal of Hazard tree in and around Luna Lake CG

Wallow wildfire 2011 Alpine / Springerville / Quemado RD

534,000+ acre fire with suppression activities. The fire burned through the southern portion of the West Escudilla Project area.

Wallow Roadside Salvage

2011 - 2014 Alpine and Springerville RD

Salvage of roadside fire killed trees located along level 2, 3 and 4 forest roads.

Wallow BAER Restoration

2011-2013 Alpine and Springerville RD

Road repair and flooding mitigation. Aerial Seeding and mulching of high severity burned areas. Hazard tree cutting along roadsides.

Wallow Beetle Control

2014-2015 Alpine RD MSO PACS that were treated with both MCH and Verbenone pheromones

Powerline Maintenance

On-going Alpine and Springerville RD

Removal and mastication of trees every five years encroaching on the power line corridor.

Grazing On-Going Alpine / Springerville / Quemado RD

Portions of 15 different allotments are within the West Escudilla Project area.

Road maintenance

On-Going Alpine and Springerville RD

Routine road maintenance on already existing roads across the district.

Dispersed camping

On-Going Alpine and Springerville RD

The project area contains locations popular for dispersed camping.



Wildlife Tree Planting CE

Future (Within next 2-3 years)

Alpine and Springerville RD

This project proposed to plant conifer in upland areas and Willows in Riparian areas. Some in West Escudilla Area.

Luna Planning Analysis

Future (Within next 2 years)

Quemado / Glenwood RD Gila NF

171,331 acre restoration project EIS on the Gila NF

Pueblo Park Project

Future (Within Next 2 years)

Glenwood RD Gila NF

Roadside Thinning and Rx Fire CE

Past Actions and Events The past activities that have influenced vegetation described in the affected environment section are found in the table above. Activities include timber sales, pre-commercial thinning, salvage sales and broadcast burning occurring within the boundary of the project area and were used in the vegetation cumulative effects. Existing stand densities are displayed in Table 4 and existing forest structures displayed in Tables 7, 8, and 9 are an expression of the cumulative effects of past vegetation modifying treatments as well as wildfires, even though wildfires are not actions considered in cumulative effects. Wildfire are events which do have an effect on the current condition of the area. Past activities and wildfires that modified vegetation contributed to the structural stage distribution and to the stand density percentages. It is also important to examine the decision of past leadership to defer treatment in much of the West Escudilla project area. The decision to not harvest or thin much of the landscape has contributed to the existing conditions and many of the problems that the West Escudilla landscape is currently seeing in terms of insect, disease and density related mortality. This lack of action has had far reaching effects throughout the area. The suppression on wildfires and lack of disturbance across the landscape are also directly linked to much of the excessive young to mid-aged forest structure that currently exists.

Past management activities in the West Escudilla project area have resulted in the following:

1) Existing levels of fuels, which contribute to fire intensity, fire behavior, and access into and within the area in the event of a wildfire.

2) The diversity of vegetation structural stages, existing old growth components within the landscape, tree species composition, tree density levels, and the amount of available herbaceous vegetation present in the analysis area

3) Existing soil productivity, which in turn determines future productivity of the vegetation.

4) Diversity of wildlife habitat


~ 75 ~

5) The type and amount of vegetative soil cover present, which contributes to the current levels of soil erosion, surface runoff, stream flow, stream turbidity, stream sediment load, and water in wetland and riparian areas within the sub-watersheds.

On-going Present Actions Portions of fifteen range allotments cover the project area. The status of each of these allotments is covered in the Range section. Grazing is a continued effect that reduces the amount of fine fuels such as grasses that would tend to carry wildfires throughout the forested areas. This has had an effect in preventing many fires throughout the landscape which has affected the forest structure contributing to an excess of young to mid-sized trees.

Any tree removal within campgrounds, along State Highway 180, and along forest service roads is limited to imminent hazards from dead, dying and defective trees, which is not a significant change to the overall structure and composition of the area impacted. This approach is reactive instead of proactive and has resulted in increased mortality from insects such as bark beetles.

Future Actions Future actions within the project area include mastication of trees within the powerline corridor of approximately every 5 years. The effects of alternative 1, or 2 when combined with the foreseeable treatments would not provide measurable cumulative effects. The mastication of trees within the powerline corridor is very limited in size and the powerlines are continually maintained as openings by the power companies on 5 year intervals and were considered as grassland maintenance.

The Luna Forest Restoration Project and the Pueblo Park Project on the East side of the project on the Gila National Forest in New Mexico are planned within the next two years. The Luna analysis area is proposing to restore approximately 114,171 acres. Table 25 shows the planned treatment by Ecological Response Unit (ERU) for the Luna Planning Area. ERU are similar to PNVTs that the Apache-Sitgreaves LMP uses.

Table 25 - Summary of Acres by Ecological Response Units for the Luna Planning Area Ecological Response Unit ERU Acres based on TEUI and ERU

Grassland

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grassland (CPGB)

Montaine/Subalpine Grassland (MSG)

Semi-Desert Grassland (SDG) 13,706

Shrubland

Gambel Oak Shrubland (GAMB)

Mountain Mahogany Mixed Shrubland (MMS) 736

Ecological Response Unit ERU Acres based on TEUI and ERU

Woodland

Pinyon Juniper Grass (PJG) – Cold

Pinyon Juniper Grass (PJG) – Mild

Pinyon Juniper Woodland (PJO) – Cold

Pinyon Juniper Woodland (PJO) – Mild 23,730

Forest Ponderosa Pine

Ponderosa Pine Bunchgrass (PPG

Ponderosa Pine Gambel Oak (PPO)

Ponderosa Pine Evergreen Oak (PPE) 105,056

Forest Mixed Conifer

Mixed Conifer Frequent Fire (MCW)

Mixed Conifer with Aspen (MCW) 26,521

Riparian

Arizona Alder – Willow (R110)

Herbaceous Wetland (R190)

Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Shrub (R230) 1,582

Total Forest Service 171,331

Private Land within Planning Boundary 14,239

Luna Planning Area Total 185,570

Many of the treatments proposed within the Luna Planning Area are similar to the West Escudilla project and will complement the restoration of the landscape across state lines. For more information about the Luna Planning Analysis contact the Gila National Forest.

There is also a Wildlife habitat planting categorical exclusion which is planned to occur in and surrounding the West Escudilla project area starting in 2016. This project is planning to plant 632 acres of conifers in selected upland locations and multiple riparian areas with willows. This tree planting project should have no impact to the West Escudilla project but will provide some seedlings and saplings at the LMP landscape scale.

Alternative 1: No Action With implementation of this Alternative, no treatment other than ongoing activities and foreseeable future projects would occur in the Forest Service landownership within the West


~ 77 ~

Escudilla Project Area. The effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable projects in combination with the no action are not expected to result in any measurable changes to forest cover type, stand density as it relates to fire regime condition class (FRCC), fuel loadings, potential flame lengths relating to fire fighter safety, diameter classes, Mexican spotted owl habitat, and old growth characteristics. With implementation of this Alternative, no treatment other than ongoing activities and foreseeable future projects would occur in the Forest Service landownership within the West Escudilla project area.

Within Forest Service ownership in the analysis area, there would be very little, if any change from the existing condition in regard to the vegetation. Any change occurring would be the result of natural processes and disturbances occurring over time in conjunction with future planned management activities. When large enough openings are created through natural disturbances such as insect epidemic, wildfire, or other disturbances, regeneration would occur, favoring the species currently present in the area. Existing grasses, shrubs, and forbs would decline in vigor and growth until individual trees begin to die creating small openings in the tree canopy at which time they would be released to increase in number. Individual tree mortality would increase until stocking levels are decreased. The risk of loss of trees and possibly stands from insect epidemic or wildfire would increase as stand densities within the area increased.

The additive effect of taking no action at this time would mean diameter classes within the area would move slowly toward that which is desirable for northern goshawk habitat. The lack of past management actions have contributed to the existing diameter distribution imbalance. A balance range of structural classes is not expected to occur with any of the other current and future treatments. Such an excess of young aged tree exists across the entire landscape that only incremental improvements toward the desired balanced distribution can be made. As natural regeneration occurs there would be an increase in seedling and saplings. Individual tree growth and total stand growth would rapidly decrease due to site occupancy and competition with other trees for nutrients, moisture, and sunlight. Recovery of tree growth would occur as adjacent trees die. This would slowly move the young and mid-aged size class trees into the next larger size class. Loss of larger size trees would also occur due to the number of smaller trees present within the stands that are competing for nutrients and moisture. This too would create openings for regeneration and release of the smaller trees. Canopy closure would be moderate to dense in the majority of the analysis area. Grassland areas would continue to regenerate into woodland or ponderosa pine stands. This would reduce the available herbaceous vegetation over the entire area. Mexican spotted owl threshold characteristics and old growth variables would be obtained over time with the exclusion of wildfire. Should a wildfire occur, there would be an increased risk of losing these characteristics and variables through stand replacement.

Failure to effectively control dwarf mistletoe in past entries has contributed to infection intensification and spread. High dwarf mistletoe infection in mature/overmature ponderosa pine and Douglas fir increases risk of bark beetle attack.

Alternative 2 – Restoration – Cumulative Effects As with the no action alternative with implementation of alternative 2 in conjunction with the past, ongoing and foreseeable future management activities, it is expected that very little if any measurable changes would occur to forest cover type, stand density as it relates to fire regime condition class (FRCC), fuel loadings, potential flame lengths relating to fire fighter safety, diameter classes, Mexican spotted owl habitat, and old growth characteristics.

Within the Forest Service landownership, in conjunction with the ongoing and foreseeable future management activities, there would be a slight increase in the percentage of juniper and oak sprouting within the majority of the analysis area with treatments. Prescribed burning along with management fire treatments would encourage forb component and also reduce accumulation of natural fuels and fuels created by management activities. Increase of the understory herbaceous and forb component would be encouraged by restoration, regeneration and thinning activities. Activities associated with tree harvest such as road tree felling, tree topping, and tree skidding would create a temporary reduction of vegetation.

Regeneration would occur in openings created through management activities, favoring the species currently present in the area. Existing grasses, shrubs, and forbs would be released to increase in number until tree canopy closure. Individual tree mortality would decrease until stocking levels increase. The risk of loss of trees and possibly stands from insect epidemic or wildfire would decrease with the decrease in stand densities. As with no action, diameter classes within the area would move slowly toward that which is desirable for northern goshawk habitat. As regeneration occurs there would be an increase in seedlings and saplings. Individual tree growth and total stand growth would increase due to less site occupancy and competition with other trees for nutrients, moisture, and sunlight. Mid-aged size class trees would move more rapidly into the next larger size class than with no treatment. Larger size trees would retain health for a longer period of time due to fewer smaller trees present within the stands that are competing for nutrients and moisture. Canopy closure would be Low to moderate in the majority of the analysis area. Grassland areas would be maintained and remain open areas for a longer period of time. This would increase the available herbaceous vegetation over the entire area. Mexican spotted owl threshold characteristics and old growth variables would be obtained over time.

The past management policy to actively suppress all wildfires is a contributor to the abnormal irruption of dense small trees, which would have been reduced with natural thinning by fire under a normal pine fire regime. Past grazing was also likely a contributing factor by reducing grass that used to carry wildfires. The risk of losing these characteristics through stand replacement would be reduced slightly with this alternative.


~ 79 ~

Climate Change Climate shapes our forests and forests shape our climate. The West Escudilla project is proposed on a local scale and is not intended to have cumulative effects that are measurable on a global scale in regards to climate change; however, management of the West Escudilla area has a small scale effect on mitigating climate change when combined with other management actions regionally. The majority of the West Escudilla project is currently considered overstocked (table 4) and at risk for stand-replacing fires which are the greatest cause of carbon release or greenhouse gases (GHG). Alternative 2 would reduce the fire hazard within the project area associated with stand-replacing fires.

Most global climate models are not yet precise enough to apply to land management at the project level scale (e.g., West Escudilla). This limits, to some degree, project specific analysis of potential effects from climate change. Because none of the current climate models, including multi-model ensembles, adequately resolve important topographic variations (e.g., mountain ranges versus valleys) and occurrences such as ENSO (El Niño) or the North American Monsoon, their results are imprecise and the subject of continuing research. However, these models do reproduce much of the underlying features of the Earth’s climate, and their basic structure has been proven under countless experiments and forecasts of the weather systems from which climate is usually described. Therefore, these models remain a credible means of estimating potential future climate scenarios (USDA 2015).

Given these factors and the importance of climate change on ecosystems both Alternatives 1 and 2 were also modeled with a climate change scenario to examine the difference that climate change models would have on the alternatives. For this exercise, climate scenarios were brought into the model using the Climate-Forest Vegetation Simulator extension in Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). The base FVS model, shows future forest projections that are a reflection of climates that predominated the last half of 20th Century (Crookston 2014). Future climates will most likely be different and modeling these predicted climates is an important tool for land managers to see the changes that may occur under different climates. Ensemble Representative Concentration Pathways (RCP) 60 was used to model climate change for the West Escudilla Project.

In comparing the differences between the models with and without climate change there were only slight changes between the climate change scenario and the normal FVS modeling throughout the modeling timeframe. Generally, the basal area under the climate change scenario was slightly lower with more trees per acre under climate change. There is very little difference between data from the two scenarios for the first 20 years of the projection. As the models progress toward the end of the projection timeframe in the year 2047 the difference is more noticeable with more mortality occurring throughout the project area resulting in lower basal area and more regeneration with the climate change scenario. Overall, this suggests that during climate change, as predicted by the Ensemble RCP60 model, the project area would tend to

support less trees than are currently on the landscape as older trees are stressed and die and are replaced with younger trees which may or may not survive. This would support the need for implementing Alternative 2 in order to shift the landscape towards being resilient to this potential climate change impact through reducing densities, creating more regeneration though un-even aged management, focusing on appropriate tree species to occupy the project area which are most capable of surviving and reproducing in a changing climate` and reducing extra stresses of forest health issues such as dwarf mistletoe and bark beetle outbreaks.

Monitoring For planned implementation and effectiveness monitoring for the West Escudilla Restoration Project see Appendix D.

Fire and Fuels

Desired and Existing Conditions

Affected Environment Introduction

Since 1970 there have been ten large fires (greater than ten acres in size), totaling 16,892 acres across the entire project area. The Wallow Fire of 2011 burned 15,014 acres within the project boundary, and accounts for 88.8% of the acres burned in the last 45 years. According to the forest plan, low severity fire should be significantly more frequent than what has occurred within the project boundary in Great Basin grasslands, pinyon-juniper savanna, ponderosa pine, and dry mixed conifer. The composition, structure, and spatial pattern in frequent-fire forests are maintained by frequent, low-severity fire (Graham, et al., 2004). The shift away from frequent low severity fire has created conditions non conducive to the maintenance of these conditions furthermore; important compositional and structural changes in these forests include: increased tree densities, reduced structural and spatial heterogeneity of vegetation, declines in grass-forb-shrub vegetation, loss of old trees, and reductions in the diversity and quality of plant and animal habitats (Larson and Churchill 2012). Forests that have shifted away from a historic high frequency low severity fire regime are subject to increasingly frequent and uncharacteristic disturbances such as large-scale severe fire events and insect epidemics (Swetnam and Betancourt 1999). Reduced ecosystem resilience to disturbances is more evident in frequent-fire forests where the composition, structure, processes, and functions have changed to a greater degree due to reductions in fire frequency than in forest types where fire was historically less frequent (Hessburg, et al., 1999). Land managers are concerned that due to the lack of fire, the area may have fallen out of historical and desired conditions leading to reduced sustainability, resilience, and forest health. Managing the forest to include natural and prescribed fire is essential to maintain proper function of the ecosystem.


~ 81 ~

Desired and Existing Conditions Desired conditions are the social, economic, and ecological attributes of our land. Desired conditions may reached quickly or may only be achieved over a long timeframe. In some cases the current condition may already match the desired condition, in this situation the objective would be to maintain these conditions. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan describes each potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) with a set of conditions that are desired for overall ecosystem health, sustainability, and resiliency. This analysis focuses on canopy cover, potential for crown fire, and fire regime condition class (FRCC) to determine any departure from desired conditions in consideration of fire and fuels.

There are five natural fire regimes based on average number of years between fires (fire frequency) combined with the severity of the fire on the dominant overstory vegetation (see table below). They are:

• Fire regime I: 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common) to mixed severity (less than 75 % of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime II: 0- to 35-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 % of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime III: 35- to 100+-year frequency and mixed severity (less than 75 % of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime IV: 35- to 100+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity (greater than 75 % of the dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime V: 200+-year frequency and high (stand replacement) severity.

Table 26 - Fire regimes by PNVTs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs PNVT Fire Regime

Ponderosa Pine Forest I Dry Mixed Conifer Forest I

Wet Mixed Conifer Forest1 III

Piñon-Juniper Woodland2 I, II, III, IV, V Great Basin Grassland I

Montane/Subalpine Grasslands I, II Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest3 I, III

Mixed Broadleaf Deciduous Riparian Forest3 I, III

Montane Willow Riparian Forest3 I, III Wetland/Cienega Riparian Areas3 I, III

1 Within wet mixed conifer, fire regime IV and V may occur; however, it is rare. 2 Within piñon-juniper, fire regime I is found in piñon-juniper savanna; II, III, IV, and V are found in piñon-juniper persistent woodland. 3 Wetland/cienega riparian areas and mixed broadleaf deciduous, montane willow, and cottonwood-willow riparian forests’ historic and current fire return intervals are strongly influenced by surrounding PNVTs and their fire regime.

Desired Conditions for Potential Natural Vegetation Types (PNVTs) Great Basin Grassland

Canopy Cover- Grasslands are characterized by less than 10 % tree and/or shrub cover.

Fire Regime- Herbaceous vegetation and litter provide for and maintain the natural fire regime (fire regime I and II). Fire historically occurs every 10 to 30 years in Great Basin grasslands.

Pinyon-juniper Savanna

Canopy Cover- The pinyon-juniper savanna is open in appearance with trees occurring as individuals or in small groups and ranging from young to old. Overall, tree canopy cover is 10 to 15 %, but may range up to 30 %.

Fire Regime- Fires are low to mixed severity (fire regime I), occurring every 1 to 35 years.

Pinyon-juniper Persistent Woodland

Canopy Cover- Tree canopy cover is closed (greater than 30 %), shrubs are sparse to moderate, and herbaceous cover is patchy.

Fire regime- Fire is less frequent and more variable than in the savanna due to patchiness of ground cover. The fires that do occur are mixed to high severity (fire regimes II, III, IV, and V).

Riparian Wet Meadows

Canopy Cover- Riparian tree canopy cover varies by site.

Fire regime- Riparian wet meadows historic and current fire regimes are strongly influenced by surrounding PNVTs and their fire regime (typically fire regimes I and III). High severity fire may degrade long term riparian conditions and should be avoided.

Montane Subalpine Grasslands

Canopy Cover- Grasslands are characterized by less than 10 % tree and/or shrub cover.

Fire regime- In montane subalpine grasslands fire occurs every 2- 400 years (depending on the adjacent forested PNVT typically fire regime I and II).

Ponderosa Pine

Canopy Cover- Ponderosa pine forests have a high degree of variation in the size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, aspect, and site productivity. Due to this


~ 83 ~

variability, ponderosa pine PNVTs do not have a desired condition for this attribute of forest structure.

Fire Regime- Frequent, low to mixed severity fires (fire regime I), occurring approximately every 2 to 17 years, are characteristic in this PNVT. Fires primarily burn on the forest floor and does not spread between tree groups as crown fire.

Dry Mixed Conifer

Canopy Cover- The dry mixed conifer forest is characterized by a variety of size and number of tree groups depending on elevation, soil type, and site productivity. Due to this variability, dry mixed conifer PNVTs do not have a desired condition for this attribute of forest structure.

Fire Regime- Frequent, low to mixed severity fires (fire regime I), occurring approximately every 10 to 22 years, are characteristic in this PNVT. Fires primarily burn on the forest floor and does not spread between tree groups as crown fire.

Wet Mixed Conifer

Canopy Cover- The wet mixed conifer forest is a mosaic of structural stages and seral states ranging from young to old trees. The canopies of wet mixed conifer are generally more closed than dry mixed conifer. Due to the degree of variability in seral stages and forest structure exhibited by this PNVT it does not have a desired condition for canopy cover.

Fire Regime- Mixed severity (fire regime III) and high severity (fire regime IV), occurring every 22-150 years along with other disturbances. High severity fires should not exceed 1,000 acres of mortality. Surface fire, torching, and crown fire are all characteristic in this PNVT.

Desired conditions for Wildland Fire Management across all PNVTs • Human life, property, and natural and cultural resources are protected within and adjacent to

National Forest Service lands.

• Wildland fires burn within the range of frequency and intensity of natural fire regimes. Uncharacteristic high severity fires rarely occur and do not burn at the landscape scale.

• Wildland fire maintains and enhances resources and functions in its natural ecological role.

• The composition, cover, structure, and mosaic of vegetative conditions reduce uncharacteristic wildfire hazard to local communities and forest ecosystems.

• Achieving or moving towards a Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) 1 rating for the entire project area is desired. FRCC 1 represents conditions where fire regimes are within their historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species, composition, and structure) are intact and functioning within the historical range.

Existing Conditions Within the project are there are three potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) that should exhibit open appearances with sparse canopy cover (less than 10% in grasslands and up to 30% in pinyon juniper savanna). Great Basin grasslands account for 19,675 acres within the project area and have canopy cover densities above the desired conditions in roughly 11% of the PNVT. Montane subalpine grasslands are present in 1,478 acres of the project and have canopy cover densities outside the desired conditions in roughly 51% of the PNVT. Pinyon juniper savanna exist on 9,574 acres within the project area and has canopy cover densities above the desired conditions in roughly 38% of the PNVT.

Canopy cover is an important factor of vegetation structure, as it tends to describe potential encroachment in PNVTs historically characterized with low tree density. Forest structure affects the distribution, density, and composition of surface and canopy fuels, which affects the behavior of fire and, ultimately, post-fire forest structure (Reynolds, et al., 2013). In general, more fuel accumulates and persists in forests with longer fire return intervals than in those with more frequent surface fire (Minnich, et al., 2000). Canopy cover influences both forest structure and environmental factors, which are directly related to fire behavior. The density and arrangement of forest canopy affects the penetration of sunlight, precipitation, humidity, and wind (Reynolds, et al., 2013). Juvenile tree propagation tends to increase presence of ladder fuels and increase canopy densities over time. Ladder fuels allow fire to spread from the surface into tree crowns. Dense forest structures can facilitate crown fire by providing a potential path for fire through tree crowns (Fulé et al., 2004). Interlocked tree canopies are more likely to produce running crown fire than trees spaced apart. Canopy cover is a major contributing factor to crown fire potential.

Across the West Escudilla Restoration Project area, under 90th percentile weather conditions and 12 mph 20’ winds from the south west, currently 56.4% of the area would likely burn as a surface fire, 34.0% is projected to burn with potential for independent crown fire, and 6.2% of the project area has potential to burn as active crown fire. 3.4% of the project area was not analyzed due to lack of data. (Refer to Table 27: Crown Fire Potential; Map of Current Crown Fire Potential, Appendix B.)

Crown fire is considered uncharacteristic in ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, pinyon-juniper savanna, and Great Basin grasslands; however, rare mixed severity events with less than 1,000 acres of mortality are considered healthy in pinyon-juniper woodlands, wet mixed conifer, riparian areas, and montane subalpine grasslands. Areas which experience uncharacteristic fire may be at risk for adverse ecological functions, such as changes in stand structure, water flow, soil erosion, insect populations, species diversity, or critical wildlife habitat. Opportunities for multiple use may also be negatively impacted.

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a significant factor to analyze in restoration goals and objectives. FRCC measures the degree of departure from historic fire regimes resulting in


~ 85 ~

alterations of key ecosystem components, such as species composition, structural stage, canopy closure, mosaic pattern, fuel composition, fire frequency, and fire severity. The forest plan dictates to work towards achieving Fire Regime Condition Class 1 across the project area. Currently within the West Escudilla Restoration Project boundary there are 13,621 acres (21% of the project) classified as FRCC1, and should be maintained to their current condition. There are 24,586 acres (37% of the project) characterized as FRCC2 and 27,488 acres (42% of the project) categorized as FRCC 3. These areas should be considered for restoration activities as they have departed from their historic fire regime and ecosystem function. (356 acres, equaling less than 1% of the project area, were not analyzed due to fragmentation of data.) Desired conditions for the West Escudilla Restoration Project are to shift towards FRCC 1 across the entire project area. FRCC 1 conditions would allow for fire to function as a natural disturbance without causing loss to ecosystem function or values, and would provide for diversity, variability, and resilience (see map Appendix B-Table 28 below).

Current conditions across much of the West Escudilla Restoration Project area do not meet desired conditions depicted in the Land Management Plan of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Areas currently meeting desired conditions are potentially at risk of degrading to undesired conditions.

FlamMap analysis was utilized in this project to determine potential fire behavior across the project area, examining current and potential future conditions. Both proposed action and no action alternatives were analyzed. Landfire data was used for vegetation and terrain characteristics in all models. Future conditions were modeled in year 2037 with predicted vegetation structure. Adjustments to vegetation structure for future conditions used in the FlamMap analysis were developed by the zone silviculturist using Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS). Weather conditions were determined using Fire Family Plus and remained constant across all evaluations.

Landscape wide vegetation changes were developed at the stand level for use in fire behavior modeling. Basic outputs for crown base height, canopy bulk density, canopy height, canopy base height, and fuel model were used to create predicted vegetation structure landscape files. These files were developed from field sampled exams and processed by the zone silviculturist using Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS).

Fire Family Plus summarizes weather climatology to produce breakpoints and indices for fire management decision making. Historic weather data was provided by the Alpine RAWS station to develop 90th percentile weather conditions.

Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) was measured using Landfire remotely sensed data. FRCC is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from historical conditions in relation to fire and the role historically played in that system (Hann, et al., 2004). Ecosystem attributes

analyzed to determine FRCC include species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, mosaic pattern, fuel composition, fire frequency, and fire severity.

Fire condition classes are rated into three classes:

Condition Class 1:

Fire regimes are within a historical range and the risk of losing key ecosystem components is low. Vegetation attributes (species, composition, and structure) are intact and functioning within a historical range.

Condition Class 2:

Fire regimes have been moderately altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is moderate. Fire frequencies have departed from historical frequencies by one or more return intervals (either increased or decreased), resulting in moderate changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity and severity, and landscape patterns. Vegetation attributes have been moderately altered from their historic range.

Condition Class 3:

Fire regimes have been significantly altered from their historical range. The risk of losing key ecosystem components is high. Fire frequencies have departed from historic frequencies by multiple return intervals, resulting in dramatic changes to one or more of the following: fire size, intensity, severity, and landscape patterns.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1-No Action and Alternative 2-Proposed Action

Analysis Results

The following sections describe the results of each analysis by alternative with supporting discussion of how results were obtained.

FlamMap Results

The following maps demonstrate potential fire behavior type and distribution based on current and future conditions for each management alternative. Current conditions depict 56.4% of the landscape burning as surface fire. It is not desired to completely remove crown fire activity for the landscape as it is ecologically valued in some PNVTs.

The no action alternative displays 32.8% surface fire activity. There is a minor reduction in active crown fire behavior and a major shift from surface fire to independent crown fire. It


~ 87 ~

should be noted that the majority of the southern portions of the project show almost continuous independent crown fire potential in the no action alternative. Patchy mosaic effects would be less likely to occur under these conditions.

The action alternative shows 51.5% of the landscape burning as surface fire. There are minor increases in passive and active crown fire potential from current conditions. Fire behavior type is somewhat discontinuous across the landscape with the action alternative. Fire is likely to burn with a patchy mosaic effect. Size of uncharacteristic fire would likely be limited due to the variability of the potential fire behavior. Refer to Table 27 below. (Crown Fire Potential Maps-Appendix B).

Table 27 - Crown Fire Potential for Current Conditions, No Action and Action Alternatives

FRCC Results

In the West Escudilla Restoration Project area ponderosa pine, dry mixed conifer, pinyon juniper savanna, and Great Basin grassland are subject to short fire return intervals, which experience low to mixed severity fire (Fire regime I). Montane subalpine grasslands and riparian areas also may experience similar fire regimes, but are also subject to influence by adjacent PNVT. The ability to create canopy openings, redistribute dominance to fire resistant tree species and allow for diversity in age classes are essential in moving stands towards a naturally functioning fire regime (FRCC 1) (Comer, et al., 2003). Fire regime I PNVTs are maintained by understory vegetation propagating low intensity surface fire. The forest structure should have open canopy that results in understory vegetation presence that serves as fuel to carry surface fire through these stands.

Currently only 21% of the project area falls into FRCC 1, meaning the fire regime is functioning in historic conditions and is at low risk of losing key ecosystem function. These areas should be maintained. The majority of the project area has not experienced fire in the last 45 years. Missing multiple fire return intervals will lead to stands accumulating unnaturally high fuel loadings through encroachment and new tree establishment. 37% of the project area is classified as FRCC 2 and is moderately departed from its historic fire regime. These areas are at moderate risk of losing key ecosystem functions. 42% of the project is classified as FRCC 3 and is highly departed from its historic fire regime. These areas are at high risk of losing key ecosystem

Acres % of landscape Acres % of landscape Acres % of landscapeSurface Fire 37,248 56.4% 21,677 32.8% 34,025 51.5%

Passive Crown Fire 22,470 34.0% 39,741 60.2% 25,447 38.5%Active Crown Fire 4,087 6.2% 2,387 3.6% 4,333 6.6%

Not Analyzed 2,247 3.4% 2,247 3.4% 2,247 3.4%Total 66,051 100% 66,051 100% 66,051 100.0%

Current No Action Action Alternative

functions. (Refer to Table 28: Fire Regime Conditions Class Rating, and Appendix B Map of Fire Regime Conditions Class Rating).

The no action alternative would not allow for prescribed fire or thinning actions to take place within the project area. Natural fire and disturbance agents would be the only methods to maintain the areas with FRCC 1. Areas exhibiting FRCC 2 and 3 are likely to remain in their current condition class or continue to depart from desired conditions and are likely to support uncharacteristic fire and insect outbreaks.

The action alternative would allow for prescribed fire and thinning actions to maintain FRCC 1 in areas already meeting desired conditions. Areas exhibiting FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 would be subject to restoration activities and will work towards shifting to the desired condition of FRCC1. Areas where canopy openings can be created will open space for understory vegetation to grow and reduce crown fire potential. Re-establishment of understory vegetation could support surface fire and create conditions that would allow for natural maintenance of historical fire regimes.

Table 28- Fire Regime Conditions Class Rating

Direct and Indirect Effects Alternative 1-No Action and Alternative 2-Proposed Action

Fire will have impact on a variety of factors including ground cover, wildlife forage, fuel loading, and air quality. Prescribed fire offers land managers a way to choose where and under what conditions the fire will burn. Wildfire will remain part of the ecosystem regardless of how we decide to proceed. In general the factors mentioned above recover quickly and do not have long term cumulative effects.

When comparing the no action and action alternatives the differences are considerable. The no action alternative will not actively move the project area toward desired conditions. Canopy cover is anticipated to continue increasing across all PNVTs unless action or natural disturbance were to occur. Structural changes in vegetation may lead to increased departure from historic fire regimes and ecosystem function. Tighter crown spacing and availability of ladder fuels may contribute to uncharacteristic wild fire events. Analysis shows a major shift away from surface

Acres % of Project Area

FRCC 1 13,621 21%FRCC 2 24,586 37%FRCC 3 27,488 42%

Not Analyzed 356 <1%Total 66,051 100%


~ 89 ~

fire to independent and active crown fire across the landscape with no action. This shift in potential fire behavior is highly concentrated on the southern two thirds of the project area and has few breaks in arrangement. Without restoration activities a patchy mosaic pattern is not projected to occur in the event of a large scale fire event. Fire regime condition class is expected to continue to depart from healthy conditions. No action relies exclusively on natural events to return departed ecosystem function and historic fire regime to its desired condition. Success of achieving desired conditions at the landscape scale is highly unlikely in the near future without restoration actions.

The action alternative will maintain or shift current conditions towards desired conditions across the landscape. Thinning and prescribed fire will facilitate restoration towards desired stand structure, historic fire regimes, resiliency, forest health, and ecosystem function. Results of the analysis done for this project estimate little change concerning crown fire potential across the landscape between current conditions and conditions under the action alternative. There is a difference of approximately 18.7 % less crown fire in the action alternative compared to the no action alternative. There is some potential to actually increase fire behavior by conducting thinning. Modifying canopy fuels may lead to increased surface fire intensity and spread rate under the same environmental conditions. Reducing canopy bulk density may lead to increased wind speeds, due to less sheltering. Increased openings in canopy may lead to lower fine dead fuel moisture content. These factors increase surface fire intensity and spread rate. Surface intensity may be increased after treatment, however, a fire that remains on the surface beneath a timber stand is generally more controllable than crown fire (Scott, 2003). The action alternative promotes a patchy mosaic pattern in crown fire potential across the landscape. There would be ample breaks between areas that may burn as crown fire. The overall landscape wide resiliency would benefit from managing the project area with a greater degree of variability. The potential for uncharacteristic landscape wide catastrophic wildfire will be significantly reduced because of the mosaic pattern of fire intensity and severity.

In conclusion the West Escudilla area would benefit from the proposed activities described in the action alternative in consideration to ecosystem function, forest health, resiliency, and crown fire potential. The no action alternative would not allow for land managers to restore and maintain desired conditions to the project area. Overall the action alternative provides more opportunity to meet desired conditions in accordance with the Land Management Plan for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. See Appendix A for Burning Implementation Strategies (Best Management Practices).

Air Quality Smoke is generally considered a nuisance and can cause health concerns in some members of our community. Carbon monoxide and particulate matter are produced in wood smoke and are regulated by the Clean Air Act. The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality monitors and enforces regulations that all State and Federal natural resource agencies must follow before a

prescribed fire can be ignited. Smoke is created in both prescribed fire and wildfire events. Smoke production and timing can be mitigated when conducting prescribed fire operations. Burning during favorable wind and atmospheric conditions can minimize smoke impacts to nearby communities, by directing smoke away from potential sensitive areas or by quickly clearing the smoke with favorable ventilation. Prescribed fires can be timed to limit overstory burning and reduce overall smoke production. Smoke from wildfire is not easily mitigated. Wildfires burn under conditions out of our control. Opportunities to direct smoke in favorable directions or to minimize smoke production are often not available during wildfire events. The no action alternative does not allow for prescribed fire and the opportunity to mitigate smoke impacts to nearby communities. Wildfire will still exist within the project boundary and smoke will be produced from these fires. The action alternative allows land managers to burn areas when smoke concerns can be mitigated and reduce the risk of smoke being produced when mitigation measures are not available.

Cumulative Effects Over the past 25 years management activities surrounding the West Escudilla Restoration Project area have and will continue to shape the future conditions near the project area. Prior activities include: prescribed burning, pile burning, mechanical thinning, tree harvesting, grazing, as well as various wildlife focused projects. Within the Apache Sitgreaves National Forest boundary there are three projects in close proximity to the West Escudilla Restoration Project. Eagar south, Nutrioso WUI, and Alpine WUI (all to the west of West Escudilla). All three areas are being treated for fuels reduction and wildland urban interface protection from wildfire. Private landowners have and will likely continue to impact the land adjacent to the West Escudilla. Plans to develop large scale restoration projects are in development on the Gila National Forest to the East of West Escudilla. The combined effect of these ongoing projects over the next several years in proximity to West Escudilla will provide a mosaic of stand conditions, allowing for wildlife and vegetative diversity. This mosaic pattern will facilitate conditions for variability in fire behavior and effects. The action alternative proposed in the West Escudilla Restoration Project would continue to promote mosaic conditions across the landscape. The no action alternative would not provide a reasonable means of restoration so conditions are likely to continue to depart from desired conditions. For a list of past, present, and foreseeable projects adjacent to West Escudilla Restoration Project see Table 24 above.

Transportation Resources The following sections give the analysis of the existing road transportation system and the desired future road transportation system to provide a safe, economical, and efficient system of roads to accommodate the proposed West Escudilla project and continued access to Forest Service lands by the public in and around the project area.


~ 91 ~

Project-Specific Travel Analysis A project-specific travel analysis was conducted to identify and recommend a roadway system for project implementation and recreational usage. Changes to the existing road network (such as changing maintenance levels, relocation of routes, data corrections, identification of unauthorized routes, and decommissioning of unneeded routes) are necessary in order to achieve the purpose of the project and recreational use, as described above. The project-specific travel analysis involved field surveys of the existing roadway network, correction of mapping errors with Lidar and aerial photography, and an inter-disciplinary review of the proposed road network to implement the proposed action. The existing condition of operational maintenance level was updated during this project to accurately reflect current conditions on the ground.

Desired Future Conditions The desired conditions for the transportation system within the West Escudilla project (and the ASNF) is to have a sustainable and maintained road system in place, providing safe access for vegetation/ fuels treatment, fire suppression, administrative needs, and recreation use, while maintaining the health of the land and water quality.

Through relocation of roads, maintenance and improvements of roads and decommissioning of unauthorized routes and unneeded system roads, erosion and sedimentation to local waters would be reduced, and the watersheds within the project area would function with a reduced impairment from roads as compared to current conditions.

Description of Affected Environment Forest system roads within the project area are managed in accordance with current management objectives that are based on a variety of needs for access and use of forest resources. The system of roads includes primitive, unsurfaced roads (maintained for resource protection, not user comfort), aggregate surfaced roads (maintained for varying degrees of user comfort), and two-lane asphalt surfaced highways, managed by county and state agencies.

In addition to passenger vehicles and high clearance vehicles, many of these roads are used by off highway vehicles, hikers, mountain bikers and horseback riders. The majority of these system roads were planned and constructed during past commercial timber harvest activities and are not considered to be all weather roads. These roads were designed for primary use by a standard log truck. Some of these roads may require curve widening and intersection realignment to accommodate chip vans used today.

Table 29 summarizes the mileage of existing NFSRs, unauthorized routes associated with the project area. Mileages are based on the GIS roads layer dated 06/21/2016. As discussed in FSH 7709.59 (see Glossary-Appendix E), ML1 refers to roadways that have been placed in storage between intermittent uses, and are therefore closed to all motorized travel. For NFSRs that are open to motorized travel, the maintenance levels range from ML2 (open to high clearance

vehicles) to ML5 (open to standard passenger cars and providing a high degree of user comfort and convenience). NFSRs and unauthorized routes referenced in Table 29 (see map in Appendix B).

Table 29 - Existing Road Mileage

As shown in Table 29, there are approximately 256 miles of NFSRs within the within the study area. This includes roads that are enclosed by the project area, including Apache County roads and State Highways. Of the NFSRs, approximately 187 miles are ML2-5 (i.e., open to traffic), while about 69 miles are designated as ML1 (i.e., closed). In addition to NFSRs, approximately 125 miles of unauthorized routes (i.e., routes have not been authorized or not on the transportation system atlas) exist within the project area. Altogether, there 376 miles of NFSRs and unauthorized routes. Although many ML1 designated facilities have been physically closed (e.g., boulders, and/or berms), and/or have been signed as being closed, a substantial number remain open to traffic on one or both ends of the roadway. Because of a declining roads budget, many of the ML1 and 2 roads have had limited maintenance, resulting in the need for re-establishment of closure barriers, re-establishment of drainage structures and other maintenance activities.

Road density, measured in miles per square mile, is a commonly used metric for evaluating the road network’s effect on watershed conditions. A higher density of roads increases surface runoff and erosion. High road density is a factor in watershed functionality and can lead to a watershed functioning at risk or being impaired. There is no consensus on the ideal road density for wildlife connectivity. The following table of open and closed road densities is provided as a measurement for the existing condition. Table 30 presents existing road densities in the project area in comparison to the proposed transportation changes. The project area includes several areas characterized by steep and rugged terrain. This terrain may dictate the need for a higher density of roads for treatment access (though not for regular administrative and recreational use).

Existing Road or Route Designation Mileage ML1, Basic Custodial Care (i.e., closed)* 61.34

ML2, Open to High Clearance Vehicles 145.57 ML3, Suitable for Passenger Cars 24.07 ML4, Moderate Degree of User Comfort 4.90 ML5, High Degree or User Comfort 14.01 Decommissioned System Routes 7.32 Total 249.89

Unauthorized Routes 122.31 *Does not include decommissioned routes, decommissioned routes still exist in the transportation atlas under Operational Level 1 and are not used in the road density calculations.


~ 93 ~

There are approximately 125 miles of unauthorized routes in the study area. For the most part, these routes are short routes that have been created by vehicles traversing the same path over a period of time.

Table 30 - Existing Road Densities Compared to Proposed Action Road Densities Road or Route Designation Road Density (miles per square mile)

Existing Proposed

ML1 through ML5* 2.42 2.33 ML2 through ML5 1.83 1.81 All Roads including Unauthorized 3.61 2.33 *Does not include decommissioned routes, decommissioned routes still exist in the transportation atlas under Operational Level 1 and are not used in the road density calculations.

Environmental Consequences Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Network Changes

Under Alternative 2, the existing transportation network (including NFSRs and unauthorized routes) would be modified to improve watershed conditions consistent with the purpose and need for the proposed action. Impacts to fisheries would be reduced through removal of unneeded routes adjacent to streams or across streams. With respect to NFSRs, these modifications include decommissioning and reclassification (i.e., changing the existing ML). For unauthorized routes, the modifications involve obliteration5.

Table 5 (Proposed Action, Chap. 2) summarizes the proposed modifications by road or route designation-see proposed action above. As shown, the proposed action would decommission 15.62 miles of NFSRs and reclassify 5.81 miles to ML1 and 0.37 miles to ML2. The proposed action would have no effect on roads that are designated ML3 through ML5. The proposed action would also decommission 122.31 miles of unauthorized routes where applicable. Under the proposed action, the total mileage (i.e., NFSRs and unauthorized routes) within the project area would decrease from 371.22 miles to 240.39 miles. Appendix B provides detailed maps of the existing roads and proposed changes to the road system.

5 Obliterated roads would be scarified to reduce compaction, and seeded with appropriate plant assemblages to reduce runoff and erosion.

Traffic Effects

Under the proposed action, there would be temporary and localized traffic volume increases within the project area caused by implementation of the proposed forest restoration and road modification activities described above. This traffic would include construction worker commuting trips, trips for the delivery and removal of construction-related materials and equipment, and haul trips to remove trees and other vegetation in support of fuels treatment. The majority of roadways in the project area accommodate relatively low traffic volumes, and this is particularly true for ML2 facilities, which would be used to access most areas of the project area in support of forest restoration and roadway modifications. The volume of traffic required to implement the proposed action is expected to be comparatively minor, as it would be dispersed to various locations within the 66,000-acre project area during the 10-year project period. Therefore, proposed action is not expected to result in traffic congestion, vehicle queues, or delays. With the implementation of the special conservation measures described below, impacts to transportation and roads resources would be less than significant.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 1-No Action

Under Alternative 1, current road management practices would continue, and the existing road system within the project area would not be modified. Routine road maintenance activities would continue primarily on NFSR, ML3 -5, with limited maintenance performed on NFSR ML1 and ML2. No NFSRs or unauthorized routes would be decommissioned or obliterated. The drainage and erosion impacts associated with these routes would continue. Road traffic would remain and the current levels with no major impacts occurring from this alternative.

Alternative 2-Proposed Action

The proposed action would contribute incrementally to temporary and localized increases in traffic, and to roadway wear and tear caused by increased traffic volumes, including trucks and other heavy vehicles. These planned activities would have short term increases in soil disturbance producing minor amounts of sediment released into the watershed/s. The cumulative analysis considers other past, present, and reasonably-foreseeable future projects in or near the project area that will take place concurrently with the proposed action and therefore may also contribute to these impacts, resulting cumulative effects such as timber harvesting, prescribed fire, and watershed improvements. As discussed above, the proposed action’s impacts to transportation and roads resources would be less than significant with the implementation of Best Management Practices. Given this consideration, and accounting for the temporary and localized nature of the proposed action’s effects added to other past, and present ongoing activities (see Vegetation section: Cumulative Effects above) and implementation of Best Management Practices, the proposed action would result in minor cumulative effects.


~ 95 ~

Special Conservation Measures: Special conservation measures are outlined in Appendix A for Transportation and Roads resources. It will be necessary to consider all road modification activities in the context of other related environmental resources to minimize or avoid potential indirect impacts.

Wildlife

Terrestrial and Aquatic Wildlife

Desired Conditions The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan (2015) (Forest Plan) identifies desired conditions by resource area and by PNVT vegetation types. Desired conditions designed to improve wildlife resources are described in general in the Wildlife and Rare Plants section and throughout sections describing the PNVTs of the Forest Plan. Those most applicable to this project are outlined below. For complete and in-depth review of A-S Forest desired conditions refer to the Forest Plan.

Desired Conditions for Wildlife and Rare Plants Landscape scale (10,000 ac or greater)

• Habitat quality, distribution, and abundance exist to support the recovery of federally listed species and the continued existence of all native and desirable nonnative species.

• Native plant communities dominate the landscape.

• Vegetative connectivity provides for species dispersal, genetic exchange, and daily and seasonal movements across multiple spatial scales.

Mid-Scale (100 to 1,000 Ac)

• Wildlife are free from harassment and disturbance at a scale that impacts vital functions (breeding, rearing young etc.) that could affect persistence of the species.

• Vegetation conditions provide hiding and thermal cover in contiguous blocks for wildlife. Native plant species are present in all age classes and are healthy, reproducing, and persisting.

Fine Scale (<10 Ac)

• Collection of animals and plants does not negatively impact species abundance.

• Localized rare plant and animal communities are intact and functioning.

Desired conditions specific to wildlife from PNVTs and other resource program areas

• Overall Ecosystem Health Natural ecological cycles (i.e. hydrologic, energy, nutrient) facilitate shifting of plant

communities, structure, and ages across the landscape. Ecotone shifts are influenced at both

the landscape and watershed scale by ecological processes. The mosaic of plant communities and the variety within the communities are resilient to disturbances.

Ecological conditions for habitat quality, distribution, and abundance contribute to self-sustaining populations of native and desirable nonnative plants and animals that are healthy, well distributed, connected, and genetically diverse. Conditions provide for the life history, distribution, and natural population fluctuations of the species within the capability of the landscape.

Habitat configuration and availability allows wildlife populations to adjust their movements (e.g., seasonal migration, foraging) in response to climate change and promote genetic flow between wildlife populations.

Large blocks of habitat are interconnected, allowing for behavioral and predator-prey interactions, and the persistence of metapopulations and highly interactive wildlife species across the landscape. Ecological connectivity extends through all plant communities.

Species genetic diversity remains within native vegetation and animal populations, thus enabling species to adapt to changing environmental and climatic conditions.

• Soils Soils provide for diverse native plant species. Vegetative ground cover (herbaceous

vegetation and litter) is distributed evenly across the soil surface to promote nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and maintain natural fire regimes.

• Watershed Streamflows provide connectivity among fish populations and provide unobstructed routes

critical for fulfilling needs of aquatic, riparian-dependent, and many upland species of plants and animals.

• Ponderosa Pine/Dry Mixed Conifer/Wet Mixed Conifer Northern goshawk post-fledging family areas (PFAs) may contain 10 to 20 % higher basal

area in mid-aged to old tree groups than northern goshawk foraging areas and the surrounding forest.

Old growth occurs throughout the landscape, in small discontinuous areas consisting of clumps of old trees, or occasionally individual old trees. Other old growth components are present including dead trees, downed wood, and/or structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance.

Northern goshawk nest areas have forest conditions that are multi-aged but are dominated by large trees with relatively denser canopies than the surrounding forest.

• Riparian Diversity and density of riparian forest vegetation provides for breeding, escape, hiding, an

resting cover for wildlife and provides travel ways between other habitat areas and seasonal ranges

Willows (e.g., Bebb, Geyer, Arizona, and Goodding’s) are reproducing with all age classes present, where the potential exists.


~ 97 ~

Vegetation is structurally diverse, often dense, providing for high bird species diversity and abundance, especially neotropical migratory birds. It includes large trees and snags in the cottonwood-willow and mixed broadleaf deciduous riparian forests to support species such as beaver, yellow-billed cuckoo, bald eagles, Arizona gray squirrel, and various bat species.

• Grasslands During the critical pronghorn antelope fawning period ( May through June), cool season

grasses and forbs provide nutritional forage; while shrubs and standing grass growth from the previous year provide adequate hiding cover (10 to 18 inches) to protect fawns from predation).

Affected Environment/Environmental Consequences

Federally Listed Species This section analyzes terrestrial threatened, endangered, and candidate species protected under the Endangered Species Act and any associated critical or proposed critical habitat for those species that occur in the project area. The table below lists federally threatened and endangered terrestrial species that occur on the Forest, with their potential to occur in the West Escudilla Restoration project area. Details for each species and designated habitat follow the table. Species that are not affected by and that do not occur in the project area will not be analyzed further. We then describe the existing condition and environmental consequences for each species and designated habitat in each section. The analysis of designated critical habitats follows the species section and is similarly organized. Effects to aquatic species are discussed in the Aquatic Species section below.

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Alpine District have initiated informal consultation with the FWS and our Biological Assessment and the FWS’s response will be included in the project record. A summary of Effects for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat can be found at the end of this section in Table 34.

Table 31 - Federally listed species occurring on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and their status in the project area.

Species Name Species Status

Critical Habitat in Project Area

Suitable Habitat Present?

Occur in Project Area?

Mammals Mexican Wolf

Canis lupus baileyi Experimental, non-essential

N/A Yes Yes

New Mexico meadow jumping

mouse Zapus hudsonius

luteus

Endangered Yes Yes Yes

Birds Mexican Spotted

Owl Threatened Yes Yes Yes

Species Name Species Status

Critical Habitat in Project Area

Suitable Habitat Present?

Occur in Project Area?

Strix occidentalis lucida

Southwestern willow flycatcher

Empidonax traillii extimus

Endangered Yes Yes Assumed

Yellow Billed Cuckoo

Coccyzus americanus occidentalis

Threatened No No No

Reptiles and Amphibians

Narrow-headed gartersnake Thamnophis rufipunctatus

Threatened Yes Yes Assumed

Chiricahua leopard frog

Lithobates chiricahuensis

Threatened Yes Yes Assumed

Fish

Apache trout Oncorhynchus gilae

apache

Threatened N/A Yes Yes

Little Colorado River spinedace

Lepidomeda vittata

Threatened Yes Yes Yes

Loach minnow Tiaroga cobitis

Endangered Yes Yes No-Action Area only

Spikedace Meda fulgida

Endangered Yes Yes Not currently in Project or Action Areas

Roundtail chub Gila robusta

Proposed Threatened DPS

Yes Yes No-Action Area only

Summary of Determinations of Effect for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat are listed at the end of this section in Table 34.

Mexican Wolf Species Background Canus lupus baileyi Experimental, non-essential

The Mexican wolf was extirpated from the Southwest in the mid-20th Century through a combination of habitat loss and hunting and other predator control methods. A captive breeding program was established in the 1970’s, and Mexican wolves were reintroduced on the Alpine Ranger District in 1998. This initial release of wolves was the genesis of a population of wild reproducing wolves, heavily managed by a collaboration of agencies termed the Interagency Field Team.


~ 99 ~

Existing Condition

Two packs are known to occur near the project boundary and likely forage through the area regularly. The Elk Horn pack home range encompasses the majority of the northern portion of the project area, although its den site occurs approximately 2 miles outside the project boundary. The Buckalou pack home range reaches across the southern portion of the project south of Highway 180, with its den site approximately 1.5 miles outside the project boundary. As habitat generalists, Mexican wolves may utilize all PNVT categories within the project area, approximately 66,000 acres.

Environmental Consequences-Alternative 1

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1, this landscape level project would not occur; therefore, no effects from project activities to this species would occur. However, negative indirect effects from the no action alternative may occur. The landscape would continue to change over time towards more unhealthy conditions, with no immediate change to the quantity or quality of the habitat for Mexican wolves. Forested habitats would continue to be overstocked and unnaturally dense, shading out understory and herbaceous groundcover in many stands. Meadow and grasslands would continue to have increased conifer encroachment over time. These conditions may suppress prey populations for the Mexican wolves. Fire danger would remain high, and increase over time, with an increasing chance of a stand replacing wildfire. Such a fire would likely temporarily displace wolves from large areas of foraging habitat and expose them to human disturbance associated with fighting fires. These negative effects could reduce habitat quality and quantity for this species.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects associated with this alternative would be to increase the number of acres of National Forest lands that are vulnerable to severe fire effects such as canopy fire and stand replacing fire, as dense forest stands would continue to grow denser and accumulate more fuels over time. These high severity fires reduce or remove habitats from wolves by reducing their ability to support prey species. Disturbance associated with fighting large, high severity fires could be high and would cause wolves to leave the area while the disturbance lasts.



Implementation of Alternative 2 would have direct and indirect effects on Mexican wolves. Machinery and personnel implementing project actions could cause disturbance to Mexican wolves in the immediate area. Wolves would most likely disperse and avoid these areas during

this disturbance, temporarily removing the habitat from their use. Prey populations (deer, elk) may also move out of the area of disturbance. However, this disturbance would be of limited duration (generally a few months) and only in local, specific areas (perhaps 10-200 acres). Project activities would not occur all at once, but would be spread over many years (10-15 years). Wolves would be able to carry out essential life functions such as hunting in nearby dispersal areas. Post implementation, wolves would likely return to treated areas as the vegetation recovers and prey species return to use the new growth the next growing season. We anticipate that the proposed action would have, at most, an insignificant effect on wolves because project actions would not interfere with wolves’ ability to carry out essential life functions and would have a minor and temporary effect on wolves.

Wolves are extremely sensitive to disturbance during denning season, generally April 1 – July 31. During this time packs remain near the den site, and disturbance may cause area avoidance and litter failure. The IFT intensely manages wolves and attempts to locate den locations every year of all known packs. Neither of the two packs with home ranges in the project area den inside the project boundaries. If these packs relocate their dens within the project boundary and the IFT determines that implementation actions may cause disturbance, a no action buffer of 1 mile would be used about the den site to limit or eliminate disturbance to the wolves during April 1 – July 31. If a rendezvous site is located within the project area, project plans would include a no action buffer of 1 mi from June 1 to Sept 30. These mitigation measures would reduce or eliminate these effects such that they are discountable.

We expect long term beneficial effects from project implementation would occur. Restoration of meadows and grasslands, including the use of fire and removal of encroaching conifers, we expect would improve grassland habitat for prey species, especially wintering grounds for elk and pronghorn as well as calving areas. Forest treatments would reduce canopy cover in many locations, leading to an increased herbaceous understory response, providing more forage for deer and elk and other mammals such as rabbits and rodents. These treatments would also reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing fire that could potentially destroy habitat for prey and burn den sites, potentially injuring or killing young. Healthier, more robust prey populations are beneficial for Mexican wolves.

Stream Habitat, Riparian, Wet Meadow, and Upland Soil Stabilization Treatments

Proposed stream restoration activities such as headcut treatments or stream crossing improvements may cause disturbance to foraging wolves. These activities are identified in specific locations. Work related to installation of these structures would occur over a very short period of time, reducing the likelihood of disturbance to wolves such that it is insignificant.


~ 101 ~

Roads

Road decommissioning or obliteration would reduce the amount of vehicular penetration into wolf habitat, limiting or reducing disturbance in these areas. However, the temporary use of ML1 roads may increase the penetration and disturbance, although these roads will be removed/rehabilitated after implementation.

Cumulative Effects

The primary factor that could affect wolves in the action area is disturbance from human actions. Past, ongoing, and future actions in the action area that may cause human disturbance are timber harvest, prescribed fires, recreation activities such as camping (dispersed and developed) and hiking, and grazing. Wolves would likely avoid areas of disturbance. Thus, past project likely have no lingering effect on wolves. Wolves may experience a small increase in disturbance due to implementation of Alternative 2. However, these and other ongoing actions would be of limited duration and occur in localized areas. Thus, wolves could temporarily use other suitable habitat during disturbances. Additionally, wolves could return to treated areas after the disturbance ends. Therefore, we do not expect that disturbance caused by implementation of Alternative 2 would severely affect this species.

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Species Background Zapus hudsonius luteus Endangered New Mexico meadow jumping mouse (NMMJM) is a small mammal that has highly specific habitat needs. The species occurs in riparian areas, along streams, creeks, and other water structures. They require areas of moderate to high soil moisture with dense streamside vegetation with nearby flowing water and often associated with willows and alders (Hoffmeister 1986, Fitzgerald et al. 1994).

Existing Condition

On the ASNFs, the NMMJM occurs in an elevational range between 7500 to 9500 feet on the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts (Morrison 1991). The ASNFs have the largest known population of NMMJM (USDI 2014), with 12 known historically occupied sites. Within the project area, there have been no capture sites or documentation of resident NMMJM. However, 2 drainages with known NMMJM populations upstream flow through the project area (Nutrioso Creek and San Francisco Creek), and there is potential for NMMJM to occur along these stream courses through the project area. Other water courses exist on the east and north sides of Escudilla Mountain where no surveys have occurred. These perennial stream segments, totaling approximately 57 miles, include creeks such as Little, Bob Thomas, Stone, Coyote, Mamie, Lily, and many others named and unnamed. No surveys or capture attempts have occurred within these areas or even within the entire project boundary. The Rapid Assessment tool, a quick habitat suitability assessment tool developed by Region 3 of the USDA Forest Service in 2015,

has not been used in these areas to establish a rough understanding of habitat suitability for the NMMJM. The potential for the species to occur in these perennial streams exists, and therefore with the lack of survey or habitat suitability information, these streams will be assumed to be occupied.



Under Alternative 1, the project would not be implemented and no actions would occur, therefore no effects from project activities to this species would occur. However, negative indirect effects from the no action alternative may occur. The landscape would continue to change over time towards more unhealthy conditions, with no immediate change to the quantity or quality of the habitat for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Riparian systems would continue to degrade due to uncharacteristic erosion events. Canopy cover in some riparian systems would continue to be dense, limiting riparian vegetative growth potential. Fire danger would remain high, and increase over time, with an increasing chance of the potential effect of stand replacing wildfire occurring in the future. These negative effects reduce habitat quality and quantity for this species.

Cumulative effects

Cumulative effects associated with this alternative would be to increase the number of acres of National Forest lands that are vulnerable to severe fire effects such as canopy fire and stand replacing fire, as dense forest stands would continue to grow denser and accumulate more fuels over time. Potential flooding following stand-replacing fires can result in destruction of riparian areas and thus to habitat for the mouse.



Direct and indirect effects from project implementation may occur on the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse.

Forest, Woodland, and Grassland Health Restoration

In riparian PNVTs where encroaching conifers are identified, coniferous trees would be removed by hand. Vegetative treatments would include removing small diameter trees and ladder fuels, decreasing overhead canopy shading of riparian systems, potentially resulting in an increased herbaceous foliage community response. These treatments would be beneficial for the NMMJM, which is dependent on dense, herbaceous riparian vegetation for both food and cover. A timing restriction would be in effect to restrict activities from occurring within a 100 meter buffer of


~ 103 ~

potentially occupied stream habitat during the active season for the mouse, which will reduce direct effects to the NMMJM to where they are discountable. Some habitat disturbance may occur, but this disturbance would have an insignificant effect on mouse habitat because it would be of short duration, localized, and would not occur across the entire project area at once. Vegetative communities are expected to recover and possibly improve (e.g., become more herbaceous) fairly quickly (with a growing season). Thus, we expect vegetation treatments to have an insignificant effect on mouse habitat If prior to implementation habitat assessments or other surveys are conducted that demonstrate a particular stream is not suitable NMMJM habitat or that NMMJM are not present, restrictions may be lifted through consultation with the District Biologist.

Prescribed burning is proposed for some riparian areas, and would be implemented in the spring or fall when humidity is higher and temperatures are cooler to produce desired low severity outcomes. Prescribed fire in riparian areas would be ignited indirectly, outside of the riparian zone, allowing the fire to burn naturally back towards the water’s edge (USDA 2015). High humidity and ground moisture near riparian areas typically produces minimal fire activity resulting in low intensity burns. Fire effects on NMMJM are not well known. Mitigation measures would reduce or eliminate potential negative effects for riparian areas by burning outside of the active season for the NMMJM (June 15-Oct 15). We expect that these applications of fire should create a vegetation mosaic and reduce catastrophic fire danger in the long term in both the upland habitat and riparian habitat for NMMJM. Herbaceous vegetation would be burned during hibernation periods for the mouse, so indirect effects on the NMMJM should be avoided and would have at most, discountable effects.

Stream Habitat, Riparian, Wet Meadow, and Upland Soil Stabilization Treatment

Watershed/stream restoration activities that may affect NMMJM are planned for multiple stream systems in the project area. These activities include installation of Zuni bowls, rock dams, cement jacks, log weirs, or cross vein weirs. While installation of these structures would occur in potentially suitable summer riparian habitat, use of timing restrictions would minimize the chance of direct mortality to mice to discountable. Likewise, changes to vegetation would occur over a small area that would most likely recover prior to mouse emergence the following breeding season. Thus, ground disturbing actions that would reduce herbaceous vegetation in a localized area are unlikely to affect the mouse. Additionally, these riparian communities are expected to regrow quickly the following spring prior to the emergence of the NMMJM from hibernation. Beneficial effects from these activities include reduced potential for erosion and a more stable water table, which would allow riparian vegetative systems to persist in more healthy conditions into the future which the NMMJM depend on. Healthy riparian systems that have adequate herbaceous vegetation for the NMMJM are critical to preserving local populations and gene flow, one of the requirements for recovery of the species recommended from the Species Status Assessment (USFWS 2014). Negative impacts to the NMMJM (such as

herbaceous vegetation reduction, trampling of nests or individuals) would be avoided by a timing restriction such that these activities will occur outside of the active season (June 15 – Oct 15) for the NMMJM. Thus, we expect at most, discountable effects to the mouse from installation of the stream structures.

Roads

Three low water stream crossings are planned for use as part of the Proposed Action. These are on FR 8889 crossing of Coyote Creek, FR 8887 crossing of Little Creek, and FR 8440 crossing of Pace Creek. These are existing crossings on Forest system roads that are not suitable habitat for NMMJM as they lack vegetation suitable for the species. These crossings are proposed for stream crossing improvements to reduce or eliminate instream effects from the project. Suitable habitat may exist immediately upstream or downstream from these locations and site specific consultation with the biologist would be required prior to work beginning to assess the need for a timing restriction for maintenance work. If these streams do appear to have suitable habitat for NMMJM, these restrictions would be in place to eliminate potential effects to the NMMJM.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities include timber sales and prescribed fire, as well as recreation activities such as camping (dispersed and developed), hiking, and grazing. Timber and prescribed fire activities were from projects such as Alpine WUI, Little multi product sale, Eagar south, Wallow Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) actions (including erosion control and beetle kill treatments), and Alpine Wildland Urban Interface (WUI). Noxious weed treatments have been done in the project area. The majority of the impact on NMMJM are from activities that took place within perennial stream riparian zones, such as BAER activities and grazing. BAER activities such as erosion control wattles or other structures in stream courses would have caused short term disturbance and reduced herbaceous vegetation in the direct vicinity of the activity, however had beneficial impacts with reduced erosion, protecting downstream riparian communities from head-cutting or flooding. Livestock grazing can negatively impact NMMJM through the forage and subsequent reduction of food and cover in riparian zones used by the mouse. The permittees and the range management specialist from the Alpine Ranger District actively and closely manage livestock in riparian systems, moving cattle between pastures and limiting the amount of access cattle have to riparian areas by rotation and timing to limit these effects.

Mexican Spotted Owl Species Background Strix occidentalis lucida Threatened

The Mexican spotted owl (MSO) was listed as a threatened species in March 1993 (USFWS 1993), with critical habitat first established in 1995 and then revised in 2012. The Apache-


~ 105 ~

Sitgreaves National Forests lie within the Upper Gila Mountain Ecological Management Unit, as defined in the 2012 Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012).

Existing Condition

We surveyed historically occupied breeding territories and other suitable habitat for MSO breeding activity in 2014, 2015, and 2016. Surveys detected 2 new MSO breeding territories, although nesting or reproduction was not confirmed for either. Thus, a total of 8 known MSO breeding territories occur wholly or partially within the action area (project boundary and ½ mi buffer). The Forest Service establishes Protected Activity Centers (PACs) at the center of territories (i.e., nests) for management purposes, and 6 PACs and a portion of the seventh and eighth occur within the action area. Most of these PACs are located in the central and southern portion of the directly east of Escudilla Mountain (See map-Appendix B).



Under Alternative 1, no project activities would be implemented. Habitat conditions would remain in their current state, with no immediate change in habitat quantity or quality. No direct effects would occur on the MSO through the no action alternative, although indirect effects would occur. Dense forested stands would continue to persist across the landscape, with high severity crown fire potential continuing to place MSO and habitat at risk of habitat loss and thus extirpation of the species from the project area. Ground fire would have an increased risk of climbing trees to the canopy and turn into canopy fire due to high ladder fuel volumes. High tree densities would continue to increase the development of old growth large diameter trees and the development of suitable nesting/roosting habitat. Bark beetle and mistletoe infestation would continue at high levels, reducing health and vigor of MSO habitat, possibly reducing habitat quality and quantity.

Cumulative Effects

Past projects include timber logging related to the Nutri WUI, Alpine WUI, Wallow Fire BAER actions, Little multi product sale, forest road maintenance, past, current, and future grazing on FS allotments which could reduce habitat for prey populations, private actions from private inholdings within and around the project area and recreational disturbances (dispersed camping, hiking, ATV’s). These activities have produced a number of effects to MSO, through reduction of quantity or quality of habitat (Logging, grazing) to noise disturbance that may have impacted MSO behavior or reproduction (Road maintenance, recreation).


Direct and Indirect effects


Through implementation of the Proposed Action, six of the eight PACs in the Action Area are planned to have some combination of treatments. Mechanical (machinery and hand thinning) and burn treatments planned for West Escudilla MSO PACs are displayed by acreage in Table 32. Prescribed burning is planned after mechanical treatments and in units planned for ‘prescribed burning with site prep’ treatment types, prescribed burning will be the only treatment. Nest cores would be treated with prescribed fire with site prep only. Treatments are designed to move PACs toward desired conditions for the Forest plan (USDA 2015) and the Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) by reducing threat of catastrophic stand replacing wildfire, promoting large tree growth and development of old growth habitat, reducing mistletoe infection and increasing roosting/nesting stand health and vigor, and boosting prey populations by rejuvenating understory vegetation.

Mechanical treatments

Mechanical treatments would occur on 523 acres of Protected Habitat in PACs, or 16% of Protected Habitat in the project area. These treatments would consist of intermediate thinning of smaller trees up to 16” DBH. We would maintain 120 BA (calculated with all tree species) in areas where it currently exists, retaining 30% of BA in trees 12-18” DBH and retaining 30% of BA in trees 18” DBH and larger, as well as retaining all hardwood species (oak). These treatments follow the guidelines as described in the Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012). Removing smaller trees promotes health and vigor in the largest, healthiest trees speeding their development into old growth, larger size class trees that are needful for MSO nesting/roosting requirements. Thinning these small trees out also reduces fire hazard within the PACs and creates a buffer around the nest cores from high severity crown fires by reducing ladder fuels.

Mechanical treatments would also occur on 265 acres of Recovery Nest/Roost habitat, or 25% of the Nest/Roost acres across the project area (1054 acres). Group selection would be used to create openings 0.1 to 2.5 acres, preferably less than one acre. These openings would allow for understory development and habitat/food for prey species for the MSO, as well as allow more diversity within nesting/roosting habitat, improving foraging potential by boosting prey populations in these areas for MSO.

Mechanical treatments would also occur on 1,385 acres of Recovery Foraging/Non-breeding habitat, or 34% of Foraging/Non-breeding habitat across the project area (4116 acres). Group selection would also be used in this treatment type, creating openings 0.1 to 2.5 acres in size. Key owl habitat elements would be retained, including hardwood trees (oak) 12” and larger.


~ 107 ~

Table 32 - Mexican spotted owl treatments in each PAC (and core) within the Action Area, presented in acres.

PAC Name

Total area MSO Protected outside core in PAC (in core)

Burn only w/ site prep in PAC and (in core)

No Treatment in PAC and (in core)

PAC acres outside of Project boundary (Core)

Bob Thomas

609(91) 0 (0) 432 (62) 29 (22) 148 (7)

Butler 646(103) 0 (0) 0 (0) 515 (103) 131 (0) Flat 613(102) 314 (0) 299 (102) 0 (0) 0 (0) Jackson Springs

763(102) 14 (0) 0 (0) 62 (0) 687 (102)

Lily Creek

665(105) 180 (0) 445 (105) 0 (0) 0 (0)

Little Creek

656(103) 15 (0) 84 (9) 0 (0) 557 (94)

Lower Stone Creek

640(108) 0 (0) 321 (2) 170 (34) 149 (72)

Turner Peak

612(104) 0 (0) 0 (0) 589 (104) 23 (0)

Totals 5,204(818) 523 (0) 1,581 (280)

1,365 (263) 1695 (275)

The following treatments would not occur inside PACs: MSO recovery nest/roost and foraging/non-breeding treatments. Prescribed fire and MSO protected activity center treatment types would occur within PACs.

Potential disturbance of Mexican spotted owls from mechanical treatments

During the MSO breeding season, activities would not occur within ¼ mi of PAC boundaries or within PACs from Mar 1 – Aug 31 unless surveys have determined the PACs as unoccupied, per guidance in the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (Owl Recovery Plan; USFWS 2012). Despite implementing a buffer around PACs, some disturbance of nesting owls may occur. We expect, however, that these buffers would reduce the effects of disturbance to insignificant levels such that nest abandonment and reduction in reproductive output would not occur.

Disturbance from treatments in PACs outside of the breeding season may displace MSOs using the PAC area for foraging and roosting. However, these treatments would occur in localized areas over a relatively short duration. Because no treatment would occur across an entire PAC, displaced MSOs have adjacent habitat to escape disturbance and would be able to carry out essential life functions such as foraging, resting, etc. We expect that these disturbances would be short term and transitory to the owls in any given area, as well as having no measurable effect on reproduction or other essential life functions such that these effects would be insignificant to the MSO.

Potential changes to Mexican spotted owl habitat from mechanical treatments

Although we would decrease basal area and canopy cover, we would adapt on-the-ground project implementation to retain basal area and canopy cover in MSO Recovery nest/roost areas as per the Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012, Tables C.2 and C.3) even though the modeling shows a drop below the required level of minimal canopy cover. The reduction of canopy cover and basal area would reduce the risk of high severity fire, and would speed development of larger size class trees and quality nesting habitat. Beetle hazard to stands in all treatment types would be reduced, increasing health and vigor of retained trees and prolong the life of these stands into the future, providing for future nest/roost habitat. Heavy mistletoe infection would be reduced through thinning of trees with the worst DM infections. While this would provide increased stand health and longevity, it also possibly reduces some nesting habitat, as these mistletoe malformations often can provide nesting structures for MSO. To mitigate potential effects to nest trees, prior to treatments in MSO PACs, we would locate nest trees and mark them for retention, eliminating the possibility of removal of nesting structures. Therefore, we expect that vegetation treatments would have discountable effect on MSO nest habitat.

In some cases, snags and logs may be removed in PACs or recovery habitat. Large, stable snags would be prioritized for retention. Additionally, through the application of fire treatments some snags and logs would be created and are expected to replace some snags lost through thinning treatments. Forest plan direction will be followed, with desired conditions for snags and logs averaging 3 per acre in the dry mixed conifer PNVT, with significantly more for wet mixed conifer stands (20 or more snags 8”, with 1 to 5 of those snags >18”). Implementation of these guidelines would provide important habitat features for MSO.

The West Escudilla Restoration project also would utilize an Old and Large Tree Retention strategy (Appendix C). The strategy is to focus restoration treatments on small diameter tree thinning, to retain large trees whenever possible, and to more specifically design treatments so that large trees (generally >16” DBH) will be retained unless they must be cut to meet the desired conditions listed in the Forest Plan. This strategy would benefit the MSO by retaining older, large trees across the landscape, coupled with treatments, to speed their development into larger old growth across the project area to provide for nesting and roosting habitat.

Prescribed burning

Prescribed burning would also occur as part of all proposed vegetation treatments, including within about 1,581 acres of Protected Habitat within PACs, 280 acres in nest cores, and 843 acres of Recovery Habitat (Nest/roost and Foraging). In no case would prescribed burning treat an entire PAC.


~ 109 ~

Potential habitat effects from prescribed burning

Additionally, prescribed fire would be managed to low severity fire effects, allowing controlled fire to consume ground fuels such as duff and dead and down fuels, as well as smaller trees. Canopy structure and stand integrity would remain intact. These fire treatments would remove ladder fuels, decrease the risk of high severity fire, and increase herbaceous growth that would also increase MSO prey populations in subsequent years.

Potential disturbance effects of prescribed burning

MSO could experience some disturbance from personnel igniting and managing these prescribed fires. However, burning in PACs would occur outside of the breeding season to eliminate disturbance to breeding owls. Thus, we would only expect disturbance of foraging and roosting to occur. MSOs would be able to forage in areas adjacent to those being treated because prey animals would seek shelter or escape to unburned areas as these treatments are applied. Because these adjacent areas would likely be within a MSO pair’s home range and possibly still within their PAC, we expect that these disturbances would be short term and transitory to the owls in any given area, and would have no measurable effect on reproduction such that these effects would be insignificant to the MSO.

Potential smoke effects from prescribed burning

The majority of the proposed burning units are north of the MSO PACs in the pinyon-juniper and grasslands, and generally would not cause smoke impacts such as nest/roost abandonment due to heavy smoke on the PACs that occur in the central and southern portion of the project area. However, limited burning would occur in and around many of the PACs and they would experience some smoke effects. Smoke impacts may affect some MSO, but these effects would be of short duration and transitory in nature. Prevailing winds would move smoke relatively quickly from MSO PACs. Displaced MSO have adjacent habitat to escape disturbance and would be able to carry out essential life functions such as foraging, resting, etc. (Table 31 above). Thus, we expect smoke effects would have no measurable effect on MSOs and thus would have insignificant effects on this species.


Head-cut treatments proposed through this project are planned along Lily Creek in the Lily Creek PAC. These activities would be seasonally restricted to reduce disturbance of reproducing spotted owls. If surveys determine that the PAC is unoccupied, these restrictions may be lifted during that season. These treatments would stabilize the riparian system and preserve riparian vegetation and banks, which may benefit the spotted owl. Disturbance through implementation is not expected to occur to spotted owls, as this treatment location is in an open meadow with the

activity core of the PAC over 1/3 miles away. Thus, disturbance associated with this action is so unlikely to occur as to be discountable.

Roads

Thinning and timber harvest treatments would utilize ML1 for machinery to access the units. Roads opened inside or within ¼ mi of PACs would be subject to timing restrictions to reduce disturbance to MSO during the breeding season. Roads opened will be closed at the end of activities, with the road physically closed and ripped/reseeded to restore the road to a natural condition. Following these guidelines this disturbance will be short term, and would have only insignificant effects.

Hauling associated with timber activities would be seasonally restricted within ¼ mi of PACs, excepting use of FR 275, which is a ML3 road with a high degree of use. All MSO PACs except the Bob Thomas PAC are topographically shielded from disturbance. Hauling would be restricted through the Bob Thomas PAC to reduce disturbance during the breeding season. These considerations would minimize disturbance to breeding owls from increased traffic and noise associated with log hauling trucks such that the effects would be so unlikely to occur as to be discountable.

Road decommissioning in PACs is planned through restoration treatments with this project. An estimated 11.56 miles are targeted for decommissioning within PAC boundaries. Decommissioning of roads typically involves obstructing access to the road from the public and scarifying (ripping) the road as well as seeding the area to speed natural recovery processes. Decommissioning these roads would reduce disturbance associated with public motorized use such as ATVs or high clearance vehicles, as well as creating additional usable habitat by prey species. These activities would take place outside of the breeding season. Other road work associated with the project such as culvert work, road opening or other activities will also have a ¼ mi seasonal restriction buffer around PACs to limit disturbance to reproducing MSO during the breeding season. Normal road maintenance may continue as usual. While road work may cause localized areas of disturbance, owls would be access to adjacent habitat to carry out essential life functions such as foraging and roosting. Therefore, the disturbance associated with roads are expected to have only insignificant effects, while MSO habitat will be improved through the decommissioning of roads in the project area in MSO habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future state, private, or federal activities have occurred or will occur in and around MSO habitat in the project area. These activities range from timber harvesting, to BAER activities post Wallow-Fire, to private land use and recreational disturbance. Projects such as Alpine WUI, Nutri WUI, Little multi product sale, were timber related activities that likely created disturbance or reduced or removed habitat for the spotted


~ 111 ~

owl. Fire management, such as pile burning, also occurred in areas near or in MSO habitat. Public recreation in the area is generally at a low, constant level due to the proximity to private lands and the Alpine community, adding to baseline disturbance in these areas. Noxious weed treatment actions, Range management and other actions also impacted MSO prey habitat both beneficially and negatively. Restoration treatments planned on the Gila NF just across the border in the future will add to disturbance and habitat manipulation in the general area. These actions and effects may have contributed to disturbance of MSO in the project area, however are not expected to cumulatively combine to exceed the discountable and insignificant threshold.

Determination-Alternative 2

Project actions in MSO PACs and nest/roost will follow guidelines as described in the MSO Recovery Plan and Forest Plan. Actions within ¼ mi of PACs will be seasonally restricted, reducing or limiting disturbance to MSO. Treatments will reduce canopy, high severity fire risk and protect MSO nesting cores from stand replacing events, along with road decommissioning actions will improve habitat for MSO prey in the long term. Disturbance from project implementation will be short term and transitory in nature. Treatments may cause disturbance and temporary habitat loss, but we expect that the habitat loss would not measurably reduce breeding or foraging habitat for the breeding pairs.

Southwestern willow flycatcher Species Background Empidonax trailii extimus Endangered

Southwestern willow flycatchers (SWFL) were listed in 1995 as an endangered species, with critical habitat first designated in November 2005 and finalized in 2013 (USFWS 1995, 2013).

Existing Condition

Southwestern willow flycatchers have been documented nesting on the Alpine Ranger District along the San Francisco River, approximately 0.7 miles east of the project boundary. This site is on a Forest Service administrative use pasture, commonly known as the “Horse Pasture.” Nesting birds were discovered in the pasture in 1993. This site was monitored by the AZGF from 1993-2006, with nesting documented from 1993-2004. FS biologists began surveying annually from 2009 to the present, with no SWFL being detected during that time frame.

A single adult SWFL was also detected at the head of Nelson Reservoir in 1994 within the project boundary. This bird was found in willow stands that are growing within an elk exclosure at the head of Nelson Reservoir. Multiple stands of willows occur in the exclosure, and this area continues to progress towards suitable habitat, although it is unlikely suitable nesting habitat at the present time. Follow up surveys from 1995 to 2006 by the AZGF and then by USFS biologists from 2006 to the present have not resulted in detections of SWFL in this location. It is

possible that this was a migrating individual rather than a resident bird attempting to establish a breeding territory.

No other occurrences of SWFL have been documented in the project boundary, although systematic surveys have not been completed. Numerous perennial streams, approximately 57 miles, exist in the project boundary. None of these streams have sufficient riparian vegetation to provide suitable habitat for SWFL. Approximately 256 acres of montane willow riparian forest exist in the project boundary, although these riparian areas also lack sufficient density to provide for SWFL nesting or breeding habitat. These areas could be used by migratory individuals passing through the project area during spring and fall.


Direct and indirect effects

Under Alternative 1, no project activities would be implemented, therefore there would be no direct effects on SWFL. Indirect negative effects may occur on the species. Tree density will continue to increase. The riparian vegetation that the species depends on would remain threatened by high severity wildfire and subsequent flooding and destabilization that occurs after such fire of these riparian systems. Conifer encroachment and dense over story canopy would persist in some areas, limiting woody riparian vegetation regeneration of such species as Bebb’s Willow. Recovery of riparian systems affected by the Wallow Fire of 2011 would continue at a much slower pace than would be anticipated from Alternative 2. These negative effects reduce or limit habitat quality and quantity for this species.

Cumulative effects

Conditions influenced by lack of management activities would contribute toward an increased risk for high severity wildfire affecting SWFLs. Forested vegetation types would continue and increase in density, limiting health and vigor of riparian willow habitat for SWFL. The fire hazard would continue to grow over time as vegetation grows and fuels continue to accumulate.


Under Alternative 2, direct and indirect effects may occur on the Southwestern willow flycatcher.


It is expected that migratory SWFL will be utilizing riparian habitats in the Action Area. Implementation of mechanical and hand thinning activities of encroaching conifers in riparian zones and nearby timber stands could disturb migrating individuals as they pass through, causing habitat avoidance. However, migratory individuals would likely move through the area quickly. Disturbance to nesting SWFL is not expected, as none of the riparian systems in the project area


~ 113 ~

have suitable nesting habitat. Lower San Francisco River, below Luna Lake, has potential to develop into suitable nesting habitat but is not suitable at this time nor in the reasonably foreseeable future (10-20 years). Implementation of these activities would have short term disturbance, but would also have long term benefits in the reduction of high severity wildfire that would eliminate willow stands and cause massive floods with large erosion events that unravel riparian vegetative systems by lowering the water table eventually leading to the decline and death of willow stands affected. Removal of encroaching conifers and over story timber also releases woody riparian vegetation from competition for resources, allowing increased vigor and growth of willows that SWFL depend on. Thus we expect only minor, temporary effects such that they would be insignificant to SWFL.

Potential disturbance effects of prescribed burning

Burning along riparian streams is planned for this project that may impact the SWFL. Riparian burns would be ignited indirectly, allowing the fire to back towards the water’s edge allowing it to burn naturally. High humidity and ground moisture near riparian areas typically produces minimal fire activity resulting in low intensity burns. These applications of fire would likely create a mosaic of burned areas that mimic natural fire effects in these systems, reducing catastrophic fire danger in the long term as a positive effect on SWFL. In the short term, some live riparian woody species such as willow may be burned, reducing available habitat for the bird, although this is expected to occur in few cases. Willows, such as Bebb’s willow, are known to sprout vigorously after fire and this may increase the health and vigor of some stands, while reducing dead and down fuel accumulation that in turn reduces the risk of high severity wildfire. Generally, these burns are planned for the spring and fall when burn conditions are right to provide the effects as described above and SWFL are not present in the project area. We expect only discountable effects as these actions are very unlikely to occur when SWFL are present.


Watershed and riparian restoration activities planned in the project area may affect SWFL. Activities planned include bank and soil stabilization techniques such as installation of Zuni bowls or other erosion impediment structures. The installation of these features may cause SWFL to temporarily avoid the areas of project activities. Positive benefits of these features could occur such as decreased sedimentation, and more stabilized banks and stream courses, slowing or preventing the water table from dropping which causes decline and/or death of SWFL willow habitat. Planting of willows or other desirable species may occur along designated streams. Disturbance from personnel conducting this work may cause individuals to move through more quickly or avoid the areas of work. Long term benefits for SWFLs could occur as additional willow stands are recruited and riparian streams in the project area move towards providing suitable nesting habitat. Thus, we expect that these activities would have minor and temporary and thus insignificant effects on SWFL.

Roads

Roads proposed for use in the project area would have increased use during project implementation from large equipment and vehicles. However, road stream crossings proposed for use do not contain willow stands used by SWFLs. Thus, we expect road construction would not disturb migrating SWFLs. Thus, we expect road use to have discountable effects on SWFLs as they migrate through the area.

Cumulative effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future activities include timber sales and prescribed fire, as well as recreation activities such as camping (dispersed and developed), hiking, and grazing. These activities were from projects such as Alpine WUI, Little multi product sale, Eagar south, Wallow BAER actions (including erosion control and beetle kill treatments), Alpine WUI, and noxious weeds treatment. Activities that contribute to disturbance in riparian areas or reduction of riparian vegetative health may cumulatively combine with planned project activities. Ongoing recreation along riparian areas is generally high, and has in the past and will into the future provide disturbance to migrating SWFL. Past timber harvest may have contributed to disturbance, though generally is somewhat removed from stream courses and likely was limited or nonexistent. Past prescribed fires may have reduced willow stands and impacted SWFL individuals, although are generally low to moderate intensity and do not torch healthy willow stands in wetted areas.

Mexican Spotted Owl Critical Habitat Species Critical Habitat Background

Mexican spotted owl (MSO) critical habitat was designated in 2004 by the Fish and Wildlife Service. The primary constituent elements (PCEs) for forested areas such as mixed conifer, pine-oak, and riparian areas that exist in the project area are:

Forest Structure PCEs (A):

A range of tree species, including mixed-conifer, pine-oak, and riparian forest types, composed of different tree sizes reflecting different ages of trees, 30-45% of which are large trees with a trunk diameter of > 12” DBH;

A shaded canopy created by the tree branches and foliage covering >40% of the ground;

Large, dead trees (i.e., snags) with a trunk diameter of at least 12” DBH;

We evaluated the current condition and effects to PCE A (1) for forest structure using criteria in Table C.3 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012).

Maintenance of Adequate prey species PCEs (B):


~ 115 ~

High volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris;

A wide range of tree and plant species, including hardwoods;

Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and allow plant regeneration.

Forest types that have been identified as spotted owl habitat in include mixed conifer, pine-oak, riparian, and rock-walled canyon habitats. These habitat types are categorized as protected habitat (the habitat within an MSO Protected Activity Center (PAC) used by the owl for nesting and roosting) and recovery habitat (all other suitable habitat types outside of MSO PACs).

Existing Condition

The West Escudilla project boundary contains 2 of the 4 types of MSO habitat types: mixed conifer and pine-oak stands. Approximately 8,670 acres of MSO habitat consisting of those two forest types have been identified in the Vegetation section above, stratified as shown in Figure 3 above (Proposed Action, Chap. 2).

Table 33 - Existing critical habitat conditions for mixed conifer and pine-oak forest types. Expressed as average (of three stands) percent (%) tree basal area (BA)), for areas managed as recovery nesting/roosting habitat in the West Escudilla project area. See Table C.3 in the Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) for the minimum desired conditions.

Forest Type Acres % of BA in 12-18” dbh

trees

% of BA in >18” dbh

trees

Average BA sq. ft.

Average density of trees

> 18” (trees/acre)

Mixed Conifer

1,886 16% 13% 141 7

Pine-oak 3,456 29% 23% 99 9

Currently, the proportion of MSO recovery nest/roost habitat in mixed conifer and pine oak forests that meets minimum desired conditions is below recommended minimums (USDA 2016b). Minimum desired percent basal area should contain trees in the two size categories in Table 20 in the proposed action greater than 30 % (Table C.3 of the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012)). Only a small amount of habitat meets the minimum required conditions for MSO recovery nesting/roosting habitat; there are 3 stands that total approximately 77 acres in MSO recovery habitat that meet the minimum desired conditions for MSO recovery nesting/roosting habitat.

We are using fire regime condition class as a measure for PCE B. Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from historical conditions, with attributes analyzed including species composition, structural stage, stand age, canopy closure, mosaic pattern, fuel composition, fire frequency and fire severity. Fuel composition is the main

component metric that we use to determine current conditions of PCE B (1), fallen trees and woody debris. Vegetation attributes such as species and composition are indicators for PCE B (2) and (3).

Our analysis of the existing conditions for FRCC for the project area indicates that the majority of MSO habitat in the project area is classified as FRCC 2 which indicates a relatively high volume of down woody material and surface vegetation loading, thus there currently exists an adequate amount of PCEs for adequate prey species for the owl (see Figure 10 in Fire and Fuels section above).



Under Alternative 1, no restoration actions would be implemented in the project area. No immediate change would occur to critical habitat quantity or quality as no mechanical or prescribed burning would occur, with habitat remaining in its current state as existing on the landscape. Thus, no direct effects would occur to MSO Critical Habitat. Indirect effects may occur as MSO Critical Habitat would remain at risk of high severity wildfire. Dense forested stands (high BA and closed canopy cover) would continue to persist across the landscape, with high severity crown fire potential continuing to place MSO and it’s habitat at risk. These dense, forested areas would likely have stand replacement occur if high severity fire occurred, reducing the nesting/roosting habitat qualities needed by MSO. Ground fire would have an increased risk of climbing trees to the canopy and turn into canopy fire due to high ladder fuel volumes. High tree densities would continue to impact development of old growth large diameter trees and the development of suitable nesting/roosting habitat. Bark beetle and mistletoe infestation would continue at high levels, reducing health and vigor of MSO habitat, possibly reducing habitat quality and quantity.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable state, private, and federal actions in and around the project area have occurred or are occurring. Actions on private land include noise and recreational disturbances. Federal activities in the past that have affected MSO critical habitat include logging or otherwise habitat manipulation such as the Alpine WUI, Nutri WUI, Little multiproduct sale, and thinning/pile burning have in some cases reduced habitat quantity or quality. Noxious weed management may have had a beneficial impact through improvement of prey habitat, while actions such as range allotment management may have reduced prey habitat quantity or quality.


~ 117 ~



While most of the West Escudilla Restoration project area falls within the designated boundaries of critical habitat, only approximately 8,670 acres of is considered suitable critical habitat(per the Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012), stratified as identified above in Figure 3 of the proposed action. Of these acres, approximately 4,877 acres (56%) would receive restoration treatments. These treatments are designed to maintain or enhance PCEs for forest structure and prey base.

Goshawk habitat stratified treatments are not planned to occur in suitable MSO habitat. If a silviculturist determines an area is suitable MSO critical habitat following guidance from the Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012), then an MSO treatment would occur in that stand. If a stand is determined to be unsuitable for MSO nesting or foraging habitat, a goshawk or other treatment would be planned. Therefore, goshawk stratified treatments that occur in designated MSO critical habitat are unlikely to affect MSO PCEs. Moreover, goshawk stratified treatments may improve habitat such that it develops PCEs (e.g., encouraging development of pine-oak forest habitat).

Treatments in MSO nesting and foraging habitat would affect PCEs for forest structure (PCE A). Thinning treatments are designed to retain and enhance tree species diversity, with emphasis on hardwood species such as oak. Recovery (habitat with the potential for becoming, nest/roost habitat or does or could provide foraging, dispersal, or wintering habitats) and protected (nest/roost habitat in PACs) habitat forested stands would be managed to retain a diversity of tree sizes reflecting different ages of trees, with 30% of BA in trees 12 to 18”DBH and 30% of BA in trees 18” DBH where possible (per definitions and criteria in the Owl Recovery Plan (2012)). Implementation of proposed cutting and burning treatments would result in a reduction in large (> 12” DBH) tree density, but the goal is to reduce tree density to 30% BA, which is the lower range of the large tree density in for the minimum desired conditions in the Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) that corresponds to PCE A (1). Canopy cover (PCE A (2)) would be slightly reduced through the removal of smaller trees (Figure 3 in proposed action), but this reduction is expected to be temporary, as larger trees experience reduced competition and increased growth and vigor. Increases in canopy cover post treatment are site specific but generally increase over subsequent decades. In areas where thinning treatments and subsequent prescribed burning would reduce canopy cover or basal area below Owl Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012) guidelines anticipated in the initial modeling exercise, we would modify stand prescriptions so use of on-the-ground adaptive techniques such as jackpot burning or other methods would ensure Recovery Plan guidelines are met. In each case, the district wildlife biologist would be consulted to determine the best method for each individual stand. Large snags (PCE A (3)) may be burned during prescribed burn treatments; however, by using low severity fire with adequate fuel moistures most existing large snags would be retained. During prescribed burning some

additional snags or down logs may be created. Mechanical thinning and other treatment types are not expected to have measurable effects on this PCE as large, old snags would be identified and retained during implementation. Treatments would provide for long term benefits for MSO habitat. Each of these PCEs would be retained on the landscape sufficient to meet the needs of the species through these project design criteria such that these effects would be insignificant.

PCEs related to maintenance of adequate prey species (PCE B) include high volumes of fallen trees and other woody debris, a wide range of tree and plant species, including hardwoods and adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain fruits, seeds, and allow plant regeneration. Down woody debris (PCE B (1)) would be reduced through treatment of critical habitat with prescribed fire. This treatment moves these areas towards levels similar to historic conditions and allows for future maintenance and reduction of high severity fire risk. Fire treatments would occur during times of adequate fuel moisture that would reduce the risk of large log consumption (logs 12” or greater at midpoint and at least 8 feet long). Localized prey populations may be temporarily reduced during fire treatment as they take shelter in adjacent habitat. Vegetative recovery is expected to occur relatively quickly given the normal range of variability in precipitation, with an increased herbaceous vegetative response that we expect would be beneficial for MSO prey populations. Staggered annual treatments would prevent effects from occurring across all MSO prey habitat in any given year. Changes to the PCE for adequate prey species are therefore expected to have, at most, insignificant effects.

Treatments are focused on emphasizing and encouraging tree and plant species diversity (PCE B (2)), including Gambel oak. Oak trees would not be harvested mechanically, but some may be lost to low severity broadcast fire. Generally, oaks regenerate rapidly post fire, especially in areas with high duff layers prior to fire treatment. Canopy reduction would aid in understory species development, including oak. Adequate levels of residual plant cover (PCE B (3)) would be maintained with low severity prescribed fire due to expected mosaic fire effects in MSO habitat areas. These expected low severity fire effects would allow for residual plants to persist and recover immediately post burn, and also encourage vegetative regeneration within a year or two. Treatments may have a short term insignificant effect on herbaceous plants, cover, and seeds, but would have long term benefits to MSO prey habitat and populations.

We would minimize negative effects to PCEs from other project actions such as creation of skid trails and log landings by adhering to BMPs and conservation measures. Thus, we expect that these project actions would have, at most, insignificant effects on PCEs of MSO critical habitat.


Areas where proposed stream, riparian, and wet meadow habitat occur do not support PCEs for MSO critical habitat; therefore, we expect these proposed treatments would have no effect on MSO critical habitat.


~ 119 ~

Roads

Existing roads, including ML1 roads currently in storage proposed for use and maintenance during this project, do not contain PCEs of MSO critical habitat. Therefore, their use and maintenance would have no effect on MSO critical habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and reasonably foreseeable state, private, and federal actions in and around the project area have occurred or are occurring. Actions on private land include noise and recreational disturbances. Federal activities in the past that have affected MSO critical habitat include logging or otherwise habitat manipulation such as the Alpine WUI, Nutri WUI, Little multiproduct sale, and thinning/pile burning have in some cases reduced habitat quantity or quality. Wallow fire BAER actions would have protected MSO habitat from post fire flooding or other negative events, as well as protected or improved prey habitat through seeding and bank stabilization. Noxious weed management may have had a beneficial impact through improvement of prey habitat, while actions such as range allotment management may have reduced prey habitat quantity or quality. Range effects are mitigated by active grazing management focused on pasture timing and rotation as well as adaptive management techniques to minimize or reduce effects on the land. These additional actions may combine with project effects, but generally provide beneficial impacts to MSO habitats or are mitigated through BMPs or other mitigations.

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Critical Habitat Species Critical Habitat Background

The final rule for New Mexico meadow jumping mouse Critical Habitat was published on March 16, 2016. This rule established and described the areas considered critical habitat for the species, as well as the primary constituent elements (PCEs) that the species requires.

These are:

1) Riparian communities along rivers, streams, springs, and wetlands that contain persistent emergent herbaceous vegetation consisting of sedges and forbs or scrub-shrub areas dominated by willows and alders;

2) flowing water that provides saturated soils throughout the NMMJMs active season that supports tall vegetation of at least 24 inches;

3) sufficient areas of 5.6 to 15mi along a stream, ditch or canal that contain suitable or restorable habitat, and

4) adjacent floodplain and upland areas extending 100m from the boundary of the active water channel.

Existing Condition

Critical habitat as designated by the FWS for the NMMJM occurs on the Apache Sitgreaves National Forests, mostly on the Alpine Ranger District. Within the project boundary, 0.6 miles of critical habitat are within the action area along Nutrioso Creek just upstream of Nelson Reservoir. This section of the stream exhibits past entrenching, though it appears to be widening and developing a new floodplain (Hydrology section below). The stream channel becomes deeply incised on private lands upstream of the project boundary, and remains incised until the stream flows through into an elk exclosure erected near the stream’s entry into Nelson Reservoir. Here, channel incision eventually diminishes and the area becomes a wetland with willow patches. Saturated soils and dense herbaceous vegetation is present along these stretches in areas where the incised bank has slumped, and provides these PCEs through portions of the stream reach.



Under Alternative 1, no project activities or restoration will occur, therefore there would be no direct effects on NMMJM CH. The Nutrioso creek stream reach of CH would continue to exist in its current state, with no immediate change to the quantity or quality of critical habitat. Riparian recovery of this stream reach would continue to decline, or, if recovering, would recover at a slower rate as compared to Alternative 2 (Hydrology section below).

Cumulative Effects

Nutrioso Creek function has been impacted by past private activities upstream of this CH location, and will continue to be in the future. These private activities include grazing practices and water diversion for irrigation that contribute to lower water tables and less stable riparian systems. Elk exclosures on Nutrioso creek are preventing ungulate use on willows and herbaceous plants, and improving PCEs for the NMMJM.




Under the Proposed Action, no riparian treatments are planned for the portion of Nutrioso Creek identified as NMMJM critical habitat. A small strip of junipers on the hillslope to the west of the


~ 121 ~

creek are identified for removal as part of a grassland restoration, and are within the 100 meter NMMJM critical habitat buffer. This treatment would be completed by hand thinning, with lop and scatter of the slash created. This slash on the ground would slow or impede small sedimentation events or over ground runoff increase that may occur from the activity. The treatment area is small and would be completed by a minimal amount of personnel on foot, with little impact on the hillslope expected, and no effect on NMMJM critical habitat below it.


No treatments are planned in mouse critical habitat.

Roads

There are no road actions planned in mouse critical habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Because there are no direct or indirect effects from the project activities for NMMJM critical habitat, there are no cumulative effects to combine with that are anticipated. However, private activities upstream that include water diversion and grazing practices do occur and contribute to the overall condition of the stream system. These impacts include lowered water table, reduced stream flows, and increased sedimentation and erosion.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Critical Habitat Species Habitat Background

The Final Rule for the Southwestern willow flycatcher (SWFL) critical habitat was published in October 2004. PCEs are identified as:

1) Nesting habitat with tree and shrubs that include willow and boxelder:

2) Dense riparian vegetation with thickets of trees and shrubs ranging from 6-13 ft. (at high elevation sites);

3) Areas of dense riparian foliage at least from the ground level up to approximately 13 ft.;

4) Sites for nesting that contain a dense tree and/or shrub canopy with densities ranging from 50% to 100%;

5) Dense patches of riparian forests intersperse with small openings of open water or marsh, and

6) a variety of insect prey populations.

Existing Condition

Areas designated as critical habitat for the SWFL occur on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. On the Alpine Ranger District, the San Francisco River is the only designated riparian system as SWFL critical habitat. The critical habitat along the San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake is within the project boundary, running for approximately 2.2 miles to the New Mexico border. This stream was assessed for SWFL nesting suitability by AZGF in 1999, and was determined at the time to not be suitable nesting habitat, characterizing it as a thin linear willow patch, that could be potentially suitable nesting habitat with time. In field visits made in 2015 by the District Biologist, it was observed that the habitat still does not contain suitable nesting habitat for SWFL.

This segment of critical habitat lacks PCEs such as dense riparian woody vegetation, specifically thickets of trees and shrubs. Because of the lack of riparian woody vegetation nesting substrate is not present. A variety of insect prey do exist in this segment of critical habitat.



Under Alternative 1, no restoration activities associated with the West Escudilla Restoration project will be implemented. No direct impacts will occur on SWFL critical habitat. The San Francisco creek riparian system will continue to exist in its current state, with no immediate change to the quantity or quality of critical habitat. Riparian recovery of this stream reach would recover at a slower rate as compared to Alternative 2 (Hydrology section below). Higher risk of uncharacteristic wildfire will continue to exist along and above the river in the timbered areas, which may threaten what existing willow stands occur in the system, which if they were to burn in a high severity fire, would reduce PCEs such as tall dense riparian woody vegetation, nesting substrate, and potentially insect prey for the SWFL.

Cumulative Effects

The San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake is heavily impacted by private actions from the Alpine community. Water quality concerns (ammonia, low dissolved oxygen, high pH) from the upstream portions of the river and Luna Lake (see Hydrology section below) have in the past and will in the future contribute to poor water quality which may affect willow tree communities growth, establishment, and recruitment. Luna Lake Dam controls the flow of the San Francisco River immediately downstream of the dam, eliminating natural flood regimes which also impacts willow tree recruitment and establishment.




~ 123 ~

Dense riparian willow thickets suitable for nesting do not currently exist along the San Francisco River from Luna Lake downstream to the New Mexico border, so there will be no effect on these PCEs as they do not exist. Thus the only potential effects are to PCEs for insect prey.


Under the Proposed Action, restoration actions may affect SWFL critical habitat along the San Francisco River downstream of the Luna Lake dam.

Thinning actions would be limited to hand thinning only, as the steep terrain immediately downstream of the dam limits use of machinery from the stream to the rim tops. Hand thinning could involve lop and scatter, bucking, and leaving the material on the ground. The reduction of encroaching conifers along the riparian zone would have a beneficial impact to SWFL critical habitat, as it opens the canopy to willows for increased growth. Increased sedimentation from activities on top of the river benches above the San Francisco River with logging machinery may occur; however, implementation of BMPs would minimize this impact such that it is negligible.

Potential habitat effects from prescribed burning

Prescribed fire is planned for sections of the San Francisco River in SWFL critical habitat. Riparian burns will be ignited indirectly, allowing the fire to back towards the water’s edge. High humidity and ground moisture near riparian areas typically produces minimal fire activity resulting in low intensity burns. These applications of fire should create a mosaic of burns that mimics natural fire effects in these systems, reducing catastrophic fire danger in the long term as a positive effect on SWFL critical habitat. In the short term, some live riparian woody species such as willow may be burned, reducing available habitat for the bird, although this is expected to occur in few cases. Willows, such as Bebb’s willow, are known to sprout vigorously after fire and this may increase the health and vigor of some stands, while reducing dead and down fuel accumulation that in turn reduces the risk of high severity wildfire. Generally, these burns are planned for the spring and fall when burn conditions are right to provide the effects as described above.

Project actions would have no measurable effect on PCEs insect prey populations, although we expect that these populations would increase as the riparian vegetation health and vigor increases through the stabilization of the water table and slowing or restoration of active erosion sites.


Riparian restoration treatment is planned for the confluence of Little Creek and the San Francisco River within SWFL critical habitat. A head-cut is forming at this junction, and would be stabilized through bank stabilization techniques such as a rock dam, cement jacks, log weirs, cross vein weirs or Zuni bowls. Hydrologists will determine the technique most suited for this

location. No willows are anticipated to be cut at this location through this action. This action will reduce active erosion of the stream and loss of access to the water table to riparian vegetation nearby such as willows, as well as contributing to increased water quality. Additional riparian improvements are planned for other reaches of Little Creek, which will also improve riparian system health and function. There may be some short term minor insignificant effects from increased sedimentation to insect populations, but we would expect that there would be long term benefits to these prey populations from stabilized riparian systems.

Roads

There are no proposed road changes in SWFL critical habitat anticipated through project implementation, therefore there are no effects from roads on critical habitat for the SWFL.

Cumulative Effects

The San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake is heavily impacted by private actions from the Alpine community. Water quality concerns (ammonia, low dissolved oxygen, high pH) from the upstream portions of the river and Luna Lake (see Hydrology section) have in the past and will in the future contribute to poor water quality which may affect willow tree communities growth, establishment, and recruitment. Luna Lake Dam controls the flow of the San Francisco River immediately downstream of the dam, eliminating natural flood regimes which also impacts willow tree recruitment and establishment. Active grazing occurs on the pastures the San Francisco River runs through, and may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing damage on willow stands. Recreation along the San Francisco River from anglers is generally light, as fishing opportunities are limited immediately downstream of the dam and for some distance downstream, so foot trails along the river are generally non-existent and present little impact on SWFL habitat. Past and future timber activities such as the Alpine WUI and Little multi product sale in the headwaters of the San Francisco River may have contributed to increased sedimentation in the stream system, although these effects are generally of limited impact on willow stands along the stream due to BMPs and erosion control efforts.

Aquatic Species

Affected Environment Stream Habitats and Species

Within the Project Area, there are approximately 170 mi of perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams. Perennial streams account for 57 mi, intermittent 49 mi, and ephemeral, 63 mi. Streams considered fish-bearing (based on connectivity, length of perennial water, and historic presence of fish) comprise about 61% of the total perennial stream miles The most significant fish-bearing streams in the Project or Action Areas are Nutrioso Creek, Rudd Creek, Mamie Creek, Coyote Creek, Dry Blue Creek, the San Francisco River, and the Blue River. Native fish species present


~ 125 ~

or likely to be present include Apache trout, Little Colorado spinedace, speckled dace, longfin dace, bluehead sucker, desert sucker, Sonora sucker, Rio Grande sucker, loach minnow, and roundtail chub. Spikedace are not currently present but critical habitat is present in the Action Area. Native reptiles include the narrow-headed gartersnake, and amphibians include the Chiricahua leopard frog. Invertebrates that may be present include one stonefly species (Capnia caryi), and three caddisfly species (Lepidostoma apache, Lepidostoma knulli, and Limnephilus granti). Nonnative species occurring include green sunfish, fathead minnows, black crappie, and crayfish. Nonnative trout are stocked AZGF for recreational fishing in Luna Lake and Nelson Reservoir. Nonnative trout were also stocked in Nutrioso Creek and Rudd Creek in the past, but that practice has been discontinued, and any remaining trout are being removed from Rudd Creek. Most streams in the Pratt Lake and Long Lake watersheds are intermittent or ephemeral. Several watersheds include areas in both the ASNFs and the Gila National Forest in New Mexico.

The following section summarizes the direct, indirect and cumulative effects of Project activities for Alternatives 1 (No Action) and 2 (Proposed Action) on federally-listed and USFS Region 3 Sensitive aquatic species. A comprehensive description of these effects, including analyses, assumptions, and measures to minimize effects can be found in the Biological Assessment (LeSueur et al. 2016) in the Project Record and Aquatic Species Specialist Report in the Project Record (Boe and Ward 2016). A summary of determinations of Federally listed (endangered, threatened, and proposed) species and their critical habitat can be found in Table 34.

Primary analysis assumptions include all design features/criteria, best management practices (BMPs), mitigation measures, and conservation measures will be implemented as described; Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) across the Project Area will improve over time as a result of Project implementation; PNVT departures from the historic range of variability will improve over time as a result of Project implementation; effects in streams or riparian areas are short-term; hydrologic function of watersheds will improve over the long-term; treatments are spread throughout the term of the Project (15 years) and across the Project Area; qualitative estimates of treatment effects are reasonable; sedimentation above background levels is likely to be the single most important treatment effect to aquatic species and their habitats; the Project Area is the area within the established Project boundaries and the Action Area is up to 10 miles downstream of the Project Area boundary; direct/indirect/cumulative effects may occur in the Project Area, but only indirect/cumulative effects may occur in the Action Area; and short-term refers to approximately 5 years or less and long-term is greater than 5 years.

Best Management Practices (BMPs), design criteria, and specific conservation measures are intended to avoid or minimize effects of restoration activities. The most common impact is likely to be ground disturbance resulting in increased stream sedimentation. Therefore, BMPs and design criteria focus on equipment and activity restrictions in and near stream channels and riparian areas (including designation of Aquatic Management Zones), seasonal activity

restrictions and rutting guidelines in upland areas, and restoration to natural conditions after activities are completed. Specific conservation measures (e.g., restrictions on equipment and activities) are designated for areas within 300 feet of occupied habitat for Little Colorado Spinedace and Apache Trout, and 600 feet of occupied habitat for the narrow-headed gartersnake. A comprehensive list of BMPs and design criteria is in Appendix A and maps of Aquatic Management Zones can be found in Appendix B.

Reptiles and Amphibians Threatened, endangered, and proposed species on the ASNFs include one amphibian, two reptiles, one invertebrate, and seven fish species. Of these, seven aquatic species are known or likely to occur within the Project or Action Areas (see Table 31 above). Aquatic species or critical habitats present with the Project or Action Areas are associated with watersheds (6th HUCs) to determine potential effects of proposed vegetation treatments.

Narrow-headed gartersnake (Thamnophis rufipunctatus) Endangered

Species Background

Historical range of the narrow-headed gartersnake included perennial drainages across the Mogollon Rim from northern and eastern Arizona, southeast into southwestern New Mexico. The species is strongly associated with clear, rocky streams using predominately pool and riffle habitat that includes cobbles and boulders. Narrow-headed gartersnakes specialize on fish as their primary prey, feeding almost exclusively on native or soft-rayed fish.

Existing Conditions

Narrow-headed gartersnake (NHG) is considered to occupy the San Francisco River from its headwaters to its confluence with the Gila River, including Luna Lake. Dry Blue Creek (Gila National Forest) and the Blue River are outside the Project Area, but within the downstream Action Area and are also considered occupied by NHG. Approximately 2,072 ac of the San Francisco-Luna Lake watershed is within the Project Area.

Current occupancy status for the narrow-headed gartersnake in the San Francisco River within the Project Area is best described as unknown. The small area above and including Luna Lake is considered unsuitable habitat due to either periodic drying or (as described below), woody riparian species and ambush habitats are deficient. There is a single documented detection in the Project Area, from the San Francisco River above Luna Lake in 1953 (AZGF Herpetological Database). No other detections of the species have been documented during subsequent herpetelogical or fish surveys. Suitable habitat appears to be present in the lower 1.5 mi of the San Francisco River before it reaches the New Mexico state line. This reach has a vigorous willow riparian community, fish prey base and good water quality. It is likely that if a


~ 127 ~

populations is present in the San Francisco River within the Project Area, it is at very low density.

Occupied habitat within the Action Area is considered to occur in Dry Blue Creek from the confluence of Pace Creek downstream for approximately 5 mi to the Blue River.



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in narrow-headed gartersnake streams (San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek, and the Blue River) and watersheds in the Project and Action Areas (San Francisco River-Luna Lake, Stone Creek-San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek). Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, Luna Lake Campground, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not related to the Project, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue. Management of Luna Lake by AZGF for recreational fishing (nonnative trout) would continue.


Forest, Woodland and Grassland Health Restoration

Direct effects to the narrow-headed gartersnake from vegetation treatments in the Proposed Action are not expected to occur. Use of mechanized equipment is precluded within the 600 ft. San Francisco River Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) where NHG would most likely occur. While no mechanical treatments can occur within the 600 ft. AMZ, NHG home ranges can extend up to 650 ft. away from a stream channel (USFWS 2013). While NHG are highly aquatic, they brumate, migrate, hibernate, and gestate away from the stream channel. Direct effects are more likely to occur from mechanical treatments in the 1.3 mi directly below Luna Lake where the stream is not confined in a steep canyon. However, that reach is also considered to have no or very limited suitable habitat for the NHG. The lower 1.5 mi stream reach shifts to a steep, narrow canyon. Mechanical treatments would occur above the canyon rim, and the likelihood of NHG being present above the canyon walls is extremely low.

Hand thinning within the AMZ would include foot traffic; however, direct effects of harm or harassment are not expected to occur based on the low density or lack of NHG within the area. Prescribed fire activities could directly affect NHG but are considered unlikely given ignitions would occur outside the riparian area, no burning would occur within 100 m from the middle of perennial riparian streams from June 15 – Oct 15 and no more than 5% of a riparian area will be high severity fire.

Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation and decreased vegetation cover. Mechanical harvesting equipment (e.g., feller-bunchers, grapple-skidder, processor, harvester) tend to disturb existing ground cover and expose mineral soils over a larger percentage of the treatment area; and the degree of disturbance will vary by equipment type as well as whether they are rubber tired or tracked. Mechanical piling could have similar disturbances of ground cover and exposed soils, particularly at the piling location. Hand thinning may be used on steep slopes (>40%) and on highly erodible soils within these areas, but would have a much less ground disturbance. Reduced ground cover and exposed soils can lead to an increased erosion in the uplands and subsequently cause increased sedimentation in streams. Sedimentation can affect water quality (suspended sediment) and fish prey base. Suspended sediment could affect the foraging ability of the narrow-headed gartersnake, an ambush predator.

Beneficial effects of forest restoration will maintain FRCC 1 areas already meeting desired conditions. It will begin to move FRCC 2 and 3 (moderately to highly-departed from historic fire regime) areas toward FRCC 1.

Stream Habitat, Riparian, Wet Meadow and Upland Soil Stabilization Treatments

Upland soil restoration structures (e.g., site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within the Project Area. The number that may be installed will vary based on watershed needs.

Stream improvement structures should improve hydrologic function, reduce sediment, improve aquatic habitat, slow downcutting of the channel, and improve bank stability. Beneficial effects of proposed treatments could include an increase in the fish prey base and fewer suspended sediments that may improve foraging for the NHG that relies heavily on vision to locate and catch prey.

Direct effects to NHG could occur from mechanical equipment or personnel installing the identified structure in Little Creek within the San Francisco River AMZ. Work would occur during low flow periods and when soils are not frozen. Direct effect are extremely unlikely to occur due to the low abundance of NHG, short work period, small area involved (1 Zuni bowl) and the ability of NHG to move and avoid threats. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and decreased ground cover could occur from personnel or equipment during


~ 129 ~

installation, possible reducing hiding cover and increasing sediment to the stream. Riparian plantings and exclosures to protect existing or newly planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and habitat complexity.

Roads

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the interrelated action of increased use and maintenance of existing ML2-5 roads and crossings. Indirect effects to NHG from increased ASNFs system road use, maintenance, and crossings could lead to increased stream sedimentation. There are approximately nine stream crossings on ML2-5 roads in the Dry Blue Creek watershed and none in the Campbell Blue watershed that may need some degree of improvement, modification, or maintenance to facilitate restoration activities. Increased vehicular use from the Proposed Action would result in greater disturbance on gravel-surfaced roads, leading to increased sedimentation into the San Francisco River or Dry Blue Creek.

Design features for roads include maintenance specifications and BMPs such as minimizing removal of vegetation along roadsides to only what is needed for safety, leaving vegetation in ditches, performing maintenance as soon as it becomes necessary, maintaining an erosion-resistant surfacing such as grass or rock in ditches, compacting the graded roadway surface to keep a hard driving surface, avoiding unnecessary soil and vegetation disturbance, and providing filter strips between drain outlets and streams.

Mitigating actions for stream crossings include minimizing the number of stream crossings used, evaluation and approval of designated stream crossings by an authorized ASNFs officer and watershed specialist for perennial and intermittent streams and a FS officer for ephemeral streams.

Any of the ML1 roads may be opened and used as part of the Proposed Action. Direct effects are extremely unlikely as only 0.2 mi of ML1 roads are within the San Francisco River AMZ. Indirect effects to NHG from opening, using, maintaining and closing ML1 roads could include increase sedimentation, decreased ground cover, and the potential to transport sediment from runoff. Water runoff patterns could be altered by the compaction of soils, removal of vegetation, and deflections by waterbars or lead out ditches.

Road maintenance BMPs and mitigating actions for stream crossings would be the same as those listed above for ML2-5 roads; they are designed to protect water quality and should decrease the likelihood of sedimentation to NHG streams. These mitigations, together with the low abundance of the narrow-headed gartersnake, relatively short timeframe of the work and the small are involved would make any effects insignificant and undetectable relative to existing conditions.

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. No direct effects to the NHG should occur given temporary roads cannot be constructed within the San Francisco River AMZ.

Indirect effects to NHG from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Water runoff patterns could be altered by the compaction of soils, removal of vegetation, and rutting. Increased sedimentation and transport to streams could occur altering pool quality, spawning habitat and macroinvertebrate prey base, affecting the NHG fish prey base.

Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will have beneficial effects of reducing the road density within NHG watersheds. These will have a long term benefits of reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams, particularly downstream, and improving watershed condition. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and alteration of vegetation could occur, possibly reducing ground cover and increasing sediment to the streams. Watershed BMPs for scarification and reseeding would reduce the length of time road beds are bare.

Cumulative Effects

The San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake is strongly affected by private actions from the Alpine community. Water quality concerns (ammonia, low dissolved oxygen, high pH) from the upstream portions of the river and Luna Lake (see Hydrology section) have in the past and will in the future contribute to poor water quality which may affect willow tree communities growth, establishment, and recruitment. Luna Lake Dam controls the flow of the San Francisco River immediately downstream of the dam, eliminating natural flood regimes which also establish and maintain proposed critical habitat. In New Mexico, the San Francisco River is listed as a 303(d) impaired water for high nutrient levels. Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quantity and quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Maintenance and use of private and county roads may result in sedimentation to streams and reduced or altered ground cover. Maintenance of utility corridors may result in ground disturbance and alteration of vegetation. Human activities in or near aquatic habitats may spread disease, nonnative aquatic species or invasive plants.

Narrow-headed Gartersnake Proposed Critical Habitat Proposed critical habitat (pCH) for the narrow-headed gartersnake includes approximately 210,000 ac in the following Subbasin Units in southeastern Arizona and southwestern New Mexico: Upper and Middle Gila River, San Francisco River, Upper Salt River, Tonto Creek, and Verde River. It includes approximately 600 ft. either side of bankfull width for streams and all pCH is considered occupied (USFWS 2013). Within the Project Area, pCH includes 2.9 mi of the


~ 131 ~

San Francisco River from just above Luna Lake downstream to the New Mexico state line. Excluding Luna Lake, which is unsuitable habitat, pCH in the Project Area totals approximately 577 ac. Within the Action Area, pCH also includes Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River.

Below are the Primary Constituent Elements (PCEs) for narrow-headed gartersnake proposed critical habitat:

1) Stream habitat which includes:

a) Perennial and spatially intermittent streams with sand, cobble and boulder substrate and low or moderate amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness, and that possess appropriate amounts of pool, riffle, and run habitat to sustain native fish populations.

b) Natural, unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic flooding or, if flows are modified or regulated, a flow regime that allows for adequate river functions, such as flows capable of processing sediment loads.

c) Shoreline habitat with adequate organic and inorganic structural complexity (e.g. boulders, cobble bars, vegetation, and organic debris jams) with appropriate amounts of shrub- and sapling sized plants to allow for thermoregulation, gestation, shelter, protection from predators, and foraging opportunities; and

d) Aquatic habitat with no pollutants or, if pollutants are present, levels that do not affect survival of any age class of the narrow-headed garter-snake or the maintenance of prey populations.

2) Adequate terrestrial space (600 ft. lateral extent to either side of bankfull stage) adjacent to designated stream systems with sufficient structural characteristics to support life-history functions such as gestation, immigration, emigration and brumation.

3) A prey base consisting of viable populations of native fish species or soft-rayed nonnative fish species.

4) An absence of nonnative fish species of the families Centrarchidae and Ictaluridae, bullfrogs (Lithobates catesbeianus), and/or crayfish (Orconectes virilis, Procambarus clarkii, etc.) or occurrence of these nonnative species at low enough levels such recruitment of narrow-headed gartersnakes and maintenance of viable native fish or soft-rayed, nonnative fish populations (prey) is still occurring.

Existing Conditions

San Francisco River

Existing conditions from habitat surveys are discussed above for the species. See Aquatics section for further discussion.


Effects to narrow-headed gartersnake proposed critical habitat:


Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in narrow-headed gartersnake proposed critical habitat in streams (San Francisco River in the Project Area, and Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River in the Action Area) and watersheds (San Francisco River-Luna Lake, Stone Creek-San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek). Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, Luna Lake Campground, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not related to the Project, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities would include on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue. Management of Luna Lake by AZGF for recreational fishing (nonnative trout) would continue. Management of Luna Lake water for the needs of downstream users would continue, resulting in periodic poor water quality, and inadequate supply.



Direct effects to proposed critical habitat from mechanical treatments in the San Francisco River in the Proposed Action are not expected to occur. Use of mechanized equipment is precluded in the 600 ft. Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ), the same width as pCH. Hand thinning would include cutting and lopping and scattering of vegetation. Hand thinning within the AMZ could occur in the canyon bottom and on steep slopes which could trample vegetation reducing vertical height (PCE 1c) and structure (PCE 2). Vegetation would recover quickly to provide hiding cover and overall structural characteristics would not be altered significantly. Prescribed fire activities could briefly alter shoreline and upland vegetation (PCEs 1c and 2).

Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Ignitions will occur outside the riparian area, no burning may occur within 100 m from the middle of perennial riparian streams from June 15 – Oct 15, and no more than 5% of the riparian


~ 133 ~

area will be high severity fire. While vegetation may be removed from combustion short term, the mitigations in place should allow for quick recovery, particularly in herbaceous vegetation. Riparian areas would be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring outside the riparian area and the fire allowed to back down to the stream producing a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity within the AMZ (pCH) to ≤5%. Limiting the percent of high soil burn severity would limit any changes in vegetative structural complexity.

No fire control line would be constructed within pCH. While some scorching may occur, overall structural complexity is not expected to be reduced given the mitigations in place and therefore prescribed burning effects are considered insignificant. Indirect effects of prescribed burning to pCH could include ash flows and increased sedimentation (PCE 1a), which could affect the fish prey base (PCE 3). Prescribed burning could result in some ash and sediment entering the San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek or Blue River. Mitigations to reduce effects by restricting how and when burning occurs listed under direct effects are expected to minimize these effects.

Indirect effects to NHG pCH from vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased sedimentation (PCE 1a) and effects to the prey base (PCE 3). Slash produced from this treatment would be mechanically piled or lopped and scattered outside pCH. Mechanical piling would have similar disturbances of ground cover and exposed soils as the treatment, particularly at the piling location.

Indirect effects of hand thinning inside and outside AMZs would include a small degree of ground disturbance which could increase sedimentation (PCE 1a) and affect prey base (PCE 3). Foot traffic associated with vegetation removal would include cutting of the vegetation and lop and scattering of material.

Reduced ground cover and exposed soils can lead to an increase in erosion in the uplands and subsequently cause an increase in sedimentation to streams.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). These include Aquatic Management Zones (AMZs), soil moisture restrictions (dry or frozen) for ground disturbing activities, rutting guidelines for skid trails and landings, and post-treatment erosion control measures. Soil moisture restrictions to dry or frozen soils only decreases the potential for rutting and soil disturbance reducing potential erosion and sedimentation in the uplands as does rutting guidelines for skid trails and landings. Post-harvest erosion control measures of scarfication and seeding of landings and skid trails, lead out ditches and waterbars also serve to reduce the effects of erosion and sedimentation from these heavily used areas to proposed critical habitat.


Six instream structures (e.g. Zuni bowl) are currently planned for Little Creek, near the confluence with the San Francisco River; one would be within pCH. Two structures are planned for Pace Creek at the southern end of the Project Area, and four for Jackson Creek, a tributary to Pace Creek. Riparian planting and exclosures to protect existing or planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and aquatic habitat.

Direct effects to pCH could occur from foot traffic when installing the instream structure (Zuni bowl) in Little Creek. Work would occur during low flow periods or when soils were not frozen to facilitate the work. Disturbance of shoreline vegetation could result in short-term decreased bank vegetation (PCE 1c) and increased sedimentation (PCE 1a). The extent of the area disturbed would be small, vegetation would recover quickly, and the duration of structure installation should be brief, limiting the period when increased sedimentation could occur.

Roads

There are approximately 0.6 mi of ASNFs system roads within the San Francisco River AMZ below Luna Lake that includes 0.2 mi of ML1, 0.1 mi of ML2, 0.3 mi of ML4, and 0.3 mi of unauthorized routes. There are approximately 33 stream crossings on ASNFs roads within the San Francisco-Luna Lake, Stone Cree, and Dry Blue watersheds. One road crossing (large, armored double culvert) occurs within pCH over an ML4 ASNFs system road, just downstream of Luna Lake.

Indirect effects to proposed critical habitat could occur from increased ASNFs system road use, maintenance, and crossings could lead to increased sedimentation into streams potentially affecting PCE 1a and 3.Vegetation removal along roadsides to improve sight-lines would reduce the area along roads functioning as a sediment trap. Increased sediment could result in increased fine sediment affecting fish habitat, hunting ability and altered fish prey base. These could result in increased sediment reaching the San Francisco River or Dry Blue Creek and reduction of bank cover. Increasing sedimentation could result in increased fine sediment (PCE 1a) and fish prey base (PCE 3). See design features/BMPs and mitigation above in discussion on narrow-headed gartersnake. These BMPs would provide for filtration by vegetation and reduce potential sedimentation that could reach proposed critical habitat. These mitigations, together with the relatively short timeframe of the work and the small area involved would make any effects to pCH insignificant.

Any of the ML1 roads may be opened and used as part of the Proposed Action. Direct effects to pCH could occur from improving and using the 0.2 mi of ML1 roads that occur on ridgetops above the San Francisco River canyon. Ground disturbance and removal of vegetation would


~ 135 ~

temporarily affect PCE 2 while the roads were in use. The small distance of ML1 roads and short duration or intermittency of use would make direct effects insignificant.

Indirect effects to the NHG proposed critical habitat from opening, using and maintaining, and closing ASNFs ML1 roads could include increased sedimentation and the potential to transport sediment from runoff (PCE 1a) which could alter fish prey base and (PCE 3).

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. No direct effects to pCH should occur given they cannot be constructed within the 600 ft. San Francisco River AMZ. Indirect effects to NHG pCH from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Water runoff patterns could be altered by the compaction of soils, removal of vegetation, and rutting. Increased sedimentation and transport to streams (PCE 1a) could occur altering pool quality, spawning habitat and macroinvertebrate prey base, affecting the NHG fish prey base (PCE 3). Mitigations and the minimal use of temporary roads should make any effects insignificant.

The Proposed Action includes both obliteration of existing unauthorized routes and decommissioning of existing ASNFs ML2 system roads. The ML2 roads are outside the AMZ and 0.2 mi of unauthorized routes are within the AMZ.

Direct effects of altering structural characteristics (PCE 2) could occur from mechanical equipment while decommissioning or obliterating roads. Any direct effects to occur from obliteration of unauthorized routes. While the habitat is altered, the work would improve its overall status and potential to meet PCE 2 from existing condition. Regrowth and watershed BMPs for scarification and reseeding would reduce the length of time roads beds were bare. Therefore structural characteristics would be restored and improved over time. Direct effects would be limited to 0.2 mi of proposed critical habitat on ridgetops above the San Francisco River canyon. Direct effects are considered insignificant based on the small scale of the effects and mitigations in place.

Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and reduction in ground cover could occur, reducing ground vegetation (PCE 1a) and increasing sedimentation (PCE 1a) that can affect prey base (PCE 3). Watershed BMPs for scarification and reseeding would reduce the length of time roads beds were bare.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities by the ASNFs include fuels reductions, thinning, tree planting, timber harvest, insect control, watershed erosion control prescribed burning, and wildfire suppression. Ongoing ASNFs activities include livestock grazing (4 allotments in San-Francisco River-Luna Lake and Stone Creek watersheds, and 5 in Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek watersheds) that

includes livestock tank cleaning and maintenance, system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, and dispersed camping.

Future ASNFs activities may include wildlife tree planting. Future activities affecting Stone Creek, the San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek, and the Blue River in the Action Area downstream of the Project Area includes the Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project. The Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project includes activities similar to those in this Project.

Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quantity and quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Human activities in or near aquatic habitats may spread disease, nonnative aquatic species or invasive plants.

Direct effects of treatments to proposed critical habitat are either small in extent or highly mitigated. Indirect effects consist primarily of the potential for increased sedimentation and reduced prey base. Direct and indirect effects are insignificant or discountable given the status of the species in the action area and mitigation in place to reduce effects.

Chiricahua leopard frog Species Background (Lithobates chiricahuensis) Threatened

The Chiricahua leopard frog (CLF) historically occurred in cienegas, pools, livestock tanks, lakes, reservoirs, streams, and rivers at elevations of 1,000 to 2,710 m (3,281 to 8,890 ft.). Currently, populations are much reduced and fragmented, and restricted to springs, livestock tanks, and streams in the upper portions of watersheds where non-native predators either have yet to invade or habitats are marginal for them. CLF are habitat generalists that live and breed in aquatic habitats in both natural and man-made systems. Foods of adults are primarily arthropods and other invertebrates, while the diet of young is move diverse, including algae, organic debris, plant tissue, and minute organisms in the water. No known occupied habitats occur within the Action Area, but they do occur in Campbell Blue Creek within dispersal distance of the Project and Action Areas. For long term projects, the CLF Recovery Plan describes likely to be occupied habitat as currently suitable habitat where the frog has been documented within the last five years, but is now apparently absent (USFWS 2007).

In areas where the species has not been documented, likely to be occupied habitats meet the following criteria:

• within 1 mi overland of occupied habitat,

• within 3 mi along an ephemeral or intermittent drainage from occupied habitat, or

• within 5 mi along a perennial stream from occupied habitat.


~ 137 ~

Existing Conditions

Blue River, San Francisco River Drainages

The nearest known population of CLF occurs within Campbell Blue Creek outside the Action Area, but within dispersal distance. Chiricahua leopard frogs historically occurred within Tenney pond (1979), with no additional frogs detected in subsequent herpetological surveys in 1994 and 1995 (AZGF Herpetology Database 2012). Additional surveys occurred in summer 2012 with no detection of CLF in Tenney Pond. Tenney Pond was considered as a recovery (stocking) area, but the close proximity to private lands precluded introductions. The Gila NF may release CLF in Dry Blue Creek as part of recovery actions within the next 15 yrs. If that occurs, dispersal into Pace and Jackson Creeks as well as Tenney Pond is also possible. The Dry Blue Creek watershed portion of the Project Area is within dispersal distance from known or potential recovery sites. Therefore, Jackson Creek, Pace Creek, Dry Blue Creek and Tenney Pond provide suitable habitat for CLF and the creeks could be used as dispersal corridors into the Project or Action Areas.

Another historic CLF location was on the San Francisco River below Luna Lake (1971). It was resurveyed in 1989, 1993 and 1995 with no CLF detections. No CLF were detected during fish electroshocking surveys in the San Francisco River in 2013 and 2014, nor were any detected during VES (visual encounter surveys) by Northern Arizona University researchers for narrow-headed gartersnake in 2015. It is not considered suitable habitat in the 1.3 mi below Luna Lake due to highly regulated flows, poor water quality (pH 8.5-9), and presence of crayfish.

Rudd Creek, Nutrioso Creek

There are historic occurrences of CLF in Nutrioso Creek above and below Nelson Reservoir from 1979 (AZGF Herpetology Database). These two areas were resurveyed several times between 1992 and 1995 and no CLF were detected, but the habitat was considered suitable. Frogs were stocked in or near Rudd Creek in 1996 and 2001 on the Sipes Wildlife Area. These areas were surveyed multiple times in 1996 and no CLF were detected, and issues of high conductivity and tiger salamanders were noted. Rudd Creek and Nutrioso Creek both have very high densities of crayfish, and Nutrioso Creek also has green sunfish that move into the creek from Nelson Reservoir. The presence of these nonnatives affects the suitability of habitat for CLF. There are no planned CLF introductions into Rudd Creek, Nutrioso Creek, Nelson Reservoir, Luna Lake, or the San Francisco River due to the presence of nonnative sportfish (C. Akins, AFGD, personal communication). For these reasons, the Rudd/Nutrioso Creek area is not considered occupied or suitable habitat for CLF and will not be analyzed further.



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in Chiricahua leopard frog habitat in and near Tenney Pond in the Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek watersheds. Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration occurring as standard management and not related to the Project, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue.



Direct effects to CLF from vegetation treatments and prescribed burning in the Proposed Action could occur in uplands. Use of mechanized equipment is precluded within watershed AMZs (150 ft., 75 ft., and 50 ft.) for all perennial, intermittent and ephemeral streams, as well as associated riparian areas, that could be used as dispersal corridors. This protects suitable habitat where CLF would most likely occur when active. However, frogs can disperse overland, which could lead to direct effects where mechanical vegetation treatments are occurring in uplands. Mechanical activities are restricted to periods of dry or frozen soils to decrease soil disturbance, which limits potential direct interactions with CLF since they are generally inactive between November and February (USFWS 2007). Frogs would most likely be dispersing during or right after monsoons when soils are wet and treatments would not occur, further limiting any potential for harm. Hand thinning within the AMZs would include foot traffic on uplands and across streams; however, direct effects of human trampling are not expected to occur based on the low likelihood of stepping on a frog or an egg mass if CLF dispersed into the Project Area.

Prescribed fire activities could directly affect CLF but are considered unlikely given ignitions will occur outside the riparian area, no burning will occur within 300 ft. from the stream center from June 15 — Oct 15, no more than 5% of the riparian area will be high severity fire, and the ability of the CLF to move to refugia to avoid threats. These measures incorporate CLF Recovery Plan guidance for CLF habitat regarding prescribed fire and thinning treatments (USFWS 2007). Additionally, prescribed fire would not occur when prescriptions and desired outcomes could not be met (e.g. too wet such as monsoons, or too dry leading to high fire intensities), which would vary but may include timeframes during monsoon seasons or very wet


~ 139 ~

periods when CLF may be dispersing overland. Because there are low densities of CLF and the proposed treatments have an extremely low chance of encountering frogs, direct effects are extremely unlikely to occur and thus are discountable.

Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as decreased ground vegetation cover in suitable habitat. Reduced ground cover and exposed soils can lead to increased erosion in the uplands and could subsequently cause increased sedimentation to streams and other aquatic habitats, such as perennial wetlands and livestock tanks that may be used by frogs. Reduced ground vegetation cover would lead to decreased hiding or thermal cover for CLF. Recovery of the decreased ground vegetation would occur rapidly, making this effect short-term.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). See Watershed BMPs in Appendix A. Equipment will be disinfected prior to work adjacent to water bodies to decrease potential for spread of chytrid fungus in areas where chytrid fungus may occur. If any water withdrawal or pumping is necessary, equipment will be disinfected or dried completely following CLF Recovery Plan guidelines to prevent introduction of aquatic pathogens (USFWS 2007). These mitigation measures are expected to minimize any sedimentation effects in CLF suitable habitat, and make the spread of disease extremely unlikely.

Indirect effects of hand thinning would include a small degree of soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Hand thinning would include cutting and either lopping and scattering or hand piling of vegetation. Minimal amounts of vegetation disturbance or sediment would be expected to result from this activity. The overall acreage of hand thinning is small and is meant to remove encroaching conifers from AMZs. Ground disturbing activities are away from streams and immediate riparian areas resulting in effects that would be insignificant.

Indirect effects of prescribed burning to the CLF could include ash flows, increased sediment and reduced ground cover. Sedimentation can fill deep pool habitats, affecting primary productivity and invertebrate production that may affect frog growth, survival, metamorphosis, and dispersal. Excessive sediment can reduce egg development and survival. Hiding cover would be decreased short term until vegetative regrowth occurred which could impede dispersal of CLF.

Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Prescribed burning is prohibited within 300 ft. on either side of perennial riparian streams from June 15-0ctober 15 to protect to riparian vegetation during the growing season. Riparian areas would be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring outside the riparian area and the fire allowed to back down to the stream, producing a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity to no more than 5% in AMZs. Limiting the percent of high soil burn severity within uplands and AMZs will reduce potential for any indirect effects. No fire control line would be constructed within AMZs and any occurring in the uplands would be rehabilitated

post-treatment. The above mitigations and implementation practices should reduce any effects of prescribed burning to an insignificant level.

Indirect effects of proposed treatments include introducing potential pollutants to aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams. Adherence to Federal and State regulations such as the Clean Water Act and LMP standards and guidelines (USFS 2015). Measures will follow CLP Recovery Plan guidance that are meant to prevent spills and pollutants from occurring or reaching aquatic habitats (USFWS 2007).


Upland soil restoration structures (e.g., site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within the Project Area. Installation of six instream structures (e.g., Zuni bowls) are planned in Jackson Creek (4) or Pace Creek (2) at the southern end of the Project Area. Stream improvement structures should improve hydrologic function, slow downcutting of channels, reduce sediment, and improve aquatic habitat. Reducing sediment would improve pool habitat, primary production and invertebrate prey base for CLF.

Direct effects to CLF could occur from mechanical equipment or personnel installing structures. Treatments would occur during low flow periods and when soils were not frozen to facilitate the work. This is extremely unlikely and discountable due to their very low abundance, limited duration of the treatment, small area involved, and the ability of the Chiricahua leopard frog to avoid threats and move to refugia. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and decreased ground cover could occur from increased personnel or mechanical equipment during installation, possibly reducing bank cover, hiding cover and increasing sediment to the stream. Proposed structures are small in size and extent. These effects would be insignificant, since the work involves relatively small areas and the short duration of the work.

Riparian planting and exclosures to protect existing or planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and habitat complexity. Reducing sediment would improve pool quality and cover, water quality, and invertebrate prey base for fish species and provide forage for the Chiricahua leopard frog.

Roads

The Proposed Action includes changes to the existing ASNFs road system. In the Dry Blue Creek watershed, total ASNFs roads will decrease by 0.2 mi, not including decommissioned roads. ML2 roads will decrease by 1.2 mi, ML1 roads will increase by 0.9 mi, and 0.31 mi of roads will be decommissioned.

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the interrelated action of increased use and maintenance of existing ML2-5 roads. Direct effects to CLF from increased ASNFs system


~ 141 ~

road use resulting from the Proposed Action could occur on ML2-5 roads and crossings if CLF disperse into the area. There are approximately 18 stream crossings on ML2-5 roads in the Dry Blue Creek watershed and none in the Campbell Blue watershed that may need some degree of improvement, modification, or maintenance to enable restoration activities. Increased traffic and crossing improvements would be limited to a relatively brief period of time and the abundance of CLF is below detection levels. Based on the rationale above, direct effects are considered insignificant.

Indirect effects to CLF from increased ASNFs system road use and maintenance could lead to increased sedimentation into suitable aquatic habitats. Increased sediment could result in reduced pool quality, reduced invertebrate prey base and increased frequency of cleaning stock tanks. Sediment affects primary productivity and invertebrate production that may affect frog growth, survival, metamorphosis, and dispersal.

Design features for roads include maintenance specifications and BMPs such as minimizing removal of vegetation along roadsides to only what is needed for safety, leaving vegetation in ditches, performing maintenance as soon as it becomes necessary, maintaining an erosion-resistant surfacing such as grass or rock in ditches, compacting the graded roadway surface to keep a hard driving surface, avoiding unnecessary soil and vegetation disturbance, and providing filter strips between drain outlets and streams. These mitigations, together with the low abundance of CLF and relatively short duration of the additional road traffic, would result in any effects being insignificant or undetectable relative to existing conditions.

Direct effects to CLF could occur from improving, increasing and using ML1 roads and stream crossings. Direct effects to CLF of harm or harassment could occur from road use, instream work, or used of crossings. Improving stream stockings would be of short durations and most likely occur during low water periods to facilitate the work. Use of low water crossings would be intermittent and occur during timber operations. The increase of ML1 roads is under a mile for both watersheds combined. Mechanical operations are limited to dry/frozen soils which limits the amount of time CLF could be affected given their activity period. It is possible but unlikely that the increased traffic over crossings could alter behavior of CLF to avoid these areas.

Indirect effects to CLF from opening, using and maintaining, and closing ASNFs ML1 roads could include increased sedimentation, decreased ground cover, and the potential to transport sediment from runoff. Nine miles of ML1 roads occur within the two watersheds with suitable CLF habitat and at least four stream crossings. Stream crossings have the highest potential for increased sedimentation during construction, use and removal. Increasing sediment reaching watercourses used by frogs could fill in deep pool habitats in streams. Sediment affects primary productivity and invertebrate production that may affect frog growth, survival, metamorphosis, and dispersal. Excessive sediment can reduce egg development and survival. Road maintenance BMPs would be the same as for ML2-5 roads; they are designed to protect water quality and

should decrease the likelihood of sedimentation to aquatic habitats. These mitigations, together with the likely low abundance of frog, and relatively short duration of the additional road traffic, would minimize any effects and make them insignificant and discountable.

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. The low abundance of the frog, together with the relatively short timeframe of the work, the small area involved, and design features incorporated would make any direct effects to the CLF extremely unlikely.

The Proposed Action includes both obliteration of 50.08 mi of existing unauthorized routes and decommissioning of 0.3 mi of existing ASNFs system roads. Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will help reduce the road density within the Dry Blue Creek watershed. This will have a long term benefit of reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams and improving watershed condition. Reducing sediment would improve pool habitat, primary productivity, and invertebrate prey base for CLF. Increasing primary productivity and invertebrate production may improve frog growth, egg development, survival, and metamorphosis. Roads may serve as barriers to movement (USFWS 2007), therefore reduced road mileage improves the potential for dispersal into the area.

Direct effects to CLF could occur from mechanical equipment while decommissioning or obliterating roads. Obliteration or decommissioning could require mechanical activities to remove waterbars, drainage structures, stream crossings, reshaping the roadbed to restore natural surface drainage patterns and avoid concentrations of water, and blockage of entrances and exits using rocks or other barriers. Frogs could be harmed or harassed by equipment if in the vicinity. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and reduction in ground cover could occur, reducing hiding cover and increasing sedimentation to aquatic habitats. These effects would be extremely unlikely to occur due to the low abundance or lack of CLF, the relatively short duration and small area of the treatment. Therefore, they are considered discountable.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities by the ASNFs in the Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek watersheds include fuels reduction, thinning, prescribed burning, watershed erosion control, and wildfire suppression.

Ongoing ASNFs activities include livestock grazing (4 allotments in Dry Blue Creek and 1 in Campbell Blue Creek watersheds) that includes livestock tank cleaning and maintenance, system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, and dispersed camping. Future ASNFs activities include wildlife tree planting. Future GNF activities affecting Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River in the Action Area downstream of the Project Area include the Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project. The Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project includes activities similar to those in this Project.


~ 143 ~

Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Maintenance and use of private and county roads may result in sedimentation to streams and reduced or altered ground cover. Human activities in or near aquatic habitats may spread disease, nonnative aquatic species or invasive plants.

Fish

Apache trout Species Background (Oncorhynchus gilae apache) Threatened

The Apache trout is the only trout native to the White Mountains of eastern Arizona. Spawning occurs at pool tailouts, with redds constructed in gravel at variable water depths and velocities. Food consists primarily of aquatic and terrestrial insects.

Coyote Creek above a fish barrier and Mamie Creek (tributary to Coyote Creek) are the only streams within the Project or Action Areas that support Apache trout; these streams are also identified as recovery streams (USFWS 2009). Pure Apache trout (originating from Ord Creek on Fort Apache Indian Reservation) were stocked in 1965 resulting in a replicate Apache trout population. In 1994, a fish barrier was built on Coyote Creek approximately 1.6 mi below the confluence with Mamie Creek to protect the population from non-native fish intrusions (USFWS 2009). There is no proposed or designated critical habitat for the species.

Existing Conditions

Three recovery streams (Coyote Creek, Mamie Creek and Morrison Creek (considered part of Coyote Creek) occur within the Project Area in the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed. For analysis purposes, the 4,251 acres above an Apache trout fish barrier were used and the three streams are considered a single recovery population in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2009). The Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed did not burn substantially during the 2011 Wallow Fire. However, the headwaters of some tributaries to Coyote Creek did burn at high severity, including the Mamie Creek headwaters.

There are approximately 9.1 mi of ML1 and 9.9 mi of existing ML2 and ML3 roads in the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed (2.9 mi/sq. mi), and 23.5 mi of unauthorized routes. These equate to 8% of existing ASNFs system roads and 19% of unauthorized routes in the Project Area. There are 15 road-stream crossings in the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed above the fish barrier; 10 across perennial streams, 4 across intermittent, and 1 across an ephemeral stream. There are 3 crossings over Mamie Creek, and 3 over Coyote Creek in the upstream area near the Project boundary.

Aquatic Management Zones (AMZs) for Apache trout streams are defined as 300 ft. on either side of the stream. The Coyote Creek/Mamie Creek AMZ totals approximately 542 ac. Stream miles in the AMZ are 2.4 mi in Mamie Creek and 5.5 in Coyote Creek for a total of 7.9 mi. There are approximately 2.5 mi of ASNFs system roads (0.4 mi ML1) and 2.5 mi of unauthorized routes. There are 2 stream crossings from ML1 roads within the AMZ, and 3 over ML3 roads.

Fish surveys conducted in 1989 (Mamie Creek) and 1990 (Coyote Creek) detected Apache trout in two reaches in Mamie Creek and six in Coyote Creek.

Surveys conducted in 1995 detected Apache trout in three reaches of Mamie Creek (n=12) and four reaches of Coyote Creek (n=47). In 1996, 151 fish stranded in isolated pools were removed from Coyote Creek to reestablish the Ord Creek population on Fort Apache Indian Reservation (J. Johnson, AZGF, personal communication). Surveys conducted in 2002 in Coyote Creek both below and above the Mamie Creek confluence detected Apache trout (n=20). No fish were detected in Mamie Creek in 2002 as the creek was mostly dry. In an abbreviated fish survey conducted in 2003, only one Apache trout was detected in Coyote Creek. No Apache trout or other fish species were collected in any of the habitats sampled in the 2014 fish surveys. Electroshocking in 2015 in Coyote Creek GAWS reaches 5-7 failed to detect any Apache trout (M. Lopez, AZGF, personal communication). Apache trout are assumed to be present in Coyote Creek and Mamie Creek in low abundance. For the purposes of this analysis, Coyote Creek and Mamie Creek above the fish barrier are considered occupied recovery habitat since these streams are identified in the Recovery Plan (USFWS 2009).



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in Apache trout streams and the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed above the fish barrier. Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management affecting the Apache trout and its occupied or recovery habitat would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not associated with Project activities, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities would include on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private,


~ 145 ~

county, and state roads would continue. Future management by ASNFs could include plantings for wildlife, and for GNF, Luna Planning Area for forest restoration.



Direct effects to Apache trout and its habitat from vegetation treatments in the Proposed Action are not expected to occur. Use of mechanized equipment is precluded within the 300 ft. Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) for Apache trout streams. Hand thinning within the AMZs would likely include foot traffic across the stream; however, direct effects of human trampling are not expected based on the low likelihood of stepping on a fish or redds, particularly with the low densities of all life stages of Apache trout.

Prescribed fire activities are not expected to directly affect Apache trout from elevated water temperatures given ignitions will occur outside the riparian area, no burning may occur within 100 m from the middle of perennial riparian streams from June 15 – Oct 15 and no more than 5% of the riparian area will be high severity fire. Because of the rationale above, direct effects are extremely unlikely to occur.

Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation and decreased vegetation cover. Mechanical piling would have similar disturbances of ground cover and exposed soils as the treatment, particularly at the piling location. Additionally, hand thinning may be used on steep slopes (>40%) and on sensitive soils within these areas. Sedimentation in Apache trout streams can affect pool quality, spawning gravels, and macroinvertebrate prey base.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and non-point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). These include activities precluded in AMZs, soil condition restrictions (dry or frozen) for ground disturbing activities, rutting guidelines for skid trails and landings, and post-treatment erosion control measures. The use of AMZs (no mechanical treatment or mechanical piling of slash) to increase filtration capacity has been shown to be capable of reducing sediment entering waterways (Brown 2016). Apache trout streams have an AMZ of 300 ft. on either side of the stream, while other streams in the watershed have AMZs of 150 ft., 75 ft., and 50 ft. for perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral channels, respectively. Post-harvest erosion control measures of scarification and seeding of landings and skid trails, lead out ditches and waterbars also serve to reduce potential erosion and sedimentation from these heavily used areas to Apache trout streams. The mitigation measures described are expected to reduce any sedimentation effects in Apache trout streams from mechanical treatments to an insignificant level.

Indirect effects of hand thinning of vegetation in AMZs would include soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Hand thinning would include cutting and either lopping and scattering or piling of vegetation. Minimal amounts of sediment would be expected to result from this activity.

Indirect effects of prescribed burning to Apache trout streams could include sedimentation and ash flows. Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Prescribed burning is prohibited within 100 m from the middle of perennial riparian streams from June 15-October 15, which will protect riparian vegetation during the growing season. Riparian areas should be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring outside the riparian area and the fire allowed to back down to the stream, producing a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity to no more than 5% in upland areas and AMZs. The above mitigations and implementation practices should reduce any effects of prescribed burning to an insignificant level.

Indirect effects of proposed treatments include introducing potential pollutants to aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams. Adherence to Federal and State regulations such as the Clean Water Act and LMP standards and guidelines (USFS 2015). Project plans include BMPs to prevent pollutants from reaching surface waters.

Stream habitat, Riparian, Wet Meadow and Upland Soil Stabilization Treatments

Upland soil restoration structures (e.g. site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within watersheds in the Project Area. Within the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed, instream stabilization structures (e.g. Zuni bowls) are planned for Lily Creek (3), Mamie Creek (1), and Coyote Creek (4). One structure in Coyote Creek, intended to restore a large (6 ft. high) headcut, will require mechanized equipment. Instream pool habitat improvement is proposed for Reach 2 of Mamie Creek, which is approximately 1.5 miles long. Stream improvement structures should improve hydrologic function, reduce sediment, improve aquatic habitat, and slow downcutting of the channel. Pool depth will be improved in Apache trout streams and increase cover, thermal refugia, and habitat complexity. Reducing sediment would improve pool quantity and quality, spawning gravels and macroinvertebrate prey base for Apache trout.

Direct effects to Apache trout could occur from mechanical use and foot traffic when installing instream structures. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and alteration of vegetation could occur from personnel or mechanical equipment during installation, possibly reducing bank cover and increasing sediment to the stream. Direct and indirect effects would be insignificant because the work involves relatively small areas within the streams, the duration of the work is short, and the streams only support low densities of all life stages of Apache trout.


~ 147 ~

Roads

Indirect effects to Apache trout from increased ASNFs system road use and maintenance could lead to increased sedimentation into streams. Increased vehicular use from the Proposed Action and increased maintenance required would result in greater disturbance on gravel-surfaced roads, leading to increased sedimentation in nearby Apache trout streams.

Any of the existing ML1 roads may be opened and used as part of the Proposed Action. There are 9.1 mi of existing ASNFs ML1 roads in the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed above the fish barrier that potentially could be opened. Of those 9.1 miles, there are 1.0 mi of existing ML1 roads in the Coyote Creek/Mamie Creek AMZ.

Direct effects to Apache trout could occur from improving and using the low water ML1 road crossing in lower Mamie Creek. Improving the crossing could be accomplished by a hardened low-water crossing, temporary bridge placement, or surfacing and rock lining culverts. Direct effects to Apache trout of harm or harassment could occur from instream work or use of a low water crossing. Improving the stream crossing would be of short duration and most likely occur during low water periods to facilitate the work. Use of a low water crossing would be intermittent and occur during timber operations. The low density of Apache trout combined with the small area of the crossing and the short duration or intermittency of use would make direct effects extremely unlikely to occur. Mitigating actions for stream crossings for ML1 roads would be the same as described above for ML2-5 roads, and any effects would be expected to be minimal.

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. No direct effects to Apache trout or its occupied habitat should occur as temporary roads are not permitted in AMZs. Indirect effects from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Mitigations include avoiding their location on highly erodible soils, using existing skid trails if properly located, locating to minimize disturbance, use of slash, wattles, hydromulching and similar methods and materials to reduce erosion. The minimal use of temporary roads and mitigations should reduce any effects to a minor level.

The Proposed Action includes both obliteration of existing unauthorized routes and decommissioning of existing ASNFs system roads. Within the Canovas Creek-Coyote Coyote Creek watershed above the fish barrier, there are 1.6 mi of the existing 9.1 mi of ML1 roads that are to be decommissioned and 23.5 mi of unauthorized routes to be obliterated. At the end of the Proposed Action, road density in the Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek watershed above the fish barrier will decrease from 2.9 mi/ mi2 to 2.6 mi/ mi2. Within the Apache trout AMZ, there are 0.6 mi of ML1 roads to be decommissioned and 2.5 mi of unauthorized routes to be obliterated. Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will help to reduce road density within the Canovas Creek watershed and within the Apache trout AMZ. This will have a long term benefit of

reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams, particularly within the AMZ, and improving watershed condition. Reducing sediment would improve pool quality, spawning gravels and macroinvertebrate prey base for Apache trout.

Direct effects to Apache trout could occur from mechanical equipment while obliterating authorized routes as at least one crosses an occupied stream. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and alteration of vegetation could occur, possibly reducing ground cover and increasing sediment to the streams. Watershed BMPs for scarification and reseeding would reduce the length of time road beds were bare. Direct and indirect effects would be undetectable and thus insignificant because the work involves relatively small areas within the streams, the duration of the work is short, and the streams support low densities of all life stages of Apache trout.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities by the ASNFs include watershed erosion control and wildfire suppression. Ongoing ASNFs activities include livestock grazing (1 allotment) that includes livestock tank cleaning and maintenance, system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, and dispersed camping. Future ASNFs activities may include wildlife tree planting. A diversion exists on private property downstream of the fish barrier. Activities at that location could facilitate the spread of nonnative organisms upstream. Human activities along the bank could result in ground disturbance and vegetation alteration, but these effects are likely occurring at low levels. Ground disturbance and vegetation alteration are the main effects of these activities on Apache trout and their occupied or recovery habitats.

Potential long term improvements in Apache trout habitat that may result by moving towards desired conditions, particularly in improved PNVTs, fire risk and stream habitat, can contribute to recovery and restoration of watersheds, while reducing potential impacts from uncharacteristic wildfire. Habitat improvements, particularly in pool depth and cover and perennial stream flow, could result in higher abundance and increased distribution of the Apache trout in Coyote Creek and Mamie Creek.

Little Colorado Spinedace (LCS) and LCS Critical Habitat Species Background (Lepidomeda vittata) Threatened

Information relative to the life history, distribution, and range-wide status of the species can be found on the USFWS website at: http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Little.htm. The 1987 Final Rule, the Little Colorado spinedace Recovery Plan (USFWS 1998), and the more recently completed five year review (USFWS 2008) were considered and used in the preparation of this document; and contain historical and current information for the species and its habitats, along with current and historical threats and status of the species across its range.

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Little.htm


~ 149 ~

Critical habitat within the Project Area consists of approximately 7 miles of Nutrioso Creek from Nelson Reservoir downstream to the ASNFs boundary. The upper section of critical habitat is in the Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek watershed, and the lower in Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek. Constituent elements, for all areas of critical habitat, include clean, permanent flowing water, with pools and a fine gravel or silt-mud substrate.” While specific streams were designated as critical habitat, the adjacent riparian areas were not mentioned or specifically included; therefore, the width of the critical habitat is assumed to be the bank full width of the stream channel. Outside of critical habitat and within the Project Area; the Little Colorado spinedace occurs within Nutrioso Creek above Nelson Reservoir, and within the lower two miles of Rudd Creek. Above the Project Area, the Little Colorado spinedace also occurs in several miles of Nutrioso Creek, on both ASNFs and private lands.

Existing Conditions

The Project Area includes two Little Colorado spinedace streams (Rudd Creek, Nutrioso Creek) within three watersheds (Rudd Creek, Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek, Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek). Almost all of the Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek watershed is within the Project Area, but only the extreme northern (downstream) portions of the Rudd Creek and the Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek watersheds. A small part of the Picnic Creek-Nutrioso Creek watershed is in the Project Area, but drains into Nutrioso Creek beyond the ASNFs (and Project) boundary.

There are no decommissioned and 0.05 mi of unauthorized roads, and the ML1 road mileage does not change as a result of the Proposed Action. The watershed is drained by 3.3 mi of perennial streams, 0.2 mi of intermittent streams, and 0.1 mi of ephemeral streams. There are no ML1 road crossings over streams in the watershed, and one each for ML3 and ML5 roads.

Sampling in Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir resulted in detections of Little Colorado spinedace (“spinedace”) in 1994-1999 (Lopez et al. 2001a, Davidson and Ward 1997b), with a total catch of 435 (sampling pooled across all years). Subsequent sampling in 2005 and 2006 (McKell 2005, Carter et al. 2006), 2008 (Weiss and Lopez 2008) and 2011 (Lopez and Lopez 2011) failed to yield any detections.

The 7 mi reach of Nutrioso Creek below Nelson Reservoir that is critical habitat previously supported high numbers of spinedace, but may not be currently occupied. This section of Nutrioso Creek has seen a dramatic increase in nonnative fish species (fathead minnows, green sunfish) and nonnative crayfish. When several nonnative species are present and abundant, severe reductions in spinedace abundance can occur (USFWS 1998). Some areas below Nelson Reservoir can be dry or partially dry during the summer before monsoon season. It may be that unless the numbers of nonnative species can be reduced substantially, this habitat may not be capable of supporting spinedace long-term.

Spinedace were detected in the short section of Nutrioso Creek above Nelson Reservoir in the Project Area by Lopez et al. (2001a) in 1994-1999 (total of 3 fish, sampling pooled for all years).

None were detected in sampling conducted in May 2005 (Carter et al. 2006). Carter et al. (2006) sampled the same sites in May 2006 and spinedace were detected, with a total of 11 collected. Sampling at the same two sites in 2008 resulted in a total of 25 caught (Weiss and Lopez 2008).

Nutrioso Creek Fish Sampling Post-Wallow Fire in 2011

Post-Wallow Fire fish sampling above and below Nelson Reservoir in September-October 2011 failed to detect any spinedace (Lopez and Lopez 2011).

Nutrioso Creek Fish Sampling June 2016

The Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF) seined pools within Nutrioso Creek at 5 sites (3 below and 2 above Nelson Reservoir), and no spinedace were collected. Nonnatives collected included green sunfish (446 below Nelson Reservoir, 8 above), fathead minnows (2,212 below Nelson Reservoir, 809 above), and crayfish (T. Love-Chezem, AZGF, personal communication). Three nonnative black crappie were also collected below Nelson Reservoir.

Rudd Creek

Little Colorado spinedace were first detected in Rudd Creek in 1994 (Lopez et al. 2001b). A total of 301 were caught in the 2.8 mi of stream from the confluence with Nutrioso Creek to the Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area managed by AZGF about 0.8 mi above the Project boundary. Sampling in May 2005 resulted in one spinedace detected (McKell 2005). Sampling in April 2006 failed to yield any detections (Carter et al. 2006). Sampling in June 2006 yielded detections in 3 of 14 pools sampled (Lopez et al. 2006). One spinedace was caught in each of two pools, and 74 in a third. Sampling in 2008 detected spinedace with a total of 6 collected (Weiss and Lopez 2008). Sampling visually in 2007-2008 did not pick up LCS due to high turbidity conditions. Post-Wallow Fire sampling in 2011 from the confluence with Nutrioso Creek to the Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area yielded spinedace detections in 17 of 31 sections sampled and a total of 45 caught (Lopez and Lopez 2011). Sampling of a section just below the Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area by ASNFs in 2013 and 2014 resulted in detections of spinedace in both years with totals of 25 collected in 2013 and 70 in 2014. Similar to Nutrioso Creek, stream habitat dries up in some areas, resulting in disconnected pools which concentrate fish. The Arizona Game and Fish Department completed seine hauls of pools within Rudd Creek below the Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area in June 2016. A total of 154 spinedace were collected (T. Love-Chezem, AZGF, personal communication). Near the mouth of Rudd Creek, 20 nonnative fathead minnows and 18 green sunfish were collected. Crayfish were present throughout the area sampled.

The 2 mi of habitat in Rudd Creek within the Project Area is suitable and occupied. Rudd Creek is an area where spinedace can consistently be detected by sampling, and appears to be capable of sustaining a population long-term. Nonnative crayfish are present, but nonnative fish species


~ 151 ~

do not appear to be present in significant numbers yet; most detected to date have been very close to the confluence with Nutrioso Creek.



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in Little Colorado spinedace streams (Rudd Creek and Nutrioso Creek) and watersheds (Rudd Creek, Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek, Picnic Creek-Nutrioso Creek, and Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek). Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, operation of Nelson Reservoir Recreation Area, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not related to the Project, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue. Management of Sipe Wildlife Area along Rudd Creek upstream of the Project Area would continue, including a water diversion. Management of Nelson Reservoir for needs of water users downstream and by AZGF for recreational fishing (nonnative trout) would continue.

Alternative 2 –Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects to Little Colorado spinedace and critical habitat

Forest, Woodland, and Grassland Health and Restoration

Direct effects to Little Colorado spinedace critical habitat from vegetation treatments in the Proposed Action are not expected to occur. Use of mechanized equipment is precluded within the 300 ft. Aquatic Management Zone (AMZ) in Little Colorado spinedace streams. Hand thinning within the AMZs would likely include foot traffic across the stream; however, this should not be significant as the loss and/or damage to vegetation and ground cover is not expected to occur, and high stream turbidities preclude any potential for visual disturbance.

Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation and decreased vegetation cover. Mechanical piling would have similar disturbances of ground cover and exposed soils as the treatment, particularly at the piling location. Sedimentation to streams can affect pool quality, substrates used for spawning and

macroinvertebrate production, and water quality. Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality are effective in reducing long term degradation of water quality from sediment associated with non-point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). See Appendix A for specific design features/BMPs.

While 79% (16,872 ac) of the watersheds that drain into Little Colorado spinedace habitat are scheduled for treatments within the Proposed Action, the measures described above are expected to minimize potential sedimentation effects in Nutrioso and Rudd creeks and Little Colorado spinedace critical habitat in Nutrioso Creek from mechanical treatments. Additionally, long-term benefits are expected for overall ecologic conditions (e.g., vegetation conditions, fire management, and watershed/hydrologic conditions). Indirect effects of proposed treatments and project activities also include the potential to introduce pollutants into aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams. In addition to Clean Water Act regulations that are required, specific BMPs have been developed to prevent pollutants from reaching water. While none of these activities will occur within the 300 ft. AMZs on Nutrioso and Rudd creeks; these BMPs will be implemented on tributaries to these two streams, ensuring any potential effects occur at insignificant levels for the Little Colorado spinedace and its critical/occupied habitat within the Action Area.

Indirect effects of hand thinning of vegetation in AMZs would include soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Hand thinning would include cutting and either lopping and scattering or piling of vegetation. Minimal amounts of sediment would be expected to result from this activity. The overall acreage of hand thinning is small (251 ac) and intended to remove encroaching species (conifer and woodland) from the AMZs. Ground disturbing activities are away from the streambank and immediate riparian area resulting in effects that would be insignificant, as no long-term loss of ground cover is expected to occur.

Indirect effects of prescribed burning to Little Colorado spinedace and their critical habitat could include sedimentation and ash flows. Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Prescribed burning is prohibited within 300 ft. on either side of perennial riparian streams from June 15-0ctober 15 to protect to riparian vegetation during the growing season. Riparian areas should be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring outside the riparian area and the fire allowed to back down to the stream, producing a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity to no more than 5% in upland areas and AMZs within the project area. Prescribed fire treatments are proposed for approximately 84% of the upland areas that drain into Little Colorado spinedace habitat, while only 35% of the Nutrioso/Rudd Creek AMZs are proposed for fire treatments. The measures described above, and when implemented as part of the proposed action, should reduce any effects of prescribed burning to an insignificant level.


~ 153 ~

Stream habitat, Riparian, Wet Meadow and Upland Soil Stabilization Treatments

Upland soil restoration structures (e.g., site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within watersheds in the project area. These structures will have a long term benefit of reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams by holding or stabilizing soils in the uplands and improving hydrologic condition and function. Riparian planting and exclosures to protect existing or planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and aquatic habitat. A single headcut improvement structure is planned for Rudd Creek. Pool depth will be improved in Little Colorado spinedace streams and increase cover, thermal refugia, and habitat complexity. Reducing sediment would improve pool quantity and quality, spawning substrates, and water quality in Little Colorado spinedace critical habitat.

Direct effects to Little Colorado spinedace critical habitat could occur from use of mechanical equipment and foot traffic when installing instream structures. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and damage to vegetation could occur from increased personnel or mechanical equipment during installation, possibly reducing bank cover and increasing sediment to the stream. Direct and indirect effects would be extremely unlikely to occur and are thus discountable, as the work involves relatively small areas within the streams, the duration of the work is short and during dry conditions, and any effects would be short-term and not result in any long-term loss of ground cover or vegetation.

Roads

Direct effects to Little Colorado spinedace and their occupied/critical habitat from increased ASNFs system road use resulting from the Proposed Action could occur at road crossings. Indirect effects to Little Colorado spinedace and their occupied/critical habitat from increased ASNFs system road use could occur. Increased vehicular use from the Proposed Action would result in greater disturbance on gravel surfaced roads, leading to increased sedimentation in Nutrioso Creek and tributary streams. These effects could be ameliorated by following BMPs for road maintenance practices. Therefore, any effects to the Little Colorado spinedace are likely to be discountable.

Some ASNFs ML1 roads may be opened and temporarily used as part of the Proposed Action. There are 0.3 miles of existing ASNFs ML1 roads in the Rudd Creek, 0.4 miles in Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek, and 10.4 miles in the Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek watersheds that could be opened. Indirect effects to Little Colorado spinedace from opening, using and maintaining, and closing ASNFs ML1 roads could include ground disturbance, altering vegetative cover, and alteration of flow patterns. Peak stream flows could be higher due to the-compaction of soils, removal of vegetation, and installation of drainage structures such as waterbars to move water off roads quickly. The disturbed and compacted soils, removal or alteration of vegetation that slows runoff could result in increased sediment reaching Little Colorado spinedace streams.

Mitigations for ML1 stream crossings would be the same as for ML2-5 roads described in Aquatics section and design features/BMPs in Appendix A. Any indirect effects would be insignificant due to these mitigations.

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. No temporary roads or stream crossings are allowed within AMZs, therefore, no direct effects to spinedace should occur. Indirect effects to spinedace from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Mitigations and the minimal use of temporary roads should make any indirect effects insignificant.

There is <0.1 miles of unauthorized road in the Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek watershed that is to be obliterated. Within the Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek 6th HUC, Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek 6th HUC, there 4.4 miles of roads planned for decommissioning. Unauthorized roads to be obliterated total 7.6 miles. Within the Rudd Creek/Nutrioso Creek AMZ, there is 0.1 miles of ML1 road that is planned for decommissioning, and 0.1 miles of unauthorized road to be obliterated. These activities could result in short-term increases in ground disturbance and altering of vegetation.

Increased sedimentation in Little Colorado spinedace streams could result from both the ground disturbance and crushing of vegetation. Increased sedimentation. Increased sedimentation in Little Colorado spinedace streams could fill in pools, reducing cover and refugia, reducing spawning substrates, water quality, and invertebrate prey base. These effects would be mitigated by the short- term nature of the activities, and revegetation of exposed soil, using scarification, seeding with native plants, application of mulch to promote vegetative growth, and planting trees. Obliteration and decommissioning of roads would benefit Little Colorado spinedace populations by removing sources of sediment entering streams, improving flow patterns, and restoring stream courses to natural condition.

While there are 0.2 miles of roads identified to be treated in the proposed action that are adjacent or within the Nutrioso/Rudd Creek AMZ, a 200-300 foot buffer is in place that would minimize road treatments from generating sediment that could reach the stream. Therefore, effects of road treatments on the Little Colorado spinedace are likely to be insignificant.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities by the ASNFs include fuels reductions, thinning, tree planting watershed erosion control prescribed burning, and wildfire suppression. Ongoing ASNFs activities include livestock grazing (8 allotments in the 4 watersheds) that includes livestock tank cleaning and maintenance, system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, and dispersed camping. Future ASNFs activities may include wildlife tree planting.


~ 155 ~

On Rudd Creek immediately above the Project Area, Arizona Game and Fish Department owns and manages the Sipe White Mountain Wildlife Area (approximately 1,350 ac). Water diversions associated with irrigation activities associated with these lands can affect stream flows and water quality or quantity downstream in both Rudd Creek and Nutrioso Creek. Water quality in Nutrioso Creek can be poor below Nelson Reservoir and flow is also regulated based on reservoir operation.

Large tracts of private lands (7500+ ac) are located along and within Nutrioso Creek and the watershed upstream of the Project Area. While specific activities associated with these private lands are not known; past and ongoing activities have likely included livestock and agricultural uses, water developments and diversions of surface waters, groundwater pumping, and road and other infrastructure associated with housing developments (e.g., utility lines, sewer systems and treatment facilities).

Fish stocking by AZGF in Nelson Reservoir can affect streams both upstream (Nutrioso Creek) and downstream (Nutrioso Creek, Rudd Creek) of the reservoir. Non-native fish can negatively affect Little Colorado spinedace in both streams through both competition and predation.

Potential long term improvements in Little Colorado spinedace habitat that may result by moving towards desired conditions, especially improvements in PNVTs and risk associated with fire, can contribute to recovery and restoration of the subwatersheds while reducing potential impacts from uncharacteristic wildfire and the associated increases in ash and sedimentation. Short term project implementation impacts are likely to occur during implementation of the vegetation treatment and prescribed fire programs; however, their duration and extent are minimized through standards, guidelines, project specific design features and mitigation measures, and BMPs. AMZs and other mitigation measures are in place throughout the project area and across all the different proposed actions and activities, that will ensure impacts to the Little Colorado Spinedace and its habitats within the action area will be insignificant.

Loach Minnow (Tiaroga cobitis), Spikedace (Meda fulgida) and their Critical Habitat Species Background Endangered (both species)

Information relative to the life history, distribution, and range-wide status of the species can be found on the USFWS website for loach minnow on the species and its biology can be found at the USFWS website: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Loach.htm and for spikedace at https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Spikedace.htm

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Loach.htm)

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Spikedace.htm

Loach minnow and spikedace Designated Critical Habitat

Critical habitat for the loach minnow and spikedace occurs outside the Project Area, but within the 10 mile downstream Action Area. Six factors were identified as physical and biological features for loach minnow and spikedace critical habitat (USFWS 2012b).

Loach minnow

1) Habitat to support all egg, larval, juvenile, and adult loach minnow which includes:

a) Perennial flows with a stream depth generally less than 1 m (3.3 ft.), and with slow to swift flow velocities between 0 and 80 cm per second (0.0 and 31. 5 in. per second);

b) Appropriate stream microhabitat types including pools, runs, riffles, and rapids over sand, gravel, cobble and rubble substrates with low or moderate amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

c) Appropriate stream habitats with a low gradient of less than 2.5 %, and are at elevations below 2,500 m (8,202 ft.); and

d) Water temperatures in the general range of 8.0 to 25.0 °C (46.4 to 77 °F).

Spikedace

1) Habitat to support all egg, larval, juvenile, and adult spikedace which includes:

a) Perennial flows with a stream depth generally less than 1 m (3.3 ft.), and with slow to swift flow velocities between 5 and 80 cm per second (1.9 and 31. 5 in. per second);

b) Appropriate stream microhabitat types including glides, runs, riffles, the margins of pools and eddies, and backwater components over sand, gravel, and cobble substrates with low or moderate amounts of fine sediment and substrate embeddedness;

c) Appropriate stream habitat with a low gradient of less than 1.0 %, at elevations below 2,100 m (6,890 ft.); and

d) Water temperatures in the general range of 8.0 to 28.0 °C (46.4 to 82.4 °F).

PCEs 2-6 are the same for loach minnow and spikedace.

2) An abundant aquatic insect food base consisting of mayflies, true flies, black flies, caddisflies, stoneflies, and dragonflies.

3) Streams with no or no more than low levels of pollutants.

4) Perennial flows, or interrupted stream courses that are periodically dewatered but that serve as connective corridors between occupied or seasonally occupied habitat and through which the species may move when the habitat is wetted.

5) No nonnative aquatic species, or levels of nonnative aquatic species that are sufficiently low to allow persistence of (loach minnow, spikedace).


~ 157 ~

6) Streams with natural, unregulated flow regime that allows for periodic flooding or, if flows are modified or regulated, a flow regime that allows for adequate river functions, such as flows capable of transporting sediments.

Existing Conditions

Critical habitat for the loach minnow and spikedace occurs in Blue River, Pace Creek, Dry Blue Creek in New Mexico outside the Project Area, but within the Action Area. Critical habitat within the Action Area include 0.8 miles of Pace Creek from a waterfall downstream to Dry Blue Creek in New Mexico. In Dry Blue Creek, critical habitat is designated for 3.0 mi from the confluence with Pace Creek to the confluence of Campbell Blue Creek. The Blue River is within the Action Area for approximately 2 miles downstream from its origin at the confluence of Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek to the Bobcat Flat area.

Within the Action Area, loach minnow are considered to occupy habitat in Pace Creek, Dry Blue Creek, and the Blue River. The species has been documented in these streams since 1976; however, no long-term or spatially consistent (same location) surveys have occurred. Surveys in fall 2011 (post-Wallow fire) found one loach minnow at Bobcat Flat (Kesner et al. 2011). Surveys repeated in 2012 collected two loach minnow at Bobcat Flat, including one <30 mm total length, presumably a young-of-year (Patterson et al. 2012). Massure et al. (2013) and Humphrey et al. (2015) conducted fish and habitat sampling on the upper Blue River and tributaries in 2013 and 2014. Most of the Pace Creek site was dry in 2013; there were no detections of loach minnow at the Dry Blue Creek site and 3 at the Blue River-Bobcat Flat site (Massure et al. 2013). In 2014, there were no detections at the Pace Creek or Dry Blue Creek sites; however ten were found at the Blue River-Bobcat Flat site (Humphrey et al. 2015).

Spikedace have not been documented in the upper Blue River above the Blue Box. The species was stocked in the lower Blue River after the construction of the Blue River barrier. It is likely that spikedace will be stocked in the upper Blue River as part of recovery actions during the life of the Project (15 yrs.) given critical habitat occurs. For that reason, spikedace will be analyzed.

Environmental Consequences- Alternative 1

Effects to loach minnow and spikedace


Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in loach minnow and spikedace streams (Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River) and watersheds (Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek). Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel

loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not related to the Project, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities would include on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue.


No direct effects from any of the treatments are expected to occur as both species and their critical habitat occur outside the Project Area.


Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as decreased ground vegetation cover. Slash resulting would be mechanically piled or lopped and scattered. Mechanical piling would have similar disturbances of ground cover and exposed soils as the treatment, particularly at the piling location. Hand thinning may be used on steep slopes (>40%) and on highly erodible soils within these areas, but would have much less ground disturbance. Reduced ground cover and exposed soils can lead to an increase in erosion in the uplands and could subsequently cause increased sedimentation to streams and other aquatic habitats. Sedimentation to streams can affect habitat quality, substrates used for spawning (PCE 1b) and macroinvertebrate production (PCE 2), and water quality.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). These mitigation measures described are expected to reduce any sedimentation effects in occupied critical habitat to an insignificant level. See Appendix A for design features/BMPs.

Indirect effects of hand thinning would include a small degree of soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Minimal amounts of vegetation disturbance or sediment would be expected to result from this activity. Indirect effects of prescribed burning to loach minnow, spikedace and their critical habitat could include ash flows, increased sediment and reduced ground cover. Ash and sediment would affect habitat quality, spawning substrate (PCE 1b), macroinvertebrate prey base (PCE 2) and water quality (PCE 3). Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Prescribed burning is prohibited within 100 ft. on either side of perennial riparian streams from June 15-0ctober 15 to protect to riparian vegetation during the


~ 159 ~

growing season. Riparian areas would be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring outside the riparian area and the fire allowed to back down to the stream, this produces a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity to no more than 5% in upland areas and AMZs. No fire control line would be constructed within AMZs; any constructed in upland areas would be rehabilitated post-treatment. The above mitigations and implementation practices should reduce any effects of prescribed burning on the species and their critical habitat to an insignificant level.

Indirect effects of proposed treatments include introducing potential pollutants (PCE 3) to aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams. Adherence to federal and state regulations such as the Clean Water Act are required, in addition to standards and guidelines in the ASNFs Land Management Plan (USFS 2015). Specific BMPs have been developed to prevent pollutants from reaching surface water. Mitigation measures follow recovery plan guidance and are meant to prevent spills and pollutants from occurring or reaching aquatic habitats, including occupied critical habitat (USFWS 1991a, b).


Upland soil stabilization structures (e.g. site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within the Project Area. Riparian plantings of woody riparian vegetation (e. g. willows) and exclosures to protect existing or planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and aquatic habitat. Installation of six instream stabilization structures (e.g. Zuni bowls) are planned in Jackson Creek (4) and Pace Creek (2) at the southern end of the Project Area. Stream improvement structures should improve hydrologic function, reduce sediment, improve aquatic habitat, and slow downcutting of channels. No direct effects from stream habitat, wet meadow, and upland soil treatments are expected to occur as the species and their critical habitat occur outside the project area.

Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and decreased ground cover could occur from increased personnel or mechanical equipment during installation, possibly increasing sediment to the stream. Proposed structures are small in size and extent. These effects would be discountable, as the work involves relatively small areas within the streams and the duration of work is short and during dry conditions, and any effects would be short-term and not result in any long-term loss of ground cover or vegetation.

Roads

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the interrelated action of increased use and maintenance of ML 2-5 roads and crossings. There are approximately nine stream crossings on ML 2-5 roads in the Dry Blue Creek watershed and none in the Campbell Blue watershed that may need some degree of improvement, modification, or maintenance to enable restoration

activities. No direct effects from roads of any kind are expected to occur as the species and their critical habitat occur outside the project area.

Indirect effects to loach minnow and spikedace from increased ASNFs system road use and maintenance could lead to increased sedimentation into suitable aquatic habitats. Increased use and maintenance from the Proposed Actions would result in greater disturbance on gravel-surfaced roads, leading to increased sedimentation to streams that flow into occupied critical habitat. Vegetation removal along roadsides to improve sight lines would reduce the area along roads functioning as a sediment trap. Increased sediment could result in reduced habitat quality, increased embeddedness (PCE 1b), reduce invertebrate prey base (PCE 2).

Design features for roads include maintenance specifications and BMPs. These mitigations would result in any effects being insignificant or undetectable relative to existing conditions.

Indirect effects could result from any increased use of stream crossings and improvements, modifications, or maintenance. These could result in increased sediment reaching occupied critical habitat and reduction of bank cover. Sedimentation can increase embeddedness (PCE 1b), reduce habitat quality, reduce macroinvertebrates (PCE 2) and reduce spawning success. Mitigating actions for any stream crossing would be applied. These measures, together with the presence of AMZs on occupied streams and their tributaries, and the low number of drainage crossings; potential for fine sediments to either reach or impact occupied habitat is not expected to occur, so any effects to loach minnow, spikedace and their critical habitat are likely to be insignificant.

Any of the ML1 roads may be opened and used as part of the Proposed Action. The miles of existing ASNFs ML1 roads that potentially could be opened will increase from 8.43 mi to 9.35 mi in Dry Blue Creek watershed and will remain at 0.2 mi in Campbell Blue Creek watershed. There are approximately four stream crossings on ML1 roads.

Indirect effects to loach minnow, spikedace and their critical habitat could occur from mechanical equipment reopening, using and closing ML 1 roads and stream crossings. The increase of ML 1 roads is under a mile for both watersheds combined. Nine miles of ML1 roads occur within the two watersheds and at least four stream crossings. Sedimentation can increase embeddedness (PCE 1b), reduce habitat quality, reduce macroinvertebrates (PCE 2) and reduce spawning success. Road maintenance BMPs would be the same as for ML 2-5 roads. These mitigations would minimize any effects and make them undetectable relative to existing conditions.

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. No direct effects to the species or their critical habitat are expected since both occur outside the Project Area. Indirect effects to loach minnow and spikedace and their critical habitats from creation and use of


~ 161 ~

temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Water runoff patterns could be altered by the compaction of soils, removal of vegetation, and rutting. Increased sedimentation could result, increasing embeddedness (PCE 1b), reduce habitat quality, reduce macroinvertebrates (PCE 2), and reduce water quality (PCE 3). Mitigations and the minimal use of temporary roads should minimize any indirect effects.

The Proposed Action includes both obliteration of 50.08 mi of existing unauthorized roads and decommissioning of 0.3 mi of existing ASNFs system roads. Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will help reduce the road density within the Dry Blue Creek watershed. This will have a long term benefit of reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams and improving watershed condition. Reducing sediment decrease embeddedness, improve habitat quality, increase macroinvertebrates and improve spawning success. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and reduction in ground cover could occur; increasing sedimentation to aquatic habitats. Sedimentation can increase embeddedness (PCE 1b), reduce habitat quality, reduce macroinvertebrates (PCE 2) and reduce spawning success. These effects would be mitigated by the short- term nature of the activities. Indirect effects of road decommissioning and obliteration are unlikely and considered insignificant.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities by the ASNFs in the Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek watersheds include fuels reduction, thinning, prescribed burning, watershed erosion control, and wildfire suppression. Ongoing ASNFs activities include livestock grazing (4 allotments in Dry Blue Creek and 1 in Campbell Blue Creek watersheds) that includes livestock tank cleaning and maintenance, system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, and dispersed camping.

Future ASNFs activities include wildlife tree planting. Future GNF activities affecting Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River neighboring the Project Area and downstream in Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River includes the Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project. The Luna Restoration and Pueblo Park Project includes activities similar to those in this Project.

Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quantity and quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Maintenance and use of private and county roads may result in sedimentation to streams and reduced or altered ground cover. Human activities in or near aquatic habitats may spread disease, nonnative aquatic species or invasive plants. Potential long term improvements in loach minnow and spikedace habitat that may result by moving towards desired conditions, particularly in improved PNVTs, fire risk and stream habitat, can contribute to recovery and restoration of watersheds, while reducing potential impacts from uncharacteristic wildfire. Short term project implementation impacts are likely to occur associated with vegetation treatments and prescribed fire; however, their duration and extent are minimized through standards, guidelines, project specific design

features and mitigation measures, and BMPs (see Appendix A). Indirect effects of these treatments are considered insignificant. Any potential direct effects are limited in both extent and intensity, primarily due to AMZs in place.

Roundtail Chub Species Background (Gila robusta) Proposed Threatened, Distinct Population Segment

The roundtail chub is a cyprinid that occurs in cool to warm water over a wide range of elevations in rivers and streams throughout the Colorado River basin. It often occupies open areas of deep pools and eddies in mid-sized to larger streams associated with cover in the form of boulders, overhanging cliffs, undercut banks, or vegetation. On the ASNFs, populations occur in East Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, the Black River, East Fork Black River, Eagle Creek and the Blue River. Additional federal listing information and other information relative to the life history, distribution, and range-wide status of the species can be found on the USFWS website for roundtail chub: https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Roundtail.htm

Existing Conditions

Approximately 5,343 ac of the Dry Blue Creek watershed is within the Project Area. In the Dry Blue Creek watershed there are approximately 29 mi of existing ASNFs system roads, of which 8.4 mi are ML1 roads. There are also around 50 mi unauthorized routes within the watershed. The watershed is drained by 35.9 mi of perennial streams, 7.1 mi of intermittent streams, and 3.0 mi of ephemeral streams. There are 8 road crossings each over intermittent and ephemeral streams and 2 over a perennial stream (Jackson Creek). Approximately 12 ac of the Campbell Blue Creek watershed is within the Project Area.

Roundtail chub were never documented in the Blue River prior to 2012, but were introduced as part of the Blue River Native Fish Restoration Project (USBOR 2010) in 2012 after completion of the Blue River fish barrier. The fish barrier was constructed to prevent movement of nonnative species upstream. Roundtail chub have been documented in the lower Blue River below the Blue Box. The species was also stocked on private property in a fishing pond in the upper Blue River. It is highly likely that the species will be stocked at some point in the next 15 years by the AZGF in the upper Blue River as part of expanded recovery actions. If that occurs, the species would be present within the Action Area of the Project.



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in roundtail chub streams (the Blue River in the Action Area) and watersheds (Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek).

https://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Roundtail.htm


~ 163 ~

Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not related to the Project, and dispersed camping. Other ongoing activities on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue.



No direct effects to the roundtail chub are expected to occur from any of the treatments as they do not occur within the Project Area.


Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation, as well as decreased ground vegetation cover. Slash resulting would be mechanically piled or lopped and scattered. Mechanical piling would have similar disturbances of ground cover and exposed soils as the treatment, particularly at the piling location. Additionally, hand thinning may be used on steep slopes (>40%) and on highly erodible soils within these areas, but would have much less ground disturbance. Sedimentation to streams can affect pool quality, substrates used for spawning, macroinvertebrate production, and water quality.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). These mitigation measures described are expected to reduce any sedimentation effects in occupied critical habitat to an insignificant level. See Appendix A for design features/BMPs.

Indirect effects of hand thinning would include a small degree of soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Minimal amounts of vegetation disturbance or sediment would be expected to result from this activity.

Indirect effects of prescribed burning to loach minnow and spikedace or their critical habitat could include ash flows, increased sediment and reduced ground cover. Ash and sediment would

affect pool quality, spawning substrate, and macroinvertebrate prey base and water quality. Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Prescribed burning is prohibited within 100 ft. on either side of perennial riparian streams from June 15-0ctober 15 to protect to riparian vegetation during the growing season. Riparian areas would be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring outside the riparian area and the fire allowed to back down to the stream, this produces a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity to no more than 5% in upland areas and AMZs. Additionally, no fire control line would be constructed within AMZs; any constructed in upland areas would be rehabilitated post-treatment. Mitigations and implementation practices should reduce any effects of prescribed burning on roundtail chub habitat to an insignificant level.

Indirect effects of proposed treatments include introducing potential pollutants to aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams. In addition to Clean Water Act regulations that are required, specific BMPs have been developed to prevent pollutants from reaching water. These measures are meant to prevent spills and pollutants from occurring or reaching aquatic habitats, including the Blue River.


Upland soil restoration structures (e.g. site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within the project area. Riparian plantings and exclosures to protect existing or planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and aquatic habitat. Installation of six instream structures (e.g. Zuni bowls) are planned in Jackson Creek (4) or Pace Creek (2) at the southern end of the project area. Stream improvement structures should improve hydrologic function, reduce sediment, improve aquatic habitat, and slow downcutting of channels. Reducing sediment would improve pool habitat, primary production and invertebrate prey base for roundtail chub.

No direct effects from stream habitat, wet meadow, and upland soil treatments are expected to occur as roundtail chub do not occur within the project area.

Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and decreased ground cover could occur from increased personnel or mechanical equipment during installation, possibly increasing sediment to the stream. Proposed structures are small in size and extent. These effects would be discountable, as the work involves relatively small areas within the streams and the duration of work is short and during dry conditions, and any effects would be short-term and not result in any long-term loss of ground cover or vegetation.


~ 165 ~

Roads

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the interrelated action of increased use and maintenance of ML2-5 roads and crossings. There are approximately nine stream crossings on ML2-5 roads in the Dry Blue Creek watershed and none in the Campbell Blue watershed that may need some degree of improvement, modification, or maintenance to enable restoration activities.

No direct effects from roads of any kind are expected to occur as roundtail chub occur outside the project area.

Indirect effects to roundtail chub from increased ASNFs system road use and maintenance could lead to increased sedimentation into suitable aquatic habitats. Increased sediment could result in reduced pool quality, increased embeddedness, reduce invertebrate prey base. Design features for roads include maintenance specifications and BMPs would be applied. These mitigations would result in any effects being insignificant or undetectable relative to existing conditions.

Indirect effects could result from any increased use of stream crossings and improvements, modifications, or maintenance. Design features and mitigation measures, together with the presence of AMZs on occupied streams and their tributaries, and the low number of drainage crossings; potential for fine sediments to either reach or impact occupied habitat is not expected to occur, so any effects to roundtail chub are likely to be insignificant.

Any of the ML1 roads may be opened and used as part of the Proposed Action. The miles of existing ASNFs ML1 roads that potentially could be opened will increase from 8.43 mi to 9.35 mi in Dry Blue Creek watershed and will remain at 0.2 mi in Campbell Blue Creek watershed. There are approximately four stream crossings on ML1 roads.

Indirect effects to roundtail chub could occur from mechanical equipment reopening, using and closing ML1 roads and stream crossings. Soil disturbance would result from construction grading or shaping of the road surface, and constructing waterbars or leadout ditches. Improving stream crossings would be of short durations and most likely occur during low water periods to facilitate the work. The increase of ML1 roads is under a mile for both watersheds combined. Road maintenance BMPs would be the same as for ML2-5 roads; they are designed to protect water quality and should decrease the likelihood of sedimentation to aquatic habitats.

Mitigating actions for stream crossings would be the same as for existing ML2-5 roads described above. Mitigations would minimize any effects and make them undetectable relative to existing conditions.

Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. No direct effects to roundtail chub or occupied habitat should occur as neither is present in the Project Area.

Indirect effects to roundtail chub from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Increased sedimentation and transport to streams could occur altering pool quality, spawning habitat and macroinvertebrate prey base. The minimal use of temporary roads and mitigations should reduce any effects to a minor level.

The Proposed Action includes both obliteration of 50.08 mi of existing unauthorized roads and decommissioning of 0.3 mi of existing ASNFs system roads.

Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will help reduce the road density within the Dry Blue Creek watershed. This will have a long term benefit of reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams and improving watershed condition. Reducing sediment could improve pool quality, increase macroinvertebrates and improve spawning success.

Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and reduction in ground cover could occur; increasing sedimentation to aquatic habitats. These effects would be mitigated by the short- term nature of the activities, and revegetation of exposed soil. Indirect effects of road decommissioning and obliteration are unlikely and considered insignificant.

Cumulative Effects

Past activities by the ASNFs include fuels reduction, thinning, prescribed burning, and watershed erosion control, and wildfire suppression.

Ongoing ASNFs activities include livestock grazing (4 allotments in Dry Blue Creek and 1 in Campbell Blue Creek watersheds) including livestock tank cleaning and maintenance, system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, and dispersed camping.

Future ASNFs activities include wildlife tree planting. Future GNF activities affecting Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River neighboring the Project Area and downstream in Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River includes the Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project. Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quantity and quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Maintenance and use of private and county roads may result in sedimentation to streams and reduced or altered ground cover. Human activities in or near aquatic habitats may spread disease, nonnative aquatic species or invasive plants.

Potential long term improvements in roundtail chub habitat that may result by moving towards desired conditions, particularly in improved PNVTs, fire risk and stream habitat, can contribute


~ 167 ~

to recovery and restoration of watersheds, while reducing potential impacts from uncharacteristic fire.

Table 34 - Summary of Determinations of Effect for Threatened, Endangered, and Proposed Species and Designated and Proposed Critical Habitat. Species Determination Alternative 2 Mexican Gray Wolf MANLAA* NM Meadow Jumping Mouse (NMMJM)

MANLAA

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) MANLAA SW Willow Flycatcher (SWFL) MANLAA Chiricahua leopard frog MANLAA Apache trout MANLAA Little Colorado Spinedace (LCS) MANLAA Loach Minnow MANLAA Spikedace MANLAA Roundtail chub NLJ** (species); MANLAA

(Determination upon Final Ruling) Narrow-headed gartersnake (NHGS) MANLAA Critical Habitat Determination MSO Critical Habitat MANLAA NMMJM Critical Habitat ***NE SWFL Critical Habitat MANLAA NHGS Critical Habitat MANLAA LCS Critical Habitat MANLAA Loach Minnow Critical Habitat MANLAA Spikedace Critical Habitat MANLAA

*MANLAA = May affect, not likely to adversely affect **NLJ = Not likely to jeopardize the continued existence ***NE = No Effect

Bald and Golden Eagles The Bald and Golden Eagle Act provides for the protection of bald and golden eagles from different forms of harassment or other detrimental effects. For more information on the act, see the Laws and Regulations section above.

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus lucocephalus Sensitive/Protected

This species was covered previously in the Sensitive species section. Refer to the analysis below for more information.

Golden Eagle Species background Aquila chrysaetos Protected

Golden eagles are the largest raptors in North America. This species is widespread across much of the world, and occurs throughout North America. In Arizona, the species has been found state

wide, though in fairly low densities. Golden eagles primarily feed on small mammals such as rabbits and ground squirrels, though they have been known to take young ungulates. These raptors most commonly utilize cliff faces for nesting, and have been known to use transmission towers and tall trees. They are usually found in open country, in prairies, open wooded country and barren areas especially in hilly or mountainous regions (AZGF 2002b). They are very sensitive to human disturbance during the nesting period, approximately February to March.

Existing condition

Opportunistic surveys for this species have occurred in the project area. In 2014, ASNF aquatic biologists reported seeing a golden eagle nest in the San Francisco River near the New Mexico border. Follow up attempts to locate this nest have failed, although District wildlife biologists have observed soaring golden eagles in the same section of canyon and is assumed as the general location of the nest. Other suitable nesting habitat may exist in the cliffs on the eastern side of Escudilla Mountain, although no eagles have been observed there on multiple surveys for other species over multiple years. Golden eagles utilize open country for foraging, and home ranges can be as large as 55 square miles. This species is assumed to forage across the entire project boundary in all PNVT types, of which there are approximately 66,000 acres.

Environmental Consequences-Alternative 2-Proposed Action


Under Alternative 2, restoration activities related to project implementation may affect golden eagles in the project area.

No adverse impacts are anticipated on nesting golden eagles as no nests have been documented within the project boundary. If nests are located within the project area, a timing restriction would be used to eliminate disturbance during the critical nesting period, through consultation with the district wildlife biologist. Follow up surveys will be conducted in suitable habitat, prior to project activities near suspected nesting locations, such as in the San Francisco River drainage near the New Mexico border to identify nesting eagles.

Thinning, prescribed burns, increased traffic on roads such as log hauling, or other work related activities may cause disturbance to foraging eagles from auditory or visual sources. These disturbances would likely cause area avoidance by foraging eagles, which forage over large areas and are expected to be minimal effects on the eagle’s normal far ranging foraging behavior. Additionally, these treatments would be staggered across the landscape, separated spatially and temporally, reducing the impacts on eagles or other disturbance sensitive species. This disturbance would be localized, of short duration and low intensity and may affect individual birds but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species.


~ 169 ~

Thinning and prescribed burning would have beneficial impacts on prey abundance for the golden eagle. These treatments would open the canopy in many places, allowing more sunlight to the forest floor which would cause an increase in herbaceous understory vegetation used as foraging habitat for prey species such as lagomorphs, squirrels, and other mammals. Fire treatments, especially in the pinyon juniper habitats, would cause increased health and vigor of herbaceous, grassy vegetation, creating better quality habitat for golden eagle prey.

This alternative would decrease the risk of high severity wildlife across the landscape for up to 20-30 years, preserving good foraging habitat for the golden eagle by maintaining an abundance of prey species and their habitats across the project area.

Fall and winter burning would reduce smoke impacts to nesting or foraging golden eagles. Burning would not occur near occupied golden eagle nesting areas. Smoke drift from other portions of the project may impact nesting or foraging eagles, but prescribed fires would be implemented under expected low severity conditions, limiting the amount of smoke in the air.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect golden eagles include timber treatments and prescribed fire, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from fire risk reduction likely occurred. Negative impacts from timber harvest also may have occurred, such as disturbance that may have altered foraging behavior. Grazing on range lands in the project area has in the past and will into the future may have provided some detrimental impact to prey foraging habitat for species such as lagomorphs and other ground dwelling mammals, although these impacts are reduced or eliminated through adaptive management techniques such as pasture rotation and active monitoring and management by range program personnel. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on this species through off road vehicle use or dispersed campground use. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems, watersheds, and forested stands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project.

Migratory Birds Executive Order (EO) 13186 tasks federal agencies to protect migratory birds by integrating bird conservation principles and by avoiding or minimizing, to the extent practicable, adverse impacts on migratory birds, as identified under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA).


Alternative 1 would result in no take of migratory birds as no thinning or prescribed burning activities would occur.


Table 35 lists migratory bird species representing habitat types that may occur in the action area.

Table 35 - Migratory Bird Analysis Species Primary

Habitat Association

Acres of Potential Habitat

Qualitative Habitat

Assessment

Habitat Effects

Red-naped Sapsucker

Mixed Conifer

3156 ac

Aspen generally in south half of project area, many stands directly east of Escudilla Mtn; aspen regeneration occurring where Wallow Fire scars occurred

Aspen regeneration would occur through treatments, some stands may be lost to fire but regenerate quickly

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Generally in central and south end of PA*; edges and burned areas are plentiful due to Wallow Fire burn

Project activities will increase edge and understory habitats

Cassin’s Finch Open coniferous forest limited in some areas, though generally adequate/marginal throughout central and southern PA

Coniferous forest would be more open post treatment

Purple martin

Ponderosa Pine

19706 ac

Large PIPO and snags near meadows are somewhat limited, present throughout central and southern PA

Some snags will be lost across project area, large snags near meadows will be retained

Grace’s warbler

Tall trees with robust crowns are generally present throughout central and southern end of PA

Project activities will increase understory vegetation and promote growth of remaining trees

Flammulated owl

Pine-oak and mixed conifer are present throughout timbered

Project activities will increase understory


~ 171 ~

Species Primary Habitat

Association


Qualitative Habitat

Assessment

Habitat Effects

portion of PA; generally adequate

vegetation and promote growth of remaining trees

Lewis woodpecker

Mixed con, ponderosa, pine-oak are generally adequate throughout central and southern part of PA

Project activities will increase understory vegetation and promote growth of remaining trees

Cordilleran flycatcher

Primarily central and south of PA; dense canopy exists in many locations; understory is somewhat thick and snags are adequate

Canopy cover reduced through treatments, understory vegetation will increase

MacGillivray’s warbler

High elevation riparian

Wetland cienega,

Montane willow riparian,

Cottonwood willow

1318 ac

Shrubby understory and riparian thickets adequate; present throughout PA along riparian corridors

Project activities will increase understory vegetation, riparian system health

Red-faced warbler

Riparian areas in pine and pine-oak present and adequate throughout PA

Project activities will promote riparian health, vigor, and stability

Common black-hawk

Gallery riparian forest limited in PA, mostly occurring along San Francisco River near NM border

Project activities will promote riparian health, vigor, and stability

Pinyon Jay

Pinyon-Juniper

20631 ac

Pinyon-juniper forest abundant throughout central and northern PA

Project activities will reduce pinyon-juniper forest as a whole, but will promote tree growth of remaining PJ

Gray Flycatcher

Intermix of pinyon/juniper with overstory pine may be somewhat limited, but present and generally adequate through central and northern PA

Project activities will reduce pinyon-juniper forest as a whole, but will promote tree growth of remaining PJ

Species Primary Habitat

Association


Qualitative Habitat

Assessment

Habitat Effects

Black-throated Gray warbler

Scrub brush understory in pinyon-juniper woodlands generally adequate, existing in central and northern part of PA

Project activities will reduce shrub brush component, reduction in canopy cover will encourage more growth of this component

Juniper titmouse

Pinyon juniper woodlands extensive throughout central and northern PA; woodlands somewhat thick and may limit abundance

Project activities will reduce BA of PJ woodlands, more open conditions would favor this species

Gray Vireo Open mature pinyon-juniper forest on mesas and canyon slopes abundant throughout central and northern PA

Project activities may reduce PJ forest, but promote health and vigor of remaining stands and individual tree growth

Ferruginous hawk

Grassland

(GreatBasin and

montane/subalpine)

21278 ac

Grasslands exist in northern portion of PA, but are encroached by trees; Habitat adequate but decreasing over time

Project activities would promote grasslands and reduce encroachment

Brewer’s sparrow

Sagebrush dominated areas somewhat limited, but occurring in northern and north central portion of PA


Swainson’s hawk

Grasslands with sparse trees present in northern portion of PA, though decreasing over time due to encroachment


Prairie falcon Grasslands present in northern and north central portion of PA; potentially suitable nesting cliffs exist outside pa on Escudilla Mountain


*Project Area


~ 173 ~


Short term adverse effects could occur to migratory birds from restoration treatments during project implementation. Treatments occurring during the nesting season may destroy nests and therefore cause unintentional take of migratory birds within the project area. Vegetation used for nesting or foraging would be reduced through treatments, with recovery of understory vegetation expected relatively quickly (within one to two years) under normal precipitation conditions. Timber and fire treatments would likely reduce over-story canopy cover through much of the area and reduce habitat for species that require denser canopy conditions. This effect may last for decades as trees slowly reestablish in treatment areas and the canopy gradually closes.

Project plans include mitigation measures to minimize potential negative effects on migratory birds. Treatment activities would be staggered across the landscape, with individual, localized treatments separated spatially and temporally. We anticipate implementing treatments in this manner would eliminate potential population-level effects. Additionally, timing restrictions in MSO PACs or NOGO PFAs would protect these species and other migratory species nesting within those areas.

Take Statement Thus, no significant effects will occur to range-wide populations of migratory bird species dependent on mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, pine-oak woodland, pinyon-juniper woodland, and Great Basin grasslands. While this project may result in unintentional take of migratory birds, we do not expect population-level declines in migratory bird species to occur because treatment implementation would take place over several years (10-15) in localized areas, and project plans include protective measures for the most sensitive species.

Important Bird Areas Important Bird Areas (IBA) are listed on the Audubon Society’s website. These are areas designated across the state that are important areas for a host of different bird species, and are used in project analysis in conjunction with migratory bird species to describe effects proposed projects may have on migratory species. There are no IBA’s in the project area. The nearest IBA’s are the Blue River Complex IBA (2 miles distant) and the Upper Little Colorado Watershed IBA (5 miles distant). These IBA’s would not be affected by the proposed project and restoration actions.

Sensitive Species This section analyzes Forest Service Sensitive species. These species are identified on the Regional Forester’s Sensitive species list, and typically include species whose population viability is a concern as indicated by current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density, or downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species existing distribution (FSM 2670.5(19)). This list was compiled utilizing the most recent list, the Regional

Foresters Sensitive Species List of 2013. Species were identified on the presence of suitable habitat, in the absence of current survey information in the table below. Species that did not have suitable habitat identified in the project boundary or are not known to occur within the action area were excluded from further analysis. At the end of the sensitive species analysis is a summary table (Table 37) of determinations of affects from the proposed actions.

Table 36 - Forest Service Sensitive Species and their status in the project area. Species Name Suitable

Habitat Present

Suitable Habitat Occupied

Mammals Pale Townsends big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens

Yes Assumed

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum

Yes Assumed

Allen’s lappet-browed bat Idionycteris phyllotis

Yes Assumed

Navajo Mogollon vole Microtus mogollonensis navaho

Yes Assumed

Arizona montane vole Microtus montanus arizonensis

Yes Assumed

White Mountains chipmunk Neotamias minimus arizonensis

Yes Assumed

White Mountains ground squirrel Ictidomys tridecemlineatus monticola

Yes Assumed

Springerville silky pocket mouse Perognathus flavus goodpasteri

Yes Assumed

American water shrew Sorex palustris

Yes Assumed

Birds Northern goshawk

Accipiter gentilis Yes Yes

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Yes Assumed

American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum

Yes Assumed

Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus

Yes Yes

Invertebrates A stonefly Capnia caryi

Yes Yes

A caddisfly Lepidostoma apache

Yes Assumed

A caddisfly Lepidostoma knulli

Yes Assumed

A caddisfly Limnephilus granti

Yes Assumed

Fish Desert sucker Catostomus clarki

Yes Yes

Sonora sucker Catostomus insignis

Yes Yes

Rio Grande sucker Catostomus plebeius

Yes Yes


~ 175 ~

Species Name Suitable Habitat Present

Suitable Habitat Occupied

Plants Goodings Onion Allium gooddingii

Yes Assumed

Villous Groundcover Milkvetch Astragalus humistratus var. crispulus

Yes Assumed

Gila Thistle Cirsium gilense

Yes Assumed

Wislizeni gentian Gentianella wislizeni

Yes Assumed

Mogollon Hawkweed Hieracium brevipilum

Yes Assumed

Mogollon clover Trifolium longipes ssp. nuerophyllum

Yes Assumed

Bebb’s Willow Salix bebbiana

Yes Yes

Blumer’s Dock Rumex orthoneurus

Yes Assumed

Parish’s Alkali Grass Puccinellia parishii

Yes Known locations

Environmental Consequences

Common to Mammal, Bird, and Rare Plant Forest Sensitive Species-Alternative 1 Direct and Indirect effects

Alternative 1 would not result in any immediate change to habitat used by any of the sensitive species analyzed below, in either quantity or quality. The risk of high severity wildfire would continue to exist across much of the project area, particularly in Pine-Oak, Dry and Wet Mixed Conifer PNVTs. Meadows and grasslands would continue to experience conifer encroachment, increasing over time and shading out understory species natural in grassland habitats. Forested PNVTs as listed above would continue to be overstocked and shade out understory. Roads would not be decommissioned or rehabilitated, continuing to contribute to sedimentation and disturbance across the project area, negatively affecting water quality and watershed function.

Cumulative effects

A cumulative effect is s defined as incremental environmental impact or effect of the proposed action, together with impacts of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of what agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other actions (40 CFR 1508.7). Because the Forest Service would take no action under Alternative 1with this project because there are no direct or indirect effects from this project, no cumulative effects would occur.

Mammals The 3 bat species described below will be analyzed as a group, as effects are similar amongst them all. Differences amongst them will be specifically addressed within the analysis.

Bats

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat Species background Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens Sensitive

This bat species occurs throughout Arizona and ranges from low desert habitat up to coniferous forests in the mountains and highlands. The main prey for these bats are moths and other flying insects, which they catch in flight and consume.

Existing condition

Surveys for these species has not been conducted in the project area. Undocumented mines or caves may exist in the project area providing roosting or maternity habitat for these bats. The entirety of the project area, approximately 66,000 ac, is considered foraging habitat as these bats forage throughout the state including pinyon/juniper woodlands and conifer forests. An NAU study sampling bats on the Alpine Ranger District in the Wallow Fire footprint near the project area in 2013 did not detect any Pale Townsend’s big-eared bats (Saunders and Chambers, 2013 annual report).

Spotted bat Species background Euderma maculatum Sensitive

Spotted bats are a wide ranging species but thought to be somewhat rare. They forage mainly in lower desert scrub country but have been found in ponderosa pine forests and even in spruce fir habitat in nearby New Mexico (AZGF 2003b). They feed primarily on moths caught on the wing, but have also been known to forage on the ground for June bugs or grasshoppers.

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not occurred within the project boundary. A study conducted by NAU researchers nearby the project boundary on the Alpine Ranger District did not capture any spotted bats (Saunders and Chambers, 2013). Large cliff faces and crevices that may provide suitable roosting habitat exist on the east side of Escudilla Mountain, just outside of the project boundary. Suitable foraging habitat exists throughout the project area (~66,000 ac), including the extensive pinyon/juniper woodlands in the northern part of the project and the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests in the middle and southern portion of the project area.


~ 177 ~

Allen’s lappet-browed bat Species background Idionycteris phyllotis Sensitive

Allen’s lappet-browed bats are a fast flying species that prey upon smaller moths and other soft bodied insects. These bats are commonly found in ponderosa pine, pinyon/juniper, and other conifer forest habitat types.

Existing condition

Allen’s lappet-browed bats have been found in multiple locations on the Alpine Ranger District. No surveys are known to have been conducted in the project area, but this species has been netted nearby. Saunders and Chambers (2013) captured and released multiple Allen’s lappet-browed bats on the Alpine Ranger District, and after affixing radio trackers, found them to roost in ponderosa pine and Douglas fir snags. Solvesky and Chambers (2009) found Allen’s lappet-browed bats roosting in vertical cliff faces and ponderosa pine snags on the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests. Undocumented mines or caves may exist in the project area providing roosting or maternity habitat for these bats. Roosting habitat occurs in the project area, with large numbers of ponderosa pine snags as well as vertical cliff faces on nearby Escudilla Mountain. Suitable foraging habitat exists throughout the project area.



Under Alternative 2 restoration actions would occur in the project area and may have some effects on individual bats.

Foraging habitats for these bat species may benefit from mechanical and prescribed fire treatments. These treatments would reduce canopy cover and provide an increase of understory herbaceous vegetation, a primary food source of bat prey (insects), and boosting bat prey populations. These treatments would create a mosaic of forest conditions, including canopy gaps and more edge habitat, providing diverse vegetation structure beneficial to insect populations and therefore foraging bats (Taylor 2006). These treatments would also move forested stands toward historic conditions and a reduced risk of high severity fire, preserving these habitats for bat use into the future. Short term reduction of insect prey may occur through the removal of some trees or understory vegetation that moths or other adult insects use, but these reductions are expected to be of limited duration as understory vegetation and associated insect populations quickly recover. Treatments would be temporally and spatially separated, staggered over time across the project area that would minimize the potential for large scale prey reductions concentrated area.

Roosting habitat of cliff faces or crevices for the spotted bat and pale Townsend’s big-eared bat will not likely be affected by project activities. Nearby cliff faces on the eastern face of Escudilla

Mountain that provide roosts for spotted bats are outside the project area and will not be affected. No caves or mines are documented to exist within the project area. Individual tree roosting lappet-browed bats may be affected by project activities if they are roosting in trees in the project area. Snags across the treated areas may be lost through treatment, decreasing the amount of suitable roosting snags for the tree roosting species. However, large snags that are the best roosting trees will be targeted for retention, minimizing the chance of mortality or reduction of roosting habitat across the project area. Snags will be retained across the project area based on Forest plan guidance, providing for roosting habitat for this species into the future.

Fire treatments, such as broadcast burning or maintenance burns in subsequent years may create smoky conditions. Dense smoke may be an irritant to roosting or foraging bats and may alter their behavior by causing them to leave the area until the smoke dissipates. Smoke effects would be of short duration and transitory. Additionally, fire treatments would likely create more snags across the landscape, providing more potential roost sites for Allen’s lappet-browed bats in the future.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect these bat species include timber sales and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber sales or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of treated stands that improves foraging habitat likely occurred, although disturbance of bats and loss of roosting habitat through snag trees lost also likely occurred. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce herbaceous vegetation levels and thus insect populations important to bats as prey. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to insect populations. Recreational use likely provides little to no reduction of prey populations through off road vehicle use or disturbance of tree roosting bats. Future projects such as the Luna forest restoration or Pueblo Park forest restoration will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved foraging habitat nearby, beneficial impacts to these bat species, although they will have similar habitat alteration and disturbance effects as the West Escudilla project.

Voles The 2 vole species described below are analyzed as a group, as effects are similar for them both. Differences amongst them will be specifically addressed within the analysis.

Navajo Mogollon vole Species background Microtus mogollonensis navaho Sensitive

Navajo Mogollon voles are small rodents roughly the size of a mouse that feed on herbaceous vegetation. They are commonly associated with meadows and other grassy areas adjacent to or


~ 179 ~

intermingled with coniferous forests, from pinyon-juniper woodlands up to spruce fir forests (AZGF 2003).

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not been conducted in the project boundary; however, they have been found on the Alpine District through recently completed work performed under a contract for the Forest Service by Northern Arizona University (NAU) researchers. Chambers (2013) found Navajo Mogollon voles to be relatively abundant in her study areas, noting that they were the 3rd most common capture behind deer mice and Arizona montane voles. Mogollon voles were captured in both wet and dry meadows, and were found to be positively associated with large meadows and areas with increased sedges and rushes (Chambers, 2013). Approximately 21,000 acres of potentially suitable habitat exist in the project boundary for the Mogollon vole (Great Basin grasslands and montane/subalpine grassland PNVTs).

Arizona montane vole Species background Microtus montanus arizonensis Sensitive

Arizona montane voles are small rodents approximately the size of typical mice. These rodents construct runways and nests in high elevation grasslands, typically above 7500 ft. in elevation. Food for these voles consists mainly of herbaceous vegetation such as grass, sedges, leaves, and plant stems, but have also been found to occasionally take insects (AZGF 2004).

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not been conducted in the project boundary, however they have been found on the Alpine District through recently completed work performed under a contract for the Forest Service by Northern Arizona University (NAU) researchers. Chambers (2013) found Arizona montane voles to be relatively abundant in her study areas, noting that they were the 2nd most common capture behind deer mice. Montane voles were captured in both wet and dry meadows, and were found to be positively associated with % bare ground, lack of grazing, and elevation (Chambers, 2013). Approximately 1683 acres of potentially suitable habitat exist in the project boundary for the montane vole (montane/subalpine grassland PNVTs).



Under Alternative 2, restoration activities would occur on Arizona montane and Navajo Mogollon vole habitats, and may affect these species.

Grassland restoration treatments would occur in the form of conifer encroachment removal and prescribed burning. In the Great Basin grassland and montane grassland PNVTs, conifer removal

could occur with machinery or hand crews. Direct morality may occur through machinery running over individuals or nests or falling trees crushing voles, although this is expected to be relatively unlikely because most meadows or grassy areas have few trees in them. Habitat would be created or improved through the removal of encroaching conifers and an increase in grassy areas, beneficial to these species. In riparian areas, meadows would be treated by hand crews and adverse impacts are expected to be minimized with no machinery driving through the area, although dropping trees may still cause individual mortality.

Prescribed fire treatments would occur in vole habitat across more acres than mechanical treatment. Short term adverse impacts may occur to voles through the application of fire that may result in mortality in individual that cannot escape the fire in underground burrows. Low severity fire would likely cause negative effects to forage and cover for these species through the temporary removal of herbaceous vegetation. These grassy communities would recover relatively quickly however, and the impact is expected to be temporary. Increased vigor and health of grassy herbaceous vegetation is expected post fire in the next growing season, beneficial to these species. Fire treatments would be staggered temporally and spatially across the landscape, minimizing impacts to the species and it’s habitat across the project area in any given year.

Thinning treatments in forested areas may increase habitat for voles by reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns in ponderosa pine forest. Canopy openings in these areas may increase understory herbaceous vegetation and the development of grassy habitat suitable for voles. These newly created suitable habitats would create stepping stone habitat, facilitating species expansion and landscape population connectivity. Thinning ponderosa pine forests restores the landscape to a more historic natural condition, reducing the threat of high severity fire while providing for increased habitat quality and quantity for these species.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect these vole species include timber sales and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber sales or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation likely occurred, in contrast to disturbance or individual mortality of voles through treatment implementation. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce vegetation used by forage and cover for voles dependent on herbaceous, grassy areas. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to voles and other related species. Recreational use likely provides little to no impact on voles through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity


~ 181 ~

through increased health and vigor of grasslands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these vole species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project.

Chipmunks, Squirrels, Mice and Shrews The 2 species (White Mountains chipmunk and White Mountains ground squirrel) described below are analyzed as a group, as they occur in the same PNVT and effects are similar for them both. Differences amongst them will be specifically addressed within the analysis.

White Mountains chipmunk Species background Neotamias minimus arizonensis Sensitive

The White Mountains chipmunk is a subspecies of the least chipmunk, found in the White Mountains of Arizona (Sullivan and Peterson, 1988). This species prefers high elevation spruce fir forests and subalpine meadows.

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not been conducted in the project area. On the Apache-Sitgreaves NF, this species is assessed on the presence of subalpine montane meadows. In the project area, there are 1683 acres of subalpine/montane grassland PNVTs, and is assumed occupied by this species for management analysis.

White Mountains ground squirrel Species background Ictidomys tridecemlineatus monticola Sensitive

The White Mountains ground squirrel is a small, slender ground squirrel that digs burrows in the earth for nesting and hiding. These squirrels are omnivorous, feeding on vegetation, seeds, meat, and insects. Found only in the White Mountains, they prefer open short grass subalpine fields and meadows, found around 8500-9500 ft. in elevation.

Existing condition

No surveys have been conducted for this species in the project area, however this species is known from multiple localities around the district and was recently sampled nearby by C. Chambers in 2013. Chambers found that the White Mountains ground squirrel occupancy was best indicated by fire, elevation, and percent grass/forb with fire being the best predictor of occupancy. This species inhabits high subalpine/montane grasslands. There are 1683 acres of this PNVT within the project area, and the species is assumed to be present for management analysis purposes.



Under Alternative 2 restoration activities would occur in montane/subalpine grasslands and may affect these species.

Conifer encroachment would be eliminated or reduced through restoration treatments. The removal of these conifers would restore the areas around the encroaching conifers to its historic grassland conditions, increasing habitat quantity and quality for the ground squirrel. For the chipmunk, the effects would be mixed. White Mountain chipmunks prefer edge habitat, utilizing spruce and fir forested areas with nearby meadow for foraging. The chipmunk likely is able to utilize the encroaching conifers as suitable habitat, with the removal of these encroaching conifers a reduction in habitat quantity for the chipmunk. Disturbance from machinery may occur, although these species typically escape it by utilizing underground burrows or rocky areas and the disturbance is minimized. This disturbance may alter foraging behavior, but will be of short duration as work is completed and moves to new areas.

Prescribed burns are planned for montane/subalpine grasslands throughout the project area. These broadcast burns will be implemented under low fire severity conditions. The fire would likely not cause direct mortality, as these species would seek refuge in underground burrows or rock piles to escape the disturbance and fire effects. These treatments would have a negative effect on above ground foraging habitat for these species through the removal of herbaceous vegetation. These effects will be temporary with recovery of these areas expected within the next growing season given normal precipitation. Also, these treatments will be staggered across the landscape temporally and spatially, such that all chipmunk or squirrel habitat will not be affected at once, but over time and will allow for these impacts to be minimized to the population. Treatment with fire will increase herbaceous vegetative community health and vigor in the future, benefiting these species in the long term.

Thinning treatments in mixed conifer PNVTs are planned that would reducing uncharacteristic tree densities and patterns. Restoring meadows and creating openings in the forest would increase understory development and herbaceous vegetation that these species could utilize, especially the chipmunk and the edge habitat preferred. These treatments would move the forested stands towards a more historic condition and reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfire, as well as providing more habitat quantity and quality for the species. These effects would be indirect beneficial effects for the White Mountains chipmunk and squirrel.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the White mountain chipmunk and the White Mountain squirrel include timber sales and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber sales or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation likely occurred. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future


~ 183 ~

reduce vegetation used by forage and cover for chipmunks and squirrels dependent on herbaceous, grassy areas and edge habitat. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to these species. Recreational use likely provides little to no impact on these species through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of grasslands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project.

Springerville silky pocket mouse Species background Perognathus flavus goodpasteri Sensitive

The Springerville silky pocket mouse is a subspecies of the genus Perognathus endemic to the grasslands surrounding Springerville Arizona. This mouse is a small rodent that lives in shallow burrows which it uses for nesting, hibernation, and food storage. Near Springerville, these mice were present in areas of short grass, boulders, and tumbleweeds (Hoffmeister 1986). Grassy cover may be the most important habitat feature for site selection by these mice. The elevational range for this species is 5240-7020 ft.

Existing condition

No systematic surveys for this species have been conducted in the project area. Specimens have been collected near the town of Springerville, a few miles northwest. This species is associated with Great Basin Grasslands in the project area, of which there are 19,595 acres.



Under Alternative 2 restoration treatments planned for the Great Basin grassland PNVT would have some effects on the Springerville silky pocket mouse and its habitat.

Grassland restoration treatments include removing encroaching conifers through cutting, lopping, and scattering to an average canopy cover of <10%. These activities would be implemented by machinery or by hand crews. These treatments would restore these grasslands to a more natural state, removing encroaching conifers that have grown overstocked through past management. Removal of the conifers would increase herbaceous understory growth, promoting more grassy areas that the pocket mouse prefers. This would increase the quantity and quality of habitat available to the species, benefiting the species with denser grasslands that would provide more forage and cover. Direct mortality may occur to individuals through project implementation by machinery crushing mice or collapsing burrows. Impacts to landscape populations or large

groups are not expected as these treatments are staggered temporally and spatially across the landscape, limiting the amount of disturbance in any given year or any specific location.

Prescribed burning would occur on all Great Basin grassland PNVTs in the project area. Fire produces a mix of effects for the Springerville silky pocket mouse. Individual mortality may occur if some species are crushed during implementation by vehicles or hand crews. Direct mortality from fire is not expected to normally occur, as these species can escape the fire in underground burrows. Grass fires typically burn fast and go out quickly. The reduction or removal of grassy herbaceous vegetation through fire application would be a negative impact for the pocket mouse, as these plants are used for food and cover. These grassy areas are expected to recover in the next growing season given normal precipitation, with increased vigor and health, increasing the quality of pocket mouse habitat. Maintenance burns over the next 10-15 years would repeat these impacts, with beneficial invigoration of grasslands used by the pocket mouse recurring as well as any negative effects to individual mice or small populations in treatment areas.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the Springerville silky pocket mouse include Pinyon-Juniper treatments and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past pinyon-juniper treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation likely occurred. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce vegetation used by forage and cover for Springerville silky pocket mouse which is dependent on herbaceous, grassy areas. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to these species. Recreational use likely provides little to no impact on these species through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of grasslands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project. Private or state management on lands on the northern border of the project area such as private grazing or pinyon-juniper removal or burning may affect individuals across the area.

American water shrew Species background Sorex palustris Sensitive

The American water shrew is a boreal species found from Alaska to the Smoky Mountains, with the population in the White Mountains being the southernmost occurrence of the species. These


~ 185 ~

are small, extremely active rodents that are almost always found directly beside water, either swiftly flowing streams or wetland/cienega riparian habitat types in high elevations.

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not occurred within the project boundaries. This species is found in shallow tunnels and runways through grasses, sedges, reeds and willow and alder thickets along ponds, marshes, and edges of swift flowing high elevational streams with rocks, logs, and crevices and overhanging banks. Incidental captures were made through surveys for jumping mice in 2009 in Rudd Creek, which is a tributary to Nutrioso Creek. It is possible this species also exists along Nutrioso creek, or other perennial streams in the project area such as Mamie, Coyote, Morrison, Bob Thomas, Stone, or Little creeks. Wetland/cienega and montane willow riparian PNVTs will be analyzed for this species, of which there are 1035 acres.



Under Alternative 2, restoration treatments may affect water shrews or water shrew habitat.

Riparian treatments will be implemented by hand in most cases. Mechanical treatments would be allowed only in areas that conform to the mitigation guidelines and best management practices as recommended in Appendix A. These include timing restrictions along perennial waters from June 15 – Oct 15 implemented for the listed New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, which would also give added protection to the water shrew during. Post settlement encroaching conifers would be removed and cleared, leaving and favoring hardwood species. Those trees that provide streambank stability would be left, maintaining stream structure and riparian vegetation used by water shrews. There is a possibility that cutting and dropping trees in riparian areas may harm or cause direct mortality to individual shrews, but this is expected to be unlikely as shrews would escape disturbance by leaving the area or escaping into underground burrows. Thinning of forested stands above and near riparian areas reduces the threat of high severity crown fires, and the subsequent flooding and high erosion events which are extremely detrimental to riparian species such as water shrews. Best management practices and other mitigations as outlined in the Appendix A (West Escudilla Watershed BMPs) will limit or reduce sedimentation or other effects from these treatments, while providing long term habitat protection from these high severity fires. Low severity prescribed fire treatments in riparian areas are expected to mimic natural fire effects that occurred in these systems in pre-settlement times. These treatments may harm individual shrews, although shrews generally would be able to escape fire by resorting to underground burrows for cover. These fires would rejuvenate herbaceous vegetation and other riparian vegetation such as willows, boosting habitat quality for water shrews and insect populations they utilize as prey.

Riparian planting of willows or other native species and building of fence exclosures would cause temporary disturbance or area avoidance by shrews, but this would be of short duration and end when work is completed. The habitat quality and quantity for water shrews would be improved through the removal of encroaching conifer trees and the addition of more riparian species that would improve the stability and function of riparian areas. The opening of the canopy by removal of conifers and subsequent increased herbaceous understory would benefit insect populations, an important food source for water shrews.

The installation of stream stabilization structures, as discussed in the hydrology section below, such as with rock dams, cement jacks, log weirs, cross vein weirs or Zuni bowls, would have short term disturbance of any resident water shrews. Habitat would be temporarily disrupted as these structures are constructed, with riparian vegetation removed as the soil is disturbed. The areas would quickly recover, as riparian systems tend to do. Additionally, the long term benefit from these structures would be increased bank stability and riparian system function as they maintain high water tables and reduce soil and bank erosion, such as head cutting and scouring.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the American water shrew include timber treatments and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation and therefore insect populations likely occurred. Negative impacts from timber harvest were likely minimized as these shrews are closely tied to the water and many of these areas are inaccessible to harvesting machinery, although increased sedimentation may have had some impact. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce vegetation used by insect populations, as well as water quality which is important for the water shrew. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to this and other species. Recreational use likely provides little to no impact on this species through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems and watersheds in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project. Private management practices on private lands along perennial waters interspersed within the project area such as private grazing or water diversions may affect individuals across the area, including dispersal interruption, water quality, or habitat degradation.


~ 187 ~

Birds

Northern goshawk Species background Accipiter gentilis Sensitive

Northern goshawks (NOGO) are forest dwelling raptors that take a large variety of prey ranging from medium sized birds (such as Stellar’s jays and robins) to mammals and rodents (such as rabbits, squirrels, and chipmunks). They are most commonly found nesting in ponderosa pine (Beier and Maschinski 2003), but also utilized mixed conifer forests. Nesting stands typically have intermediate canopy cover, while the stand itself is composed of mid to larger sized trees. Open areas adjacent to ponderosa stands are commonly used for foraging.

Existing condition

Two management units (known as post-fledging areas or PFAs) for Northern goshawks have been established in the project area, Stone Creek PFA and Sawmill Spring PFA. History for these two PFAs follows.

Sawmill Spring PFA – This PFA was established in 1993 with the discovery of a pair of goshawks found during surveys for the Circe Timber Sale. This PFA was surveyed informally again in 1995 with no response, and again in 1996 with an adult NOGO of unknown sex detected. In 1999 the PFA was found to be unoccupied. The last survey occurred in 2014 as part of this projects data collection, with no NOGO located in the PFA.

Stone Creek PFA – This PFA was established in 1992 with the location of a single adult female NOGO. An adult NOGO was seen the following year of unknown sex, most likely the same bird from the previous year. Subsequent informal monitoring in 1994, 1995, 1996, and 2002 had no detections of NOGO in the PFA. In 2014 the PFA was surveyed as part of the data collection in preparation for this project, and the PFA was found to be occupied by a nesting pair with fledglings. In 2015, no NOGO were detected through informal monitoring.

A systematic habitat-based survey was conducted for Northern goshawks through identified suitable forested habitat in the project boundary in 2014. No new Northern goshawk locations were found through this survey effort, although nesting Northern goshawk were found in the Stone Creek PFA as part of this survey. Northern goshawks are habitat generalists, and will be analyzed based on ponderosa pine and mixed conifer (dry & wet) PNVTs, of which there are 22,862 acres.



Under Alternative 2, restoration treatments would occur in goshawk habitat (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands) and would have some effects on Northern goshawks. Treatments planned are shown in the Proposed Action, Chapter 2.

These treatments are described in detail in Proposed Action, Chapter 2. These treatments were developed following guidance from the Forest Plan (USDA 2015), GTR 310 (USDA 2013) Restoring Composition and Structure in Southwestern Frequent-fire Forests, as well as GTR 217 (USDA 1992) Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United States.

Restoration actions included in the proposed action may disrupt or disturb foraging goshawks outside of PFAs during logging, chipping, piling, road maintenance or prescribed burning. These disruptions would be limited in scope and duration, as actions will be staggered across the landscape temporally and spatially and will conclude in any one given area relatively quickly (within 2-4 weeks). A breeding season restriction on activities within ¼ mi of PFAs will eliminate most of the potential for direct effects to breeding goshawks. If surveys determine in any given year that the PFAs are unoccupied, the breeding season restriction may be lifted for that particular season.

Thinning treatments would reduce the threat of high severity wildfire by thinning overstocked forested stands in ponderosa pine or mixed conifer units and removing ladder fuels and reducing dead and down woody material and fuel loads. These thinning treatments would then be followed by prescribed burns that would further remove or reduce fuels and restore these stands closer to historic conditions and lower risk levels of high severity crown fire. Fire treatments may temporarily reduce prey populations, but as the vegetation recovers in subsequent years these populations are expected to recover and improve, providing longer term benefit for northern goshawks. These burns would produce a mosaic of burned, partially burned, and unburned duff layers. Understory herbaceous plants such as grasses, forbs, and shrubs would be able to increase in these areas coupled with canopy openings through thinning and burning actions that would benefit many prey species, such as rabbits, squirrels, and birds. Maintenance burns over the following years would repeat these effects, continuing to reduce high severity fire risk into the future while providing for periodic rejuvenation of understory vegetation.

Smoke effects from burning activities may affect some goshawks, causing them to temporarily avoid the area, but would be restricted outside of the breeding season to reduce impacts on reproducing pairs. Broadcast burns are recommended as the management tool of choice in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests to perpetuate northern goshawk habitat and to reduce fuel loading to accomplish project and species objectives (Reynolds et al. 1992).

Stand diversity and heterogeneity would be increased following restoration treatments. A mosaic of structural stages would be created, favoring older, larger, more mature tree stands in PFAs for nesting habitat. These treatments would include openings for forest regeneration and prey habitat


~ 189 ~

in 10-20% of individual stands. These openings would allow for understory regeneration and growth and increased habitat quality for prey species. Canopy cover and BA would be reduced through treatments, as displayed in Tables 16 and 17 above in Proposed Action, Chapter 2.

Road use and temporary roads opened or created for project implementation would increase the level of disturbance levels. These roads would be used for various project activities such as transporting crews to and from work sites, hauling materials, and as control lines during broadcast burning. Grubb et al (1998) found that logging trucks 413m of an active goshawk nest did not elicit any behavioral response from a brooding female goshawk. Activities associated with project implementation within ¼ mi of PFAs would be seasonally restricted to reduce disturbance to reproducing goshawks. Outside of the breeding season, this increased disturbance may alter foraging or other behaviors, causing area avoidance or altered hunting habits. These disturbances are expected to be temporary and of short duration, limited in scale as implementation is staggered across the landscape temporally and spatially.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the Northern goshawk include timber treatments and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation and therefore prey populations likely occurred. Negative impacts from timber harvest also likely occurred, such as disturbance, canopy loss and forest structure loss, although these would have been minimized through BMPs, project design, and timing restrictions on known goshawks in the area. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce vegetation used by prey populations. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to this and other species. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on this species through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping, with the proximity to the Alpine community. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems and watersheds in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project. Management practices on private lands interspersed within the project area such as private grazing may affect individuals across the area, including disturbance or reduction of prey habitat quantity or quality.

Gray catbird Species background Dumetella carolinensis Sensitive

The gray catbird is a medium sized migratory bird that breeds from Canada through much of the United States. This bird winters in the southeastern US and the neo-tropics, and arrives on its breeding grounds in late April to early June. In Arizona, this species likely arrives between April and May. Found primarily in riparian areas, at this elevation this species is found in dense willow and alder riparian corridors. The gray catbird is commonly associated with riparian areas with dense shrubby vegetation throughout ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper forests.

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not occurred within the project area. However, records exist of this species in the project area and in nearby areas across the Apache side of the A-S National Forest. Nests were located in the Little Colorado River from near Greer to north of Springerville, and also locally along the upper San Francisco River just outside of Alpine (AZGF 2001b). Habitat for this species is found in riparian areas in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and pinyon juniper forests, of which there are 57 miles along perennial streams in the project area.



Under Alternative 2, project actions may affect the gray catbird or its habitat. Riparian habitats that may contain suitable habitat for the gray catbird could exist in about 57 miles of perennial streams across the project area. Many of these streams, such as Mamie, Stone, Bob Thomas, Morrison, and Coyote, flow from the eastern flanks of Escudilla Mountain down into the lowlands, eventually joining either the Lower Colorado River or the San Francisco River. Riparian treatments planned for these areas include hand thinning of encroaching conifers, planting of native riparian vegetation, fencing, installation of bank stabilization structures, and low severity burning.

Removal of encroaching conifers in riparian zones may cause some disturbance to gray catbirds during migration. Application of aquatic management zones, and seasonal restrictions related to other species in riparian areas such as for the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse would eliminate or reduce disturbance to the gray catbird during the breeding season (June 15 – Oct 15). Actions outside of the restriction buffer on upland areas near riparian zones may cause some temporary disturbance, but is greatly reduced or eliminated by the buffer. The removal of canopy over story from encroaching conifers would release understory herbaceous or shrubby vegetation, providing more foraging habitat (insects and fruit) for the gray catbird, increasing the habitat quantity and quality for this species.


~ 191 ~

Prescribed burning would have mixed effects for the gray catbird. Prescribed burning would be limited by the breeding restriction, and thus direct effects would be eliminated during the breeding season for this species. Prescribed burning would have beneficial indirect effects through the reduction of high severity fire risk, as well as the rejuvenation of herbaceous and shrubby vegetation post burn during subsequent growing seasons. Directly after the burn, there may be a reduction of foraging habitat for any individuals still in the area prior to migration, but these treatments would be staggered across the landscape temporally and spatially and would limit the disturbance to the population across the project area. Direct effects from prescribed burning are not expected to occur as the species would move to other areas during fire activities.

Fencing and planting of riparian vegetation such as willows or other natural species would take place outside of the breeding season, so disturbances would be minimized. Individual birds still in the area prior to migration may experience some temporary disturbance, but these effects would be of short duration and localized in effect, with the work being completed relatively quickly (~1 week). Stream bank stabilization actions, such as with the installation of rock dams, Zuni bowls, or other methods (see Hydrology section), could temporarily cause disturbance to individual birds or reduce foraging habitat through the removal of herbaceous vegetation, but will experience positive benefits through the reduction of erosion and increased bank stability and continued persistence of high water tables and subsequent riparian vegetative health. Fencing would reduce herbivory and browsing of gray catbird habitat, improving the quality of habitat for the species.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the gray catbird include timber treatments and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation likely occurred. Negative impacts from timber harvest also likely occurred, such as disturbance, although these would have been minimized as suitable habitat for the gray catbird is generally not suitable for logging machinery topographically. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce vegetation that provides habitat for this species.. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to this and other species. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on this species through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping, with the proximity to the Alpine community. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems and watersheds in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project. Management practices on private lands interspersed

within the project area such as private grazing may affect individuals across the area such as the reduction of herbaceous vegetation that supports prey species.

American peregrine falcon Species background Falco peregrinus anatum Sensitive

American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus anatum) occurs across Arizona. Essential habitat includes rock cliffs for nesting and a large foraging area, with nesting site cliffs having a mean height of 200 to 300 feet, and is a permanent resident on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest. Peregrines are aerial specialists, preying mainly on birds found in wetlands, riparian areas, meadows, parklands, croplands, mountain valleys and lakes within a 10-20 mile radius from the nest site.

Existing condition

Surveys for this species have not been formally conducted inside the project area. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has typically monitored the known eyries on the Apache National Forest, and these are located in the Blue River, Black River, Little Colorado River, Chevelon Creek, and along the Mogollon Rim escarpment. No eyries are known to exist in the project area, although formal systematic surveys have not been conducted. However, District biologists have surveyed throughout the project area repeatedly for other species, and are constantly on the lookout for other raptors. Peregrines have not been observed over the last 3 years of survey for other species that have been conducted in the West Escudilla project area. Cliffs that may be suitable for nesting exist on Escudilla Mountain, although these areas are outside of the project boundary. Other possible suitable habitat may exist in the San Francisco River drainage near the New Mexico border. It is possible that if these cliffs are occupied, that Peregrines forage throughout the project area. If so, peregrines would be assumed to use the entire project area (66,000 acres), and would be analyzed as such.



Under Alternative 2, restoration actions associated with project implementation may affect peregrine falcons. No known peregrine falcon eyries exist within the project boundary. Suitable nesting habitat may exist within the project boundary in the San Francisco River drainage near the New Mexico state line, although some data exist that golden eagles have been nesting in that canyon and the eagle’s presence may exclude peregrine falcons from using the area. Cliffs on nearby Escudilla Mountain may provide suitable nesting habitat, and it is possible that peregrine falcons forage through the project area. Project effects would then be limited to disturbance from project activity implementation and prey population and habitat abundance and quality.


~ 193 ~

Equipment, personnel, and noise associated with mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, hauling of timber or other related project activities may disturb individuals and alter foraging behavior. This altered behavior from disturbance would likely manifest in area avoidance of work zones. These activities would be staggered across the landscape temporally and spatially, limiting or reducing the impacts across the landscape. Foraging peregrine falcons would be able to forage in nearby areas to escape this disturbance. This disturbance would be localized and of short duration, with work activities moving on to new areas relatively quickly. This may cause disruption to some individuals but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species.

Habitat conditions for prey would be altered through project implementation, with mixed effects for the peregrine falcon. Forest structure would be altered following thinning, with a reduction in canopy closure and basal area. Increased understory growth may increase foraging habitat for small to medium sized birds. Szaro and Balda (1979) found that bird abundance and species diversity was higher on ‘silviculturally cut’ areas as opposed to control areas. Immediately following treatments the understory would be decreased, such as with thinning or burning. However, these areas are expected to recover within the next growing season assuming average precipitation.

Smoke effects to foraging peregrine falcons from prescribed burns may cause temporary area avoidance as well. These burns would be implemented under conditions to favor low severity burn mosaics, with smoke dispersing from the area quickly by prevailing winds. These burns would be recurring over the life of the project every two to ten years, with these impacts being repeated within that timeframe after implementation. The thinning and prescribed burn treatments would reduce the risk of high severity crown fire, protecting the habitat for peregrine falcon prey species into the future.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the peregrine falcon include timber treatments and prescribed fire, livestock grazing, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from canopy reduction and increased health and vigor of understory herbaceous vegetation likely occurred, with positive effects for falcon prey species. Negative impacts from timber harvest also likely occurred, such as disturbance that may have altered foraging behavior. Livestock grazing has in the past and will into the future reduce vegetation that provides habitat for this species. Range managers use adaptive management and pasture rotation actively to reduce or eliminate most negative effects to this and other species. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on this species through off road vehicle use or dispersed camping, with the proximity to the Alpine community. Future projects such as

the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems, watersheds, and forested stands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project. Management practices on private lands interspersed within the project area such as private grazing may reduce of herbaceous vegetation levels and thus habitat for prey species.

Bald Eagle Species background Haliaeetus leucocephalus Sensitive

Bald eagles are present in Arizona year-round, with some year round residents, while others are migratory, wintering in Arizona and summering in the north. Bald eagles are large raptors that are typically associated with bodies of water and feed on fish and migratory waterfowl, as well as carrion during the winter.

Existing condition

Bald eagles are present on the Alpine Ranger District year-round, and nest within the project boundary at Luna Lake. This pair of nesting bald eagles is the oldest known nesting pair in Arizona, and was first discovered by Alpine Ranger District wildlife biologist Jim Copeland in 1994. These eagles nest in a large snag on the north side of Luna Lake, and have produced young successfully many of the years from 1994 to the present. Many of the young fledged from this pair have gone on to settle locally in northern Arizona, with one established pair from the Eagles at Luna Lake now nesting at Crescent Lake, just west of Big Lake on the Springerville Ranger District. In addition to these year round residents, many wintering bald eagles arrive on the District and are found around Luna Lake and the San Francisco creek drainage, as well as many other places on the District. A nesting and foraging closure area has been established on Luna Lake, closing the area to the public from Jan 1-June 30 for the nesting area, and Feb 15-July 31 for the foraging area. These closure areas are on the north and west side of Luna Lake. No known winter roost sites exist in the project area, although wintering eagles are typically found along Luna Lake and the San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake. PNVT used for analysis of this species are mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and riparian areas (Cottonwood-Willow riparian, Montane willow riparian, water, wetland/cienega riparian), of which there are 24,180 acres.



Under Alternative 2, restoration activities planned for the West Escudilla project may affect Bald Eagles.


~ 195 ~

Through the implementation of a seasonal restriction on project activities within the Luna Lake Bald Eagle nesting and foraging closure areas, no effect to nesting bald eagles would occur. The nesting area closure is in effect from Jan 1 through June 30, while the foraging area closure runs from Feb 15 to July 31. This pair of bald eagles is monitored every year by Nestwatch volunteers associated with the Arizona Game and Fish Department. If monitoring detects that nesting does not occur or fails in any given year, project activity restrictions within the nesting or foraging closure areas may be lifted, pending review by a wildlife biologist.

Equipment, personnel, and noise associated with mechanical treatments, prescribed burning, hauling of timber or other related project activities may disturb individuals and alter foraging behavior. This altered behavior from disturbance would likely manifest in area avoidance of work zones. These activities would be staggered across the landscape temporally and spatially, limiting or reducing the impacts across the landscape. During the summer and fall months when project implementation would likely be occurring, bald eagles forage mainly on or near water bodies around the area where project activities would be light, providing a reduced chance these eagles would experience disturbance. Foraging bald eagles would be able to forage in nearby areas to escape any minimal disturbance that does occur. This disturbance would be localized and of short duration, with work activities moving on to new areas relatively quickly. This may cause disruption to some individuals but would not affect the overall distribution or reproduction of the species.

Roads in the project area would experience increased use through project implementation, with some currently closed roads being temporarily opened as work occurs in the general area. These roads would be closed after use and returned to a more natural state by seeding or ripping, speeding the areas recovery. Disturbance associated with roads and traffic would occur to bald eagles during the fall or winter months when eagles utilize carrion or other game more often, less attached to bodies of water solely for foraging. This disturbance would be of short duration and localized in effect as project activities are staggered across the landscape and separated temporally and spatially, minimizing the impacts to bald eagles across the project area and providing areas of no disturbance to which eagles would move.

Smoke impacts from prescribed burning may impact nesting or foraging bald eagles. Burning would not occur within the breeding area during the breeding season, but smoke drift from other project areas may occur, passing through the nesting area or other foraging areas. The smoke may cause temporary disturbance, but is not expected to have any adverse effect as prescribed burns would be implemented under low severity conditions and smoke is expected to be light and move out of the area relatively quickly, occurring for no more than a few days in any given area. Fire prescriptions planned would be repeated every 2 – 10 years, with these impacts being repeated. These repeated treatments would continue to reduce high severity fire risk over the next 20-30 years.

Snags or other possible perches utilized by bald eagles may be reduced through project implementation. No winter roosts have been identified inside the project boundary, but they may exist. Large snags would be identified and targeted for retention following the Silviculture prescriptions in the Proposed Action and Forest Plan direction. Snag numbers would be retained at levels described in the Forest Plan, with 1 to 2 per acre planned in ponderosa pine stands and 3 per acre in dry mixed conifer and a range of snags in wet mixed conifer as described in the Forest Plan. These snags retained on the landscape would provide sufficient snag numbers for the needs of bald eagles into the future. Fire prescriptions may create more snags, adding to the number of available snags for eagles.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect bald eagles include timber treatments and prescribed fire, state and private land management, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from fire risk reduction likely occurred. Negative impacts from timber harvest also likely occurred, such as disturbance that may have altered foraging behavior. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on this species through off road vehicle use or dispersed and developed campground use, especially around Luna Lake, although these effects are limited with nesting and foraging closures during critical periods. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems, watersheds, and forested stands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project. State fisheries management in Luna lake and surrounding water bodies in the nearby area such as Hulsey Lake and Nutrioso reservoir likely have been beneficial impacts for the species, increasing fish catch success rates and reproductive output for the Luna Lake pair.

Invertebrates Existing conditions and effects analysis were combined for the stonefly (Mogollon snowfly, Capnia caryi), and three species of caddisflies (Lepidostoma apache, Lepidostoma knulli, and Limnephilus granti).

Stoneflies and Caddisflies Species Background

“A stonefly” is Capnia caryi, a stonefly that emerges in winter. Stonefly nymphs (immature) are typically found on rocks in flowing streams with good water quality. Some are predatory, but the family Capniidae are herbivorous. Adult Capniidae emerge during winter over the snow, unlike other stonefly species. The Mogollon snowfly is known from only two streams in the


~ 197 ~

southwestern United States (Baumann and Jacobi 2002), one in New Mexico (Iron Creek) and one in Arizona (Mamie Creek). The range, distribution, and abundance of this species are unknown due to the limited information available.

“A caddisfly” includes three species: Lepidostoma apache, Lepidostoma knulli, and Limnephilus granti. Caddisflies are one of the largest groups of aquatic insects and are adapted to a wide range of microhabitats. Larval caddisflies have very diverse diets and feeding strategies, and occupy different trophic levels and functional feeding groups, including predators and filter feeders. Habitats can include benthic areas of streams, both cool and warm, lakes, marshes, and ponds. Little is known about these three species on the ASNFs. Very limited information about the collection sites is available, since taxonomy and diversity was the focus of most studies.

Existing Conditions

The Mogollon snowfly has been found in only one stream (Mamie Creek) within the project or action Areas. The three species of caddisflies are not known to occur in the Project or Action Areas. However, these four species could potentially occur in a variety of aquatic habitats within the Project or Action Areas.

The Mogollon snowfly could be present in other perennial streams within the Project or Action Areas. However, based on the general habitat requirements of stoneflies for good quality flowing water with low amounts of fine sediments, this is unlikely. If the species is present, it is likely to be in low abundance.

The three species of caddisflies could be present in a variety of aquatic habitats within the Project or Action Areas, including perennial streams, marshes, ponds, or springs. There are 43 identified springs or seeps within the Project Area. Assuming an area of 0.01 ac for each, total acreage would be approximately 0.43. Springs may be more likely to harbor L. granti. Nelson Reservoir is 70 ac and Luna Lake 139 ac. Other perennial standing water bodies total about 229 ac. From the few studies available, it does not appear that any of the three species are widely distributed in the Project Area, or probably not abundant where found. There has been little sampling of invertebrates within the ASNFs, and few have been identified to species. The AZGF conservation status for all three caddisflies is “S1” (“Critically Imperiled”).



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions throughout the Project Area. Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, including ongoing effects of the 2011 Wallow fire and other wildfires. Heavy fuel

loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, basic road use and maintenance, road closures and obliteration not related to Project activities, dispersed camping, and operation of recreation areas. Other ongoing activities on private land would include livestock grazing, water used from wells, and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue. Nelson Reservoir and Luna Lake recreation areas would continue to be managed for recreation needs (e.g. sport fishing for nonnative trout) and the needs of water users downstream.



Direct effects to the four aquatic macroinvertebrate species from vegetation treatments in the Proposed Action is unlikely to occur. Use of mechanized equipment is precluded from stream AMZs, springs, and seeps within the project and action areas.

Hand thinning within the AMZ and prescribed fire would include foot traffic which could include crossing perennial streams. However, stepping on the four species of aquatic macroinvertebrates would be extremely unlikely due to their likely limited distribution and low abundance, and the limited areas of the treatments.

Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation and decreased vegetation cover. Hand thinning may be used on steep slopes (>40%) and on highly erodible soils within these areas, but would have a much less ground disturbance. Indirect effects of hand thinning in AMZs and springs would include soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Hand thinning would include cutting and either lopping and scattering or hand piling of vegetation. Minimal amounts of sediment would be expected to result from this activity. The overall acreage of hand thinning is small and is meant to remove encroaching conifers from riparian areas. Ground disturbing activities occur away from the streambank and immediate riparian area, and any resulting effects would be minor. Sedimentation can affect water quality (suspended sediment), and deposited sediment and may affect respiration and feeding of the four aquatic macroinvertebrate species.

Indirect effects of prescribed burning to aquatic macroinvertebrates could include short-term increased sedimentation, reduced ground or aerial cover, and ash flows. Mitigations to reduce these effects include restrictions on how and when burning occurs. Prescribed burning is prohibited within 100 m from the center of perennial streams during June 15-0ctober 15 to


~ 199 ~

protect riparian vegetation during the growing season. Riparian areas would be burned indirectly, with ignition occurring in upland areas with the fire backing down to the stream. Burn planning should limit high soil burn severity to no more than 5% in upland areas and AMZs. No fire control line would be constructed in AMZs and any constructed in upland areas would be rehabilitated post-treatment. Burning should result in a patchy, discontinuous mosaic. Any indirect effects of prescribed burning to the four aquatic macroinvertebrate species would be minor, due to the implementation practices and mitigations in place.

Indirect effects of proposed treatments could include introducing potential pollutants to aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams which could affect the four species of macroinvertebrates. In addition to Clean Water Act regulations that are required, specific BMPs have been developed to prevent pollutants from reaching water. Contractors shall take all precautions to prevent pollution of all National Forest soil and water.

BMPs designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and nonpoint sources of contamination (Brown 2016). See Appendix A.


Upland soil restoration structures (e.g. site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within the Project Area. Installation of twenty-one instream structures (e.g. Zuni bowls) is planned for the Project Area. Instream structures are planned for Mamie Creek (1), Coyote Creek (4), Lily Creek (3), Rudd Creek (1), Little Creek (6), Pace Creek (2), and Jackson Creek (4).

Riparian planning and exclosures to protect existing or planted areas could occur where site-specific needs are identified along perennial streams to improve bank stability, stream shading, and habitat complexity. Reducing sediment could improve respiration and feeding conditions for the four species of aquatic macroinvertebrates.

Direct effects to aquatic macroinvertebrates could occur from mechanical equipment or personnel installing the identified structures would be extremely unlikely due to the limited duration of installation, relatively small areas involved, and the short time period of work. Indirect effects of short-term ground disturbance and decreased ground cover could occur from personnel or equipment during installation, possibly reducing streamside cover and increasing sediment to the stream. Sedimentation can affect water quality (suspended sediment), and deposited sediment and may affect respiration and feeding of the four aquatic macroinvertebrate species. Proposed structures are small in size and extent. Any effects would be expected to be minor.

Roads

Implementation of the Proposed Action would include the interrelated effects of increased use and maintenance of existing ML2-5 roads and crossings. Direct effects to aquatic macroinvertebrates would not be expected to occur as these road crossings consist of culverts.

Indirect effects to aquatic macroinvertebrates and their habitats from increased ASNFs system road use, maintenance, and crossings could lead to increased sedimentation into streams. Crossings may need some degree of improvement, modification, or maintenance to facilitate restoration activities. Indirect effects to the four macroinvertebrate species from opening, using, maintaining and closing ML1 roads could include increase sedimentation, decreased ground cover, and the potential to transport sediment from runoff. No temporary roads or stream crossings are allowed within AMZs, therefore, no direct effects to the four invertebrate species should occur.

Indirect effects from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Any effects from the creation and use of temporary roads should be minor due to minimal use and mitigations in place. Indirect effects from decommissioning roads is similar to disturbance from temporary road constructions and obliteration. Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will have long-term beneficial effects of reducing the road density within perennial stream habitats occupied by aquatic macroinvertebrates and intermittent and ephemeral streams that feed into perennial streams.

Design features for roads include maintenance specifications and BMPs would be implemented for this project. Any effects to the four aquatic macroinvertebrate species and their habitats would be expected to be minor due to their likely low abundance and restricted distribution and the design features and mitigations in place.

Cumulative Effects

A project-wide description of cumulative effects is presented because of the unknown distribution of the stonefly and three species of caddisfly.

Past forest management practices have contributed to the current landscape conditions. These include timber sales, thinning, fuels reduction, prescribed fire, and bark beetle control, and road use and maintenance. Activities related to the 2011 Wallow Fire include suppression activities (e.g. dipping water, retardant use, and dozer lines), roadside salvage, and road repair and mitigation.

Ungulate grazing and recreation can affect stream habitat that may support the four species of aquatic macroinvertebrates. ASNFs administers 13 permits for grazing allotments occurring at least partially within the project area, and grazing has contributed to current watershed and


~ 201 ~

stream conditions. Elk and deer, which occur throughout the project area, can affect local riparian conditions by removing browse and trampling banks, both of which can result in erosion and contribute sediment to streams. Recreational use, including foot and vehicular traffic, use of Nelson Reservoir Recreation Area and Luna Lake Campground, and dispersed camping have affected watershed conditions throughout the Project Area. Without population data we cannot explicitly state how such actions are affecting these macroinvertebrates, but we can surmise that with increase sedimentation their populations would decrease. The San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake is heavily affected by private actions from the Alpine community. Water quality concerns (ammonia, low dissolved oxygen, high pH) from the upstream portions of the river and Luna Lake (Brown 2016) have in the past and will in the future contribute to poor water quality which may affect willow tree communities growth, establishment, and recruitment. Luna Lake Dam controls the flow of the San Francisco River immediately downstream of the dam, eliminating natural flood regimes. In New Mexico, the San Francisco River is listed as a 303d impaired water for high nutrient levels. Irrigation withdrawals occasionally dewater areas downstream of the AZ-NM state line. Water quality in Nutrioso Creek upstream of Nelson Reservoir and outside the Project Area affects aquatic habitat downstream. Historically, grazing and forestry practices led to loss of riparian vegetation and stream entrenchment, and the stream was listed as an impaired waterbody in 1998 (https://www3.epa.gov/region9/water/watershed/nutrioso.html, accessed August 12, 2016). Watershed improvements led to removal by ADEQ and EPA from the impaired list. However, water withdrawals leading to drying up of certain sections of the stream occur.

Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quantity and quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Maintenance and use of state, county, and private roads may result in sedimentation to streams and reduced or altered ground cover.

Rural and community development (new housing) reduces the amount of infiltration and increases runoff. Natural vegetation is altered and invasive species may increase. Construction and maintenance of infrastructure (drilling wells and installing water lines, installing sewer lines, septic systems, or treatment facilities, power lines, water lines or diversions for fresh water) for community development all are likely to disturb soils and vegetation and diminish the quality and quantity of surface waters and affect aquatic habitat. Powerline corridor maintenance including mastication of trees occurs about every 5 years. These corridors (and associated roads) can increase the chance of wildfires occurring, and have resulted in invasive plant species becoming established, affecting vegetation in adjacent areas.

Ground disturbance, vegetation alteration, sedimentation, and poor water quality are the most likely effects to the four species of macroinvertebrates and their occupied habitats.

Past and ongoing actions, largely from actions outside the purview of the Forest Service are degrading the habitat for these macroinvertebrates such that they are unlikely to occur downstream of where these non-Forest Service actions occur. Thus, the incremental effect of the proposed action is unlikely to combine with these actions to have a measurable effect.

Fish

Desert, Sonora, and Rio Grande suckers Species Background

The desert sucker (Catostomus clarki) exists in the San Francisco River drainage within the Project and Action Areas, often found sympatric with the Sonora sucker. Widespread throughout the Gila River Basin, populations have declined in the southern part of its range. They are typically found in rapids and flowing pools with gravel-rubble substrates with sandy silt between the rocks.

The Sonora sucker (C. insignis) is endemic to the upper Gila and Bill Williams rivers in Arizona and New Mexico (Minckley and Marsh 2009), and populations were reported to be stable in the San Francisco and Gila River drainages in New Mexico (Sublette et al. 1990 cited in AZGF 2002b). The Sonora sucker prefers gravelly or rocky pools in creeks or rivers.

The Rio Grande sucker (C. plebeius) is considered endemic to the Rio Grande Basin of northern New Mexico and southern Colorado (Rees and Miller 2005), however they have been reportedly stocked into eastern Arizona waters (Minckley and Marsh 2009). More recent information suggests that they may be native to the San Francisco River as it flows from Arizona to New Mexico (S. Coleman, ASNFs, personal communication). Little information is available on habitats of the Rio Grande sucker, but they seem to prefer stream areas with larger substrates and low amounts of fine sediments.

Existing Conditions

Stone Creek and San Francisco River

Desert, Sonora, and Rio Grande suckers occurred in Stone Creek within the ASNFs below FSR 275 prior to the 2011 Wallow Fire. Since that time, none have been detected on Forest due to changes in stream conditions. In the San Francisco, desert sucker and Rio Grande sucker were present from the AZ/NM state line upstream for 1 mile. Dry Blue Creek and tributaries, Blue River

Sonora and desert suckers are known to occur in Blue River, Pace Creek, and Dry Blue Creek. Populations declined after the 2011 Wallow Fire. Populations have increased in Blue River since that time (Massure et al. 2013; Humphrey et al. 2015). Most of Pace Creek was dry in 2013, and


~ 203 ~

no fish were detected in the following year. Neither species was detected in Dry Blue Creek in 2013-2014 (Massure et al. 2013; Humphrey et al. 2015).



Under the No Action Alternative, there would be no direct or indirect effects. Over the long term, existing conditions would continue to diverge from desired conditions in sucker streams (Stone Creek, San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek, and the Blue River) and watersheds in the project and action Areas (San Francisco River-Luna Lake, Stone Creek-San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek and Campbell Blue Creek). Forest vegetation would continue at high to moderate departure from the historical range of variability, and be susceptible to disease and insect infestations. Heavy fuel loadings would continue to put communities, habitats for native aquatic species, and watersheds at risk of effects from uncharacteristic wildfire.

Cumulative Effects

Ongoing ASNFs management would include livestock grazing allotment authorization, Luna Lake Campground and recreation area, basic system road use and maintenance, unauthorized road use, road closures and obliteration unrelated to the project, and dispersed camping.

Other ongoing activities on private lands would include livestock grazing, water used from wells and surface sources, and use of septic systems. Use and maintenance of private, county, and state roads would continue. Management of Luna Lake by Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGF) for recreational fishing (nonnative trout) would continue, as would management of Luna Lake water for the needs of downstream users.



Direct effects to suckers from vegetation treatments in the Proposed Action would not be expected to occur as use of mechanized equipment is precluded within San Francisco River AMZ.

Hand thinning within the AMZ and prescribed fire would include foot traffic which could include crossing the San Francisco River. However stepping on a sucker or area where eggs are incubating would be extremely unlikely. Indirect effects of vegetation mechanical treatments can include increased erosion and sedimentation and decreased vegetation cover. Additionally, hand thinning may be used on steep slopes (>40%) and on highly erodible soils within these areas, but would have much less ground disturbance. Sedimentation can affect water quality (suspended sediment), spawning, foraging sites and instream habitat for suckers and reduce both primary

productivity and invertebrate production that provide food tor suckers. The upper 1.3 mi of the San Francisco River below Luna Lake has poor water quality and high amounts of fine sediments. Indirect effects of hand thinning in AMZs would include soil and vegetation disturbance from foot traffic. Hand thinning would include cutting and either lopping and scattering or hand piling of vegetation. Ground disturbing activities occur away from the streambank and immediate riparian area, and any resulting effects would be minor. Indirect effects of prescribed burning to suckers could include short-term increased sedimentation, reduced ground or aerial cover, and ash flows. Mitigations in place would minimize sedimentation and ash flows with timing and limitations on amount of prescribed fire use.

Indirect effects of proposed treatments could include introducing potential pollutants to aquatic habitats from servicing or refueling equipment or equipment crossing streams which could affect suckers, their habitats, and food base. In addition to Clean Water Act regulations that are required, specific BMPs have been developed to prevent pollutants from reaching water.

BMPs designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality from sediment and point sources of contamination (Brown 2016). These mitigation measures should reduce any sedimentation effects in sucker streams resulting from vegetation treatments. Any effects would be minor.


Upland soil restoration structures (e.g. site-derived log water bars or native rock check dams) may be used in a site-specific fashion within the Project Area. Installation of six instream structures (e.g. Zuni bowls) is planned for Little Creek, tributary to the San Francisco River. Two are planned for Pace Creek in the Dry Blue watershed at the southern end of the Project Area, and four for Jackson Creek, tributary to Pace Creek. In the long-term, stream improvement structures should improve hydrologic function, reduce sediment, improve aquatic habitat, slow downcutting of the channel, and improve bank stability. Beneficial effects of these treatments could include increases in primary and secondary production, improvements in spawning, foraging, and cover habitats, and potentially increase both abundance and distribution of suckers. Direct effects are extremely unlikely or minor due to the limited duration of installation, relatively small areas involved, and the short time period for the work.

Roads

Indirect effects to suckers and their habitats from increased ASNFs system road use, maintenance, and crossings could lead to increased sedimentation into streams. There are approximately nine stream crossings on ML2-5 roads in the Dry Blue Creek watershed and none in the Campbell Blue watershed that may need some degree of improvement, modification, or maintenance to facilitate restoration activities. Increased vehicular use from the Proposed Action would result in greater disturbance on gravel-surfaced roads, leading to increased sedimentation


~ 205 ~

into the San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek, or the Blue River. Sedimentation can affect water quality (suspended sediment), spawning, foraging sites and instream habitat for suckers and reduce both primary productivity and invertebrate production that provide food for suckers.

Design features for roads include maintenance specifications and BMPs would be implemented for this project, see Appendix A. Any effects to suckers or their habitats from increased use of existing roads should be minor due to design features and mitigations in place.

Any ML1 roads may be opened and used as part of the Proposed Action. Direct effects to suckers are unlikely as only 0.2 mi of ML1 roads are within the San Francisco River AMZ and occur on ridgetops, not in canyon bottoms. Mitigating actions for ML1 road stream crossings are the same as above for existing ML2-5 roads, and effects and use would also be the same. Temporary roads (e.g. skid trails) may be constructed solely to facilitate activities in the Proposed Action, and their creation and use would be only as needed. Temporary roads are created by the repeated use by vehicles such as skidders, and typically are used to link tree harvest sites to landings, or landings to ASNFs system roads. No temporary roads or stream crossings are allowed within AMZs, therefore, no direct effects to suckers should occur. Indirect effects to suckers from creation and use of temporary roads could include alteration of vegetation and increased sedimentation from runoff. Mitigations and the minimal use of temporary roads should make any indirect effects minor.

The Proposed Action includes both obliteration of 60.12 mi of unauthorized routes and decommissioning of 2.37 mi of ASNFs roads in the Stone Creek-San Francisco River, Dry Blue Creek, and Campbell Blue Creek watersheds. Within the San Francisco AMZ there are 0.2 mi of unauthorized routes for obliteration which occur on ridgetops out of the river canyon and no ASNFs roads for decommissioning. The Proposed Action also includes both obliteration of 50.01 mi of existing unauthorized roads and decommissioning of 0.31 mi of existing ASNFs system roads within the Dry Blue Creek watershed and will reduce road density.

Any direct effects would be unlikely due to the low abundance of suckers, their distribution likely being at least seasonally restricted to the lower part of the San Francisco River in the Project Area, and limited miles of roads treated. Decreased ground vegetation on rehabilitated roads reduces the ability to filter sediment from streams, but would be short-term until vegetation reestablishes. Sedimentation can affect water quality (suspended sediment), spawning, foraging sites and instream habitat for suckers and reduce both primary productivity and invertebrate production that provide food for suckers. These effects would be mitigated by the short- term nature of the activities, revegetation of exposed soil using scarification, seeding with native plants, application of mulch to promote vegetative growth, and planting trees. Dry Blue Creek and the Blue River are some distance from the Project Area, and sedimentation effects would be attenuated. Based on the rationale above, indirect effects of road decommissioning and obliteration would be expected to be minor. Decommissioning and obliteration of roads will have

beneficial effects of reducing the road density within habitats occupied by suckers. This will have a long term benefit of reducing erosion and sedimentation to streams, particularly downstream, and improving watershed condition.

Cumulative Effects

Past ASNFs management practices have contributed to the current landscape conditions. These include timber sales, thinning, fuels reduction, prescribed fire, bark beetle control, and road use and maintenance. Activities related to the 2011 Wallow Fire included suppression activities (e.g. dipping water, retardant use, dozer lines), roadside salvage, and road repair and mitigation.

Four ASNFs grazing allotments are present on the Stone Creek-San Francisco River watershed, 4 on Dry Blue Creek, and 1 on Campbell Blue Creek, and also have contributed to the current conditions. Recreational use, including foot and vehicular traffic, and both Luna Lake Campground and dispersed camping have affected watershed conditions, particularly in the San Francisco River-Luna Lake and Stone Creek-San Francisco River watersheds. Human activities in or near aquatic habitats may spread disease, nonnative aquatic species or invasive plants.

Elk and deer are common in the project area. The densities and distribution of these animals can affect riparian and stream conditions if populations reach high levels. Elk and deer can affect local riparian conditions by removing browse and trampling banks, both of which can result in erosion and contribute sediment to streams.

The San Francisco River downstream of Luna Lake is heavily affected by private actions from the Alpine community. Poor water quality (high level of ammonia, high pH, low dissolved oxygen) from the upstream portions of the river and Luna Lake (Brown 2016) have in the past and will in the future contribute to poor water quality below Luna Lake which may affect the establishment, growth, and recruitment of willow tree communities. Luna Lake Dam controls the flow of the San Francisco River immediately downstream of the dam, eliminating natural flood regimes. In New Mexico, the San Francisco River is listed as a 303d impaired water for high nutrient levels. Irrigation withdrawals occasionally dewater areas downstream of the AZ-NM state line. Private property in the watersheds may include private wells and septic systems that alter quality of surface waters in the area. Livestock grazing on private lands may contribute to increased sedimentation and browsing on riparian woody species. Maintenance and use of private and county roads may result in sedimentation to streams and reduced or altered ground cover. Water quality from Luna Lake affecting the San Francisco River, together with ground disturbance and sedimentation are the most likely effects from these activities.

Rare Plants For purposes of more efficient analysis, plants that use the same PNVTs or have similar effects analysis are grouped together and analyzed as a community.


~ 207 ~

Mixed Conifer, Ponderosa Pine, and Pinyon/Juniper

Gooding’s onion, villous groundcover milkvetch, Gila Thistle, Wislizeni gentian, Mogollon Hawkweed Species background

These species are found in the mixed conifer, Ponderosa pine, or pinyon-juniper forest types on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Goodding’s onion is commonly found between 7,700 to 11,000 feet in elevation, along north trending drainage bottoms in mixed conifer/spruce fir forest types. This species is a shade-loving species, and reduction of canopy cover can drastically reduce numbers of plants. A conservation assessment and strategy for this species between the A-S and the FWS was completed in 1997. The villous groundcover milkvetch is endemic to eastern Arizona and western New Mexico, where it is found on bare ground (including vegetated road cut banks) in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and pinyon-juniper woodland types. The Gila thistle is found in moist areas or mountain meadows in montane coniferous forests between 7000 and 8000 ft. in elevation. This species appears to increase with disturbance, and is not threatened by prevailing land uses (NMRP 2005). The Wislizeni gentian is found between 7000 and 8700 ft. in elevation in open meadows or partially shaded conditions in pine and mixed conifer forests. As an annual, its occurrence may be tied to disturbance. The Mogollon hawkweed is not well studied. It is thought that it is likely associated with coniferous forest understory. It is a perennial herbaceous plant that is sympatric with other Hieracium species, often found in coniferous understory plant communities.

Existing condition

Systematic formal surveys have not been conducted for these species in the project area. Known populations of Gooding’s onion were located on top of Escudilla Mountain as part of the 1997 assessment for the species. It possibly occurs in the project area in mixed conifer drainages and wet, shaded margins of meadows in the project area in mixed conifer. No specific locations for the villous groundcover milkvetch, Gila thistle, Wislizeni gentian, or Mogollon hawkweed are known within the project area, although based on species information it is possible they all exist in the project area in the mixed conifer PNVTs, the villous groundcover milkvetch and Wislizeni gentian in ponderosa pine PNVTs, and the villous groundcover milkvetch in the pinyon juniper PNVTs, and will be analyzed as though occurring. There are 3156 acres of mixed conifer PNVTs (wet and dry MC), 19,706 acres of ponderosa pine PNVTs, and 20,631 acres of Pinyon-juniper acres within the project area.



Under Alternative 2, restoration activities may affect sensitive plants in the mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and pinyon-juniper PNVTs through project implementation.

Treatments in all of these PNVTs would reduce canopy cover and basal area of overstory trees. Shade dependent species, such as the Gooding’s onion, may be adversely affected by these canopy and shade reductions. Treatments in mixed conifer PNVTs are designed to retain a higher basal area and canopy cover than other PNVTs, which adheres to the Conservation Strategy (USFS and USFWS, 1997) for the Gooding’s onion. BMPs and other resource protections along perennial waters in the project area will reduce impacts to Gooding’s onion by limiting sedimentation and machinery impacts along riparian stream corridors. MSO PACs also are largely situated in areas where Gooding’s onion likely exist, and the further protections afforded by the MSO prescription will also benefit the Gooding’s onion by having greater residual canopy cover and basal area in those areas. The reduction of the risk of high severity fire across the project area, especially in mixed conifer drainages, will be a large beneficial impact to Goodding’s onion, as stand replacing fire associated with high severity burns are extremely detrimental to entire populations of Goodding’s onion.

Thinning treatments will also be beneficial for the other plants analyzed in this section, namely the villous groundcover milkvetch, the Gila thistle, Wislizeni gentian, and Mogollon hawkweed. These plants occur in the understory vegetative communities of their respective PNVTs, and are found in open or partially open locations. The reduction of canopy cover and basal area through restoration treatments will benefit these understory plants by opening the canopy and increasing sunlight and other resources to these plant communities, increasing habitat quality and quantity. Individual plants may be crushed during implementation, or consumed during prescribed burns. Many of these species are annuals, and likely are adapted to fire disturbance and may be benefitted by fire disruption of vegetative communities. Re-establishment of these vegetative communities is expected in the next growing season following adequate normal precipitation levels. Nutrient flushes post fire are expected to be beneficial to the understory herbaceous vegetative community, with an increased robust response from these species and many others.

Prescribed burns are planned to be repeated in project areas every 2-10 years, with the effects both positive and negative repeated during these treatments. These treatments will be staggered across the landscape, separated both temporally and spatially to reduce the impacts in any given year to individual or local groups of plants.


~ 209 ~

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the Goodding’s onion, Villous groundcover milkvetch, Gila Thistle, Wislizeni gentian, and Mogollon Hawkweed include timber treatments and prescribed fire, state and private land management, rangeland grazing, and public recreation in the project area. Past timber treatments or prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from fire risk reduction likely occurred. Negative impacts from timber harvest also likely occurred, such as crushing of individuals, and reduction of canopy cover for the Goodding’s onion. Grazing on range lands in the project area has in the past and will into the future likely provided some detrimental impact to herbaceous vegetative communities. These impacts are reduced through adaptive management techniques such as pasture rotation and active monitoring and management by range program personnel. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on these species through off road vehicle use or dispersed campground use. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems, watersheds, and forested stands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project.

Wetland/cienega and Riparian species

Mogollon clover, Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock, Parish’s Alkali grass Species Background

These species are found in riparian habitats across the forest, such as in streams, rivers, wetlands, wet meadows, springs, and seeps. Blumer’s dock occurs in a variety of riparian conditions from 6500 ft. to 9000 ft. in elevation (AZGF 2002c). This species is a tall, long lived herbaceous perennial plant with leaves that are semi-succulent and bright green and that are very palatable to livestock and wildlife. They can be found along perennial streams, stream sides in cobble and gravel deposits, in deep organic soils of mesic meadows, or at fairly dry sites along drainages that typically only flow during spring snowmelt. Bebb’s willow is a riparian woody species that occupies mountain stream sides, marshes, lakes, and wet meadows 8,000 – 11,000 ft. in elevation. This species needs ample water for recruitment of saplings and shoots, although the older plants are more tolerant of drier conditions (NatureServe 2014). Bebb’s willow thrive in the presence of ample water, sunlight, and lack of competition, so typically do well in the aftermath of flooding or sites disturbed by fire due to the opening of the canopy and reduced competition. Mogollon clover is an herbaceous perennial plant that is present in high elevation (6500 – 9000 ft.), permanently wet meadows, springs, and along streams (AZGF 2002d) typically in the mixed conifer or ponderosa pine band. Parish’s Alkali grass is a short lived winter or spring annual grass that typically inhabits open saline areas below perennially flowing springs or other saline,

wet areas, from 2700 ft. to 7300 ft. The project area may be just inside the traditionally known range of the species.

Existing condition

Systematic surveys for these species specifically tied to the West Escudilla project have not been conducted in the project area. Some studies have occurred in the past that include areas within the project boundary. A Blumer’s dock survey was conducted on the Forest in 1998. At that time, the researcher found that Blumer’s dock was known from every major watershed on the ASNF’s, assisting in the withdrawal of the proposal for listing of the species. Bebb’s Willow have been surveyed across the Apache Zone by a contractor in previous years, and some populations are known from this effort in ELC flat, Coyote, Morrison, and Mamie creeks. Many of these communities are showing evidence of decline, such as dead standing or lying skeletons of Bebb’s Willow. Erosion, head-cutting, and water table drop were commonly noted in photos as challenges facing these Bebb’s communities (CE Granfelt 2001). There are Bebb’s willow in the Nutrioso Creek system above the project area, but none actually within the boundary. These willows exist higher up in the headwaters and tributaries to this creek. It is likely that more populations exist along the perennial creeks throughout the project area. The Mogollon clover has not been surveyed for in the project area recently, but research conducted in the 90’s did find locations on the Alpine District. The nearest known location is along Little Creek, just east of Luna Lake (Ladyman 1995). Another population was found in a drainage north of FR 281 which just outside the project boundary near the Alpine Country Club. It is very likely that other unknown locations may exist along perennial streams or wet meadows in the project area. Surveys for Parish’s alkali grass have not been formally conducted across the project boundary, but there is a known location discovered by NF employees in the project boundary. This location is in the lower coyote creek drainage in the very northeast corner of the project area. No other locations for this species are known, but it is possible that it occurs in other locations within the project boundary.



Under Alternative 2 restoration activities planned for the West Escudilla Restoration project may impact riparian sensitive plant species. Restoration actions planned for riparian habitats where these species may occur include encroaching conifer removal, prescribed burning, and stream bank stabilization structure installations.

Conifer encroachment has occurred in many of the riparian drainages where these species occur. Encroaching conifer canopies shade out herbaceous riparian vegetation to some degree, reducing sunlight down to the lower vegetative communities and reducing herbaceous and woody riparian tree vegetative health and vigor. The removal of encroaching conifer would remove the


~ 211 ~

overstory, allowing more sunlight and other resources down to these riparian plant species increasing their vigor and health. These effects would increase habitat quantity and quality for these species, improving and benefitting the populations in the areas of treatment. Some disturbance from implementation may occur, however most riparian treatments would be implemented by hand which would reduce impacts such as crushing of individual plants or compaction of soils over mechanical treatment. No Bebb’s willow are planned for harvest through thinning prescriptions. For species such as the clover, acute shading by encroaching conifers such as ponderosa pine may be a limiting factor. The removal of this overstory would release these populations.

Prescribed burning would be used as a restoration tool in these riparian areas. Fire prescriptions in these areas would be implemented under low severity burning conditions where fire managers are able to achieve desired low severity effects. These fires will be ignited indirectly, allowing the fire to back towards the water’s edge allowing it to burn naturally. High humidity and ground moisture near riparian areas typically produces minimal fire activity resulting in low intensity burns. These applications of fire should create a mosaic of burns that mimics natural fire effects in these systems, reducing the threat of high severity stand replacing fire in the long term. Bebb’s willow has been documented to have vigorous re-sprouting after fire. Some trees in drier microsites may be consumed, but those trees in wetter sites would not be affected by the burn. Herbaceous vegetation that is consumed in the fire would be expected to recover quickly the next growing season, given normal precipitation over the summer monsoons and winter storm events. Perennial plants, such as the Blumer’s dock, may have greater adverse effects from burns than annual herbaceous vegetation, but is generally not expected to have adverse effects due to its preference for wetter sites that limit the entrance of fire. Prescribed burns would be followed up with additional retreatments every 2-10 years. These repeated applications would repeat effects described above.

Stream bank stabilization structures would be installed in select locations where head cuts or other acts of increased erosion are occurring. These high erosion areas are detrimental to riparian vegetative communities by undercutting banks and lowering the water table, often removing water from these communities through deeply incising the stream banks. These structures, which would consist of rock dams, cement jacks, log weirs, cross vein weirs or Zuni bowls would stabilize the banks, reducing erosion and preserving water table levels for these riparian plant species. Disturbance to these species may occur while construction occurs, such as the removal of riparian vegetation around the installation site. This removal of vegetation would be on a very small scale, providing long term habitat stabilization benefits for the entire downstream riparian corridor.

Project actions would be staggered across the landscape, separated spatially and temporally. Effects would be minimized as these effects would be localized, of short duration and low

intensity, which may affect individual plants but would not affect the overall distribution of the species.

Cumulative Effects

Past, present, and future state, private, and federal actions expected to cumulatively affect the Mogollon clover, Bebb’s willow, Blumer’s dock, Parish’s Alkali grass include prescribed fire, state and private land management, rangeland grazing, and public recreation in the project area. Past prescribed fires likely provided a mix of effects that contributed to the current landscape condition. Beneficial impacts from fire risk reduction likely occurred. Grazing on range lands in the project area has in the past and will into the future likely provided some detrimental impact to herbaceous vegetative communities. These impacts are reduced through adaptive management techniques such as pasture rotation and active monitoring and management by range program personnel. Recreational use likely provides some level of impact on these species through off road vehicle use or dispersed campground use. Future projects such as the Luna or Pueblo Park restoration activities will contribute to reduced risk of catastrophic fire and improved landscape population connectivity through increased health and vigor of riparian systems, watersheds, and forested stands in the surrounding areas, beneficial impacts to these species, although they will have similar disturbances as the West Escudilla project.

Table 37 - Summary of Determinations of Effect for Forest Service Sensitive Species SPECIES DETERMINATION OF

EFFECT ALT 2 Pale Townsend’s Big-eared Bat MAI,NLV* Spotted Bat MAI,NLV Allen’s lappet-browed bat MAI,NLV Navajo Mogollon Vole MAI,NLV Arizona Vole MAI,NLV White Mountain Chipmunk MAI,NLV White Mountain Ground Squirrel MAI,NLV Springerville Silky Pocket Mouse MAI,NLV American Water Shrew MAI,NLV Northern Goshawk MAI,NLV Gray Catbird MAI,NLV American Peregrine Falcon MAI,NLV Bald Eagle MAI,NLV Desert Sucker MAI,NLV Sonora Sucker MAI,NLV Rio Grande Sucker MAI,NLV A Stonefly Capnia caryi [Mogollon Snowfly]

MAI,NLV

Lepidostoma apache - A Caddisfly MAI,NLV Lepidostoma knulli - A Caddisfly MAI,NLV Limnephilus granti - A Caddisfly MAI,NLV Goodding’s onion MAI,NLV Villous groundcover milkvetch MAI,NLV


~ 213 ~

SPECIES DETERMINATION OF EFFECT

ALT 2 Gila thistle MAI,NLV Wizlizeni gentian MAI,NLV Mogollon hawkweed MAI,NLV Mogollon clover MAI,NLV Bebb’s Willow MAI,NLV Blumer's Dock MAI,NLV Parish’s alkali grass MAI,NLV

*MAI,NLV = May affect individuals, but not likely to result in a loss of viability or cause a trend toward federal listing.

Watershed

Soils

Affected Environment Soil Condition and Trends / Soil Erosion

Project Area Summary

Sixty-seven percent of the TES map units within the West Escudilla Restoration Project exhibit satisfactory soil conditions while 20 percent rated as impaired. Nine percent of the project area rated as inherently unstable. Only 4 percent rated as unsatisfactory.

Satisfactory soils are those that are functioning normally and properly within their natural range of variability. Resource values are adequately maintained and the ability to sustain desirable vegetative outputs is high. Impaired soils are those that have experienced some reduction in soil function and/or are at an increased vulnerability to degradation. An unsatisfactory rating signifies that degradation of vital soil functions has resulted in the inability of the soil to maintain resource values and sustain desirable vegetative outputs. Inherently unstable soils have natural soil erosion rates that exceeds tolerable limits. Generally, these soils are unsuited for most management activities. Only TES unit 516 received an inherently unstable rating.

Satisfactory soil conditions with a stable to upward trend exist in vegetation types where previous land management and restoration treatments (i.e. vegetation management, prescribed fire, etc.) maintain vegetative ground cover adequately enough to properly support site potential and canopy cover characteristics are meeting desired conditions. Coarse woody debris levels in these settings are being maintained properly. Amounts are present that keep soils stable and productive in the long-term, but generally aren’t at a density high enough to be at risk of high soil burn severity in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire. Responsible rangeland management has allowed desirable herbaceous vegetation to establish and persist in locations of satisfactory soils. Vegetative ground cover is generally at or near 100 % in ponderosa pine and

mixed conifer forest, 50 – 70 % in pinyon-juniper woodlands / savannas, and greater than 70 % in grasslands where satisfactory soil conditions are present.

Some ponderosa pine types within the project area have not received restoration treatment such as vegetation management or prescribed fire. These locations exhibit a dense canopy structure and high fuel loading in the understory. While these areas indicate satisfactory soil conditions, they do present concern for susceptibility to high soil burn severity in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire. Locations such as these with a closed canopy and considerable amounts of large diameter fuel accumulation on the ground have the potential to burn more intensely than areas that have been previously treated for restoration purposes. Soils in areas that have been thinned to reduce overstory cover / connectivity and prescribed burned to lessen fuel loading in the understory are generally less susceptible to experiencing high soil burn severity.

Riparian wet meadows across the project as a whole, in general, indicate satisfactory soil conditions. There are concentrated locations within some riparian areas that have degraded soil conditions to the point where minor headcutting and sparsely vegetated banks are present in or near stream channels. Terraces and floodplains immediately adjacent to some of the channels have experienced noticeable degradation from grazing / browsing and localized trampling by large ungulates resulting in impaired soil conditions. This ultimately leaves these riparian wet meadow settings susceptible to a downward trend if site conditions continue to exist in their current state.

The majority of soils rated as impaired across the project area occur in pinyon-juniper woodlands / savannas, Great Basin grasslands, or montane meadows. Impaired conditions are generally related to: a) competition for site resources (sunlight, water, soil nutrients, etc.) due to tree encroachment, b) heavy use and localized trampling by large ungulates, and/or c) excessive ground disturbance from vehicle or OHV traffic on dense networks of unauthorized roads. Where impaired soils exist in ponderosa pine or mixed conifer types they generally occur on: a) slopes in which recurring timber harvests have taken place faster than those ecosystems can recover, b) areas of high density unauthorized road or trail networks with heavy vehicle or OHV traffic, and c) locations of excessive ground disturbance from harvest operations on soils with severe erosion hazards.

Soil types rated as unsatisfactory occur in TES map unit 141. These soils have current soil erosion rates that generally exceed a tolerable limit to adequately maintain resource values, support desirable potential natural vegetation, or recover from impacts. This is due to highly erosive parent material on very steep slopes that have not responded particularly well to historical management practices from a soil loss standpoint. Overall, however, soil erosion is within a natural range of variability for the majority of the project area given current management as evidenced by data collection, field observations, and soil loss modeling completed for this project.


~ 215 ~

Wallow Fire Effects on Existing Soil Condition and Trends

It is notable that portions of this project area experienced moderate to high burn severities in some locations (particularly map unit 667) so overstory cover is well below potential in its current state. Overall, however, the understory of these vegetation types has responded well from a vegetative cover standpoint. Although some of the regeneration of the understory species in some locations may be less desirable (e.g. opportunistic shrubs and forbs that typically flourish after a fire), it is a positive sign that vegetative cover is responding well as it alludes to good site stability and productivity still being intact post-fire. Desirable understory grass, shrub, and forb structure / composition does persist in some locations and should become more established and distributed well across the landscape given the proper recovery time. These factors would indicate that these particular locations are generally in an impaired state from the desired conditions, but are on an upward trend. It is important to note, though, in areas where degraded soil conditions are still apparent from fire effects, ground disturbing activities may further compound site stability and productivity issues. Areas such as these may require careful consideration or site specific determinations if they are being considered for management activities.

Soil Desired Conditions, Objectives, and Guidelines Forest Plan Desired Soil Conditions (USDA-FS, 2015)

Landscape-Scale (10,000 acres or greater)

• Ecological and hydrologic functions are not impaired by soil compaction.

Mid-Scale (100 to 1,000 acres)

• Soil condition rating is satisfactory.

• Soils are stable within their natural capability. Vegetation and litter limit accelerated erosion (e.g. rills, gullies, root exposure, topsoil loss) and contribute to soil deposition and development.

• Soils provide for diverse native plant species. Vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation and litter) is distributed evenly across the soil surface to promote nutrient cycling, water infiltration, and maintain natural fire regimes.

• Biological soil crusts (e.g. mosses, lichens, algae, liverworts) are present and re-established if potential exists.

Fine-Scale (less than 10 acres)

• Soil loss rates do not exceed tolerance soil loss rates.

• Logs and other woody material are distributed across the soil surface to maintain soil productivity.

• Vegetation and litter cover is sufficient enough to maintain and improve water infiltration, nutrient cycling, and soil stability.

Forest Plan Objectives for Soil (USDA-FS, 2015)

• Annually, enhance or restore an average of 350 acres within priority 6th level HUC watersheds, including treating the causes of state and federally designated impaired or threatened waters to improve watershed condition and water quality.

Forest Plan Guidelines for Soil (USDA-FS, 2015)

• Projects with ground disturbing activities should be designed to minimize long and short term impacts to soil resources. Where disturbance cannot be avoided, project specific soil and water conservation practices should be developed.

• Severely disturbed sites should be revegetated with native plant species when loss of long term soil productivity is anticipated.

• Locally collected seed should be used where available and cost effective. Seed should be tested to ensure they are free from noxious weeds and invasive non-native plants at a state-certified seed testing laboratory before acceptance and mixing.

• Coarse woody debris retention and/or creation should be used as needed to help retain long term soil productivity.

Project Specific Desired Conditions (may overlap with Forest DCs)

• Soil condition is satisfactory with a stable trend or impaired with an upward trend within their natural capability.

• Soil compaction is mitigated through the proper implementation of site-specific soil BMPs (Appendix A)

• Soil productivity, soil biotic crust formation, and grass regeneration is promoted through minimizing compaction and providing desirable ground cover.

• Soil stability is kept intact and soil erosion is mitigated by providing desirable ground cover.

• Ground cover, vegetative cover, and soil condition/disturbance monitoring is implemented post treatment to examine effects and maintain or improve site conditions.

• Residual coarse woody debris meets prescribed levels in all vegetation management treatment areas to maintain soil stability and promote long-term soil productivity (Appendix B- Watershed-Soils BMPs).

• Seeding with certified weed-free mixes of native grass species will be utilized on ALL heavily disturbed areas such as skid trails and landings post mechanical operations in vegetation management treatments.


~ 217 ~

Table 38 - Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey (TES) Map Unit Extent, Classification, and Selected Characteristics for the West Escudilla Restoration Project.

TES Map Unit

Acres by Map Unit

Soil Classification (Family)

Potential Vegetation Community

Slope Class

Soil Condition

Rating

Soil Erosion Hazard

Harvest

Limitation

16 622 Typic Argiaquolls, LSC 5, 0, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid, deep, silty clay loams

POPR/ CAREX

0-5% Satisfactory Slight

Severe (too wet, low soil

strength)

51 75

Lithic Haplustepts, HSC 4,0, calcareous, loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic ; Lithic Haplustalfs, HSC 4,0, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, mesic

PIED/JUMO/COMES

PIED/JUMO

0-15% Impaired Slight Severe (high rock content, shallow soil)

140 4,958

Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Lithic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid

PIPOS/QUGA

16-40% Satisfactory Severe Severe (high

erosion)

141 2,393 Lithic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid PIPOS/QUGA 41-120% Unsatisfactory Severe

Severe (too steep, high

erosion)

208 70

Cumulic Hapludolls, LSC 6,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Cumulic Haplustolls, LSC 5,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid

POPR 0-5% Satisfactory Slight Severe (low soil strength,

too wet)

501 2,465

Typic Haplustepts, HSC 4,0, calcareous, loamy-skeletal, mixed, mesic ; Typic Haplustepts, HSC 4,0, calcareous, coarse-loamy, mixed, mesic

PIED/JUMO/COMES 0-15% Impaired Slight Moderate

502 5,985

Vertic Haplustalfs, HSC 4,0, fine, montmorillionitic, mesic ; Typic Haplustalfs, HSC 4,0, fine, montmorillionitic, mesic

PASM/ BOGR2/PIED 0-15% Satisfactory Slight Severe (low

soil strength)

503 12,711

Typic Haplustalfs, HSC 4,0, fine, montmorillionitic, mesic ; Typic Argiustolls, HSC 4,0, fine, montmorillionitic, mesic

PIED/JUDE2/JUMO 0-15% Satisfactory Slight Severe (low

soil strength)

506 4,662

Typic Haplustalfs, HSC 4,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, mesic ; Typic Haplustepts, HSC 4,0, calcareous, fine-loamy, mixed, mesic

PIED/JUMO

PIED/JUMO/

COMES

0-15% Impaired Slight Moderate

515 2.092

Udic Haplustalfs, HSC 5,-1, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid ; Vertic Argiustolls, HSC 5,-1, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid

PASM/ BOGR2/ PIPOS

0-15% Satisfactory Slight Severe (low soil strength)

516 5,884 Typic Haplustalfs, HSC 4,0, mesic ; Typic Argiustolls, HSC 4,0, mesic

PIED/JUDE2/JUMO

41-80% Inherently

Unstable Severe Severe (too steep, high

erosion)

518 4,617 Pachic Argiustolls, HSC 4,0, fine, mixed, superactive, mesic

PIED/JUDE2/JUMO 0-15% Impaired Slight Severe (low

soil strength)

TES Map Unit

Acres by Map Unit



Slope Class

Soil Condition

Rating

Soil Erosion Hazard

Harvest

Limitation

523 2,045

Udic Haplustalfs, HSC 5,-1, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid ; Udic Argiustolls, HSC 5,-1, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid

PIPOS/PIED/ JUDE2/ QUGA

0-15% Satisfactory Slight Severe (low soil strength)

532 1,077

Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid ; Udic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid

PIPOS/QUGA 0-15% Satisfactory Moderate Severe (low soil strength)

535 7,246

Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, fine, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Udic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid

PIPOS/QUGA 0-15% Satisfactory Slight Moderate

536 247

Vitrandic Haplustepts, LSC 5,0, cindery, frigid ; Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid

PIPOS/QUGA 16-40% Satisfactory Severe Severe (high erosion)

537 254

Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, montmorillionitic, frigid ; Udic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, montmorillionitic, frigid

PIPOS/QUGA 0-15% Satisfactory Slight Severe (low soil strength)

538 759

Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Lithic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid


550 1,546

Pachic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, fine, montmorillionitic, frigid ; Typic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, montmorillionitic, frigid

POPR/FEAR2/MUMO 0-5% Impaired Slight Severe (low

soil strength)

565 1,565 Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6, frigid ; Lithic Glossudalfs, LSC 6, frigid PSMEG 41-120% Satisfactory Severe


erosion)

567 88

Vitrandic Eutrudepts, LSC 6,-1, cindery, frigid ; Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6, -1, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid

PSMEG/ PIPOS/QUGA 16-80% Impaired Severe


erosion)

570 1,301 Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, frigid PIPOS 41-120% Satisfactory Severe Severe (too steep, high

erosion)

574 41

Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6,0, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6,-1, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid

ABCO/ PSMEG/PIPO

S/QUGA

PSMEG/PIPOS/QUGA

16-40% Impaired Severe Severe (high erosion)

577 35

Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6,0, loamy-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid

ABCO/ PSMEG/

PIPOS/QUGA 0-15% Impaired Moderate Moderate


~ 219 ~

TES Map Unit

Acres by Map Unit



Slope Class

Soil Condition

Rating

Soil Erosion Hazard

Harvest

Limitation

591 43

Lithic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Udic Argiustolls, LSC 5,0, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid


592 1,683

Udic Argiustolls, HSC 5,-1, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Lithic Argiustolls, HSC 5,-1, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid

PIPOS/PIED/ JUDE2/ QUGA

16-40% Satisfactory Moderate Severe (low soil strength)

667 1,443

Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Typic Paleudalfs, LSC 6,0, fine-loamy, mixed, superactive, frigid ; Typic Glossudalfs, LSC 6,0, clayey-skeletal, mixed, superactive, frigid

ABCO/ PSMEG/

PIPOS/QUGA 16-40% Satisfactory Severe Severe (high

erosion)

From Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Report for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (1987). Soil taxonomic names have been updated to reflect new classification.

Environmental Consequences Alternative 1-No Action

Soil Condition and Trends

Direct and Indirect Effects Summary

The existing condition of satisfactory soils and current soil loss rates will continue under the no action alternative and trends should remain stable in vegetation types where desirable vegetative ground cover exists and canopy cover characteristics are meeting desired conditions. Grassland, meadow, savanna, and woodland vegetation types with impaired soil conditions will remain on a stable trend or have the potential for a downward trend overtime if treatments are not implemented or maintained and current site conditions continue to persist. There are some areas where degradation of soil conditions within riparian zones has the potential to occur in the long-term under the no action alternative due to the continuation of upland tree encroachment, extensive use by vehicles or OHV’s on user-created routes in select spots, or heavy use / trampling by large ungulates in certain locations.

Some ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation types have the potential to remain departed from desirable ecological conditions under this alternative, even with the presence of satisfactory soil conditions and soil loss at natural rates. As understory fuels build up and tree density and cover increases, the likelihood of higher intensity, uncharacteristic wildfire increases as well as the potential for high soil burn severity.

The absence of road improvements or decommissioning/obliteration under this alternative has the potential to negatively impact soil and watershed conditions in some locations across the

project area in the long term. Specifically, those locations most vulnerable are where current road or crossing conditions are already an issue and where usage on user-created routes is at a high enough density where it’s contributing substantially to increased soil loss.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects Summary

Short-term increases in soil loss related to ground cover and soil disturbance are expected from mechanical thinning and skidding operations as well as the use of existing roads for product transportation under the proposed action. However, effects can be mitigated adequately as long as site-specific soil and watershed BMPs (Appendix A) are properly implemented. Overall soil condition response across the project area should retain satisfactory conditions and/or improve areas of impaired soils in the long term.

The proposed action would not have mechanically-induced compaction impacts to soil conditions that hinder site stability and productivity in the long-term with the implementation and monitoring of BMPs as prescribed in Appendix A. Certain degrees of soil compaction are anticipated as part of treatment implementation but are not considered a major concern in the long-term as prescribed BMP’s for management activities involving heavy machinery have shown to be effective in mitigating impacts to site productivity on the ASNF.

Sensitive soils, like the ones that occur on moderately steep to steep slopes (> 25 %) on cinder cones or Datil geologic formations have to potential to improve to an upward trend under the hand-based thinning methods being proposed. Tree density and vegetative cover in some locations are at levels that pose a risk of intense, uncharacteristic wildfire behavior which indicate an increased susceptibility of high soil burn severity. Therefore, it is important these areas are thinned to more desirable conditions using a method that minimizes ground disturbance on inherently erosive soil types.

The prescribed fire activities proposed as part of this alternative have the potential to maintain satisfactory conditions, improve areas of impaired soil conditions, and maintain current soil loss near natural rates in the long-term. Sites with coarse woody debris loading well above natural conditions may be susceptible to high soil burn severity in the event of an uncharacteristic wildfire. Prescribed fire activities will help mitigate that risk by reducing ladder fuels and overall fuel loading in the understory. Results should yield retaining adequate levels of coarse woody debris on the ground for soil stabilization considerations and should maintain or increase soil productivity in the long term.

Satisfactory soils will be maintained, impaired soils have the potential to improve, and current soil loss rates have the potential to be maintained or improved in riparian areas under the proposed action with the ability to implement riparian tree planting, fence exclosure use,


~ 221 ~

meadow restoration treatments (encroachment tree removal, native grass seeding where appropriate, etc.), and the use of structures to control erosion /stabilize terraces, floodplains, and stream channels. Ultimately, in the long-term these actions will allow these sensitive and important ecosystems to adequately maintain or improve to more desired site conditions as identified in the ASNF Land Management Plan.

Road improvements and potential decommissioning / obliteration under this alternative has the potential to improve soil conditions and areas with current soil loss issues to an upward trend in the long-term. More specifically, those areas where non-functional road crossings and/or the concentrated use of OHVs and other vehicles are currently contributing to accelerated run-off on roadways should see considerable improvement overtime. Additionally, decommissioning / obliteration of non-FS, user-created routes will ultimately lessen ground disturbance impacts in these areas, allowing natural recovery time to soils. Vegetative ground cover establishment overtime will help increase infiltration rates, protect soil stability, and reduce overland flow and soil loss. In the long-term, this will improve overall watershed condition and function to more desirable conditions.

Cumulative Effects to Soil Resources Analysis Overview

A cumulative effects analysis was completed using soil condition, projected trends, and soil loss as a basis. This analysis aims to qualitatively and quantitatively describe the potential changes to soil condition / soil erosion and how it is anticipated that will affect trends in relation to a) the effects of past, present, and reasonable foreseeable ground disturbing activities within a TES map unit and b) the effects that are expected with implementation of the proposed action for this project. Examples of ground disturbing activities which are at a scale and magnitude large enough to effect soil condition, trends, and soil erosion within a TES map unit may include but are not limited to: wildfire, prescribed fire, piling burning, broadcast burning, pile assembling, permanent land clearing, thinning for hazardous fuels reduction, forest thinning (improvement cuttings, group selection cuts, commercial thinning, etc.), watershed restoration such as erosion control structures or seeding for erosion control, and tree planting.

Past activities for a 25-year period dating back to 1991 were considered in this analysis. Present activities include those anticipated to occur during the analysis year of this project (2016) or ones considered in the layout phase. Reasonably foreseeable activities include those that are anticipated to occur from the potential implementation year of this project (2017) to 10 years into the future. Reasonably foreseeable activities include projects with a completed NEPA. For the purposes of this analysis, present and reasonably foreseeable activities are hereby referred to as “planned” activities. Superimposed on the past and planned activities, are the effects with respect to full implementation the proposed action for this project.

A GIS exercise was performed in ArcMap using selected layers from the forest’s GIS database. Past and planned activities were queried from the ASNF FACTS Database using the FS Geospatial Interface Tool. The produced activities layer was clipped to the project boundary, then intersected with a Soil Condition layer. The Soil Condition layer includes soil condition ratings assigned to each TES map unit which can be referenced in the Affected Environment section of the Soils section. The intersected Activities and Soil Condition layer was then intersected a final time with a Wallow Fire Burn Severity layer. The Wallow Fire of 2011 burned a sizable amount of acreage within the project area. Therefore, cumulative effects as it relates to burn severity within the project are important to consider. The final product included an analysis layer with attributes of past and planned activities, soil condition ratings, and Wallow Fire burn severity for use in examining cumulative effects by TES map unit. Effects were evaluated in regards to the extent of disturbance footprints by activity (on an acreage basis) and how that impacted a standard level of management concern for a TES unit based on site conditions.

Cumulative Effects Summary Overall, four notable TES map units exceeded the 15 % disturbance levels of management concern: 140, 535, 565, and 667. The overall combined areal extent for these units across the West Escudilla Restoration Project area is approximately 23%. Map units 140 and 535 have the largest disturbance footprints at 44% and 96%, respectively. However, both exhibit satisfactory soil conditions with soil loss at or near natural rates which indicates it is reasonable to assume that soil conditions have responded well in the past to ground disturbing activities and stable trends should continue into the future as long as standard soil and water conservation BMPs (Appendix A) are adequately implemented. In addition, it was expected that map units 140 and 535 would exhibit a large disturbance footprint as these two units in particular make up a substantial areal extent of WUI around Alpine, AZ and the surrounding communities. Locations such as these are typically treated heavily to project human safety, infrastructure, and property. Unit 565 occurs on slopes exceeding 40 %, so it is not anticipated that this area will receive any restoration treatment involving mechanized equipment as part of the proposed action and proposed prescribed burning in this unit is most likely of a limited extent. Map units 51, 501, 506, 518, and 550 all had disturbance footprints below levels of management concern, but existing soil conditions are impaired with some units exhibiting soil loss rates above and well above natural rates (namely map units 501 and 550). So, it is reasonable to assume that some ground disturbance historically has degraded soil function to varying degrees. By default it makes these units, particularly 501 as it exhibits highly impaired soil conditions with a downward trend and a current soil loss rate well above natural conditions, management concern areas going forward if proposed action activities are implemented in the future.

Past activities over the last 25 years and planned activities 10 years into the future have been evaluated and taken into consideration. There are many locations within the project area that have adequately recovered relatively quickly (3 to 5 years) from effects of minor soil disturbance (some soil compaction, minor rutting, some topsoil displacement, slight increases in localized


~ 223 ~

soil erosion, some organic soil carbon loss, etc.) such as areas where soil and water conservation BMPs for mechanical ground disturbing activities were properly implemented which allowed for those effects to be short-lived. Areas affected by properly maintained and executed prescribed fires (low to low-moderate burn intensities, timing / spacing considerations, etc.) also tend to recover relatively quickly. These types of effects generally only impact on-site soil stability / productivity in the short-term with very little influence to long-term off-site considerations like prolonged run-off / sedimentation into stream channels at a watershed scale or increased net soil carbon loss at a landscape scale.

Some of these off-site, longer-term impacts may last for 5 to 10 years or indefinitely depending on the land treatment and level of disturbance (i.e. construction of roads, permanent land clearing, etc.). However, a certain degree of permanent change is generally considered as part of a baseline that is inherent to some management that is already in place or is deemed essential for a project. Long-term disturbance impacts to soil that may have off-site considerations which exceed a 10 year recovery period to see improvement in conditions occupy less than approximately 20 % of the entire project area. Some of that extent is within riparian wet meadows, montane meadows, and Great Basin grassland in particular which are important for watershed and wildlife resources amongst others. The No Action alternative would allow soil conditions in these areas to continue in their existing condition. The Proposed Action would have some impacts to soil condition, trends, and minor soil loss in localized areas. Impacts, however, would be short-term in nature as long as soil and water conservation BMPs (Appendix A) are properly implemented and monitoring is performed before and after treatments to assess effectiveness of mitigation measures. Mitigation would then follow BMPs to ensure soil disturbance falls below forest and regional levels of management concern ultimately reducing cumulative effects.

Hydrology, Air, and Climate

Existing Conditions The topography of the project area is dominated by Escudilla Mountain. The west and north parts of Escudilla Mountain drain to the Nutrioso Creek and Coyote Creek 5th code watersheds, which are within the Little Colorado River Headwaters 4th code watershed. The east and south sides of Escudilla Mountain drain to the Centerfire Creek-San Francisco River and Upper Blue River 5th code watersheds, which are within the San Francisco 4th code watershed. See Appendix B for project watershed boundary map.

The surficial bedrock geology within the project area consists mostly of tertiary sedimentary rocks (referred to as the upper sedimentary unit) which were deposited prior to or during the initial phases of mid-Tertiary volcanism. These sandstones are as much as 1,200 feet thick. Towards the northern end of the project area these rocks are capped with younger quarternary basalts. (USDI Geological Survey Bulletin 1121-H, Paleozoic and Cenozoic Rocks in the Alpine-

Nutrioso Area, Apache County, Arizona, 1961). The flanks of Escudilla Mountains are mainly underlain by the upper sedimentary unit and capped by Tertiary volcanic rhyolite. Another commonly occurring unit which is older than the aforementioned formations is the Datil formation. In the Alpine-Nutrioso area this formation can be subdivided into two members. An lower sedimentary unit of naturally cemented volcanic detritus with an exposed thickness of 680 feet and an upper unit consisting of porphyritic andesite approximately 400 feet in thickness.

Water Resources Water Quantity

According to the forest geodatabase, there are approximately 169 miles of stream within the West Escudilla project boundary. Of this total, approximately 63 (37%) miles are identified as ephemeral. The number of perennial and intermittent stream miles were 57 (34%) and 49 (29%), respectively. The definitions of the stream types are defined by Meinzer (1923) as:

Perennial: Streams flow continuously. They are generally associated with a water table in the localities through which they flow

Intermittent: A stream that flows only at certain times of the year when it receives water from springs or from some surface sources such as melting show in mountainous areas.

Ephemeral: A stream that slows in direct response to precipitation, and whose channel is above the water table at all times. In order to draw distinction between intermittent and ephemeral streams Meinzer (1923) suggested that “intermittent be arbitrarily restricted to streams that flow continuously for periods of at least 30 days and the term “ephemeral” be restricted to streams that do not flow continuously for at least 30 days.

Springs

The Spring Stewardship Institute (SSI) has identified a total of 50 spring features within the project boundary. Of these, four were evaluated in the field by SIS in 2015 (Museum of Northern Arizona Spring Stewardship Institute, 2016). These include: Crossing Spring, Meadowlark Meadow, Molina Spring, and Sawmill Spring. Meadowlark Meadow was reported as not appearing to be a spring ecosystem. Crossing and Sawmill Springs were in good conditions with high restoration potential. Molina was reported to be in very poor condition with limited restoration potential.

Water Quality

A large portion of the Coyote Creek HUC10 watershed is within the project boundary. The Coyote Creek watershed is currently a priority for the National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) because of downstream sediment impairment to the Little Colorado River. From a water quality


~ 225 ~

standpoint, other water bodies, Luna Lake and Nutrioso Creek are of concern on the Forest. Also, the San Francisco River in New Mexico, downstream from the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest is of concern.

Riparian Resources

Western riparian systems are among the rarest habitat types in the Western Hemisphere (Krueper, 1995). In Arizona and New Mexico, these areas occupy less than 0.5 % of the state’s land area, yet 80 % of all vertebrates use riparian areas. In Arizona 60-75 % of the resident wildlife species depend on riparian areas to sustain their populations (Arizona Riparian Council, Fact Sheet No.1, 1995).

Riparian can be simply defined as the vegetation or habitats that are associated with the presence of water, whether it is perennial, subsurface, intermittent or ephemeral in nature (Krueper, 1993). These areas are transitional between aquatic and terrestrial areas and have components of both (DeBano and Schmidt, 1989a). Riparian areas have distinctly different vegetative species composition than adjacent areas. The most diverse and robust riparian vegetation occurs in association with perennial and intermittent reaches. However, some transitional ephemeral reaches do support pockets of riparian woody vegetation because of the presence of shallow subsurface water.

The total linear length of streams within the project boundary with riparian vegetation was approximately 41 miles (regional Riparian Mapping Project-RMAP, 2011). The proportion of the riparian units identified by PNVT and corresponding RMAP unit (in parenthesis) were: 63% Wetland/Cienega (herbaceous), 29% Montane Willow Riparian Forest (Willow/Thinleaf Alder), and 8% Cottonwood/Willow (Narrowleaf Cottonwood/Shrub).

Climate and Variability

The climate, for the most part, across the project area is characterized as semiarid and warm, with low annual precipitation and a high number of sunny days. Past precipitation and temperature of the region has varied sharply at timescales ranging from annual to multi-decadal.

The principal period of precipitation events in this area generally occurs during the period of late July through September. During this period, rainfall is characterized by convective, high intensity, short duration storms typical of the southwestern monsoon season. These storms are generally of limited areal extent, averaging an estimated five square miles. During the latter part of this period and continuing on into October, there is also a threat of high intensity, longer duration storms of cyclonic origin associated with Gulf of Mexico and Pacific Ocean hurricanes. These usually do not occur with the same regularity as the monsoon season rains. The second mode of a general bimodal precipitation distribution occurs during the period of November through April, when easterly storm tracks originating over the Pacific Ocean shift over the

Forest, allowing widespread precipitation. This precipitation falls typically at higher elevations as snow. The snow pack at this elevation generally develops continuously over this period but melts over a much shorter time span. (http://www.climas.arizona.edu/learning.html)

Climate change, because of global warming, has come to the forefront of current scientific investigation in the Southwest. Research indicates that the late 20th century was “unusually” warm generally, with 1990, 1995, 1997, and 1998 noted as the warmest years since the beginning of instrumentally recorded climate data and potentially the warmest since AD 1000 (Mann et al. 1999). The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other modeled projections assert that average annual temperatures in the Southwest could rise by 4½ to 7 or more degrees (F) during this century (Lenart, 2008; IPCC, 2007). It is also predicted that drought will continue to extend its grip on the Southwest, despite the wet winter of 2004-2005 and the summer of 2006 (Lenart, 2007). A global atmospheric pattern known as Hadley Cell circulation is the primary reason for sunny days in the Southwest, as tropical air rises and eventually descends in the subtropics, making it difficult for clouds to form. The area under Hadley Cell’s descending air is projected to widen, moving wetter weather poleward. Results of this movement are yet undetermined, but speculation includes less rain and snow in the Southwest, and an increased potential for flooding during strong monsoons, seemingly contradictory events (Lenart, 2007). While the future of climate change and its effects across the Southwest remains uncertain, it is certain that climate variability will continue to occur across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, with higher probabilities of extended drought, which can lead to dramatic impacts on the landscape. Adaptive management will respond accordingly to minimize negative impacts from any ongoing or proposed activity.

Effects are disclosed based on climate within its normal range of variability. Management during periods where climatic conditions occur outside the normal range of variability are described in Regional and Forest guidance papers and are considered outside the effects determination being made below.

Desired Conditions DCs are goals set to reflect necessary ecosystem structure and function. DC goals are long term because recovery and changes in ecosystems takes time. The DCs, as described, are attainable, measurable, on-the-ground conditions. It is recognized, however, that unforeseeable events such as wildfire, drought or flooding, where extended or extreme, may require reassessment of the DCs.

Overall Ecosystem Health

• Watersheds exhibit high geomorphic, hydrologic, and biotic integrity relative to their natural potential condition.


~ 227 ~

General Forest

• Watershed condition rating is at satisfactory.

All PNVTs

• The vegetative conditions and functions are resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of ecological disturbances (e.g., fire, insects and disease, flood, climate variability). The landscape is a functioning ecosystem that contains all its components, processes, and better able to cope with climate change.

• The range of species genetic diversity remains within native vegetation and animal populations, thus enabling species to adapt to changing environmental and climatic conditions.

• Vegetation characteristics (e.g., density, litter) provide favorable conditions for waterflow and quality.

• Vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation and litter cover) is optimized to protect and enrich soils and promote water infiltration. There is a diverse mix of cool and warm season grasses and desirable forbs species.

• Ecosystem services are available as forests, woodlands, grasslands, and riparian communities successfully adapt to a changing and variable climate.

• Stand densities and species compositions are such that vegetation conditions are resilient under a variety of potential future climates.

• Vegetation provides products—such as wood fiber or forage—to help meet local and regional needs in a manner that is consistent with other desired conditions on a sustainable basis within the capacity of the land.

Grasslands

• Vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation and litter cover) is optimized (as defined by the TES map unit under consideration) to prevent accelerated erosion, dissipate rainfall, facilitate the natural fire regimes, and provide wildlife and insect habitat. Ungrazed herbaceous vegetation heights range from 7 to 32 inches depending on grassland type.

Air Quality

• Air quality related values, including high quality visual conditions, are maintained within Class I airshed over Mount Baldy Wilderness.

• Class II airsheds meet State of Arizona air quality standards including those for visibility and public health.

Water Resources

• Water quality, stream channel stability, and aquatic habitats retain their inherent resilience to natural and other disturbances.

• Vegetation and soil conditions above the floodplain protect downstream water quality, quantity, and aquatic habitat.

• Water quality meets or exceeds Arizona State standards or Environmental Protection Agency water quality standards for designated uses.

• Water resources maintain the capability to respond and adjust to disturbances without long term adverse changes.

• Instream flows provide for channel and floodplain maintenance, recharge of riparian aquifers, water quality, and minimal temperature fluctuations.

• Streamflows provide connectivity among fish populations and provide unobstructed routes critical for fulfilling needs of aquatic, riparian dependent, and many upland species of plants and animals.

• Water quantity meets the needs for forest administration and authorized activities (e.g., livestock grazing, recreation, firefighting, domestic use, road maintenance).

• Stream channels and floodplains are dynamic and resilient to disturbances. The water and sediment balance between streams and their watersheds allow a natural frequency of low and high flows.

• Stream condition is sufficient to withstand floods without disrupting normal stream characteristics (e.g., water transport, sediment, woody material) or altering stream dimensions (e.g., bankfull width, depth, slope, sinuosity).

• Floodplains are functioning and lessen the impacts of floods on human safety, health, and welfare.

Riparian

• Riparian-wetland conditions maintain water-related processes (e.g., hydrologic, hydraulic, geomorphic). They also maintain the physical and biological community characteristics, functions, and processes.

• Natural ecological disturbances (e.g., flooding, scouring) promote a diverse plant structure consisting of herbaceous, shrub, and tree species of all ages and size classes necessary for the recruitment of riparian-dependent species.

• Stream (lotic) riparian-wetland areas have vegetation, landform, and/or large coarse woody debris to dissipate stream energy associated with high waterflow.

• Streams and their adjacent floodplains are capable of filtering, processing, and storing sediment; aiding floodplain development; improving floodwater retention; and increasing groundwater recharge.

• Vegetation and root masses stabilize streambanks, islands, and shoreline features against the cutting action of water.

• Ponding and channel characteristics provide habitat, water depth, water duration, and the temperatures necessary for maintaining populations of riparian-dependent species and for their dispersal.


~ 229 ~

• Beavers occupy capable stream reaches and help promote the function and stability of riparian areas.

• Lentic riparian areas (e.g., wet meadows, fens, bogs) have vegetation and landform present to dissipate wind action, wave action, and overland flow from uplands.

• Wetland riparian areas are capable of filtering sediment and aiding floodplain development that contribute to water retention and groundwater recharge.

• Willows (e.g., Bebb, Geyer, Arizona, Goodding’s) are reproducing with all age classes present, where the potential exists.

• The spatial extent of wetlands is maintained.

• Riparian vegetation consists mostly of native species that support a wide range of vertebrate and invertebrate species and are free of invasive plant and animal species.

• The ecological function of riparian areas is resilient to animal and human use.

• Riparian obligate species within wet meadows, around springs and seeps, along streambanks, and active floodplains provide sufficient vegetative ground cover (herbaceous vegetation, litter, and woody riparian species) to protect and enrich soils, trap sediment, mitigate flood energy, stabilize streambanks, and provide for wildlife and plant needs.

• Large coarse woody debris provides stability to riparian areas and stream bottoms lacking geologic control (e.g., bedrock) or geomorphic features (e.g., functioning floodplains, stream sinuosity, width/depth ratio).

Key Resource Questions

1. What will be the anticipated short-term and long-term effects of proposed restoration treatments on water, riparian, and air resources, and overall watershed condition within the project boundary?

Affected Environment Air Quality

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs management activities do not appreciably contribute to the increase of the six pollutants identified by the EPA, except for particulate matter. The primary source of particulate matter from the forests comes from road and fugitive dust and emissions from smoke, contributing to regional haze. Motor vehicle travel within the forest also contributes to emissions, albeit in minute quantities. Two Class 1 airsheds, Mount Baldy Wilderness and Gila Wilderness, are identified within a 30 mile radius of the project area. Mount Baldy is located on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest and is approximately 15 miles from the project boundary. The Gila Wilderness area is located on the Gila National Forest and is 30 miles from the project boundary. Motor vehicle emissions from within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs are deemed negligible in relation to these airsheds. The number of vehicles operating across the forests is not considered to measurably impact air-quality. Mount Baldy, located within the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs is located generally upwind of all roads on the forests and this area has few roads and

receives little traffic. In addition, the majority of motor vehicles are approved to meet EPA emission standards, which reduces air impacts further.

Table 39 - Class I and II Airsheds in vicinity of project boundary.

Wilderness Area National Forest Administrative Unit(s)*

Air Quality Classification

Approx. Distance from Project Area (mi.)

Mount Baldy Wilderness Apache-Sitgreaves Class I 15

Gila Wilderness Gila Class I 30

Aldo Leopold Wilderness Gila Class II

70

Bear Wallow Wilderness Apache-Sitgreaves Class II 20

Blue Range Wilderness Gila & Apache Class II 10

Escudilla Wilderness Apache-Sitgreaves Class II 0

The West Escudilla project area does not currently fall within non-attainment areas for any of the listed pollutants (ADEQ, 2011). According to Arizona, this eliminates the need to do complex modeling or projections for minor projects and activities that do not have regional significance other than burning. Counties and municipalities may invoke additional requirements for projects or activities that are a source of pollutants, however, none have been identified in lands associated with the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

Dust generated from vehicles driving on unpaved national forest system roads can contribute to regional haze. There is no direct relationship between miles of roads on the forests and actual miles traveled by motor vehicles. This is more a function of peak usage times such as during summer holidays when the Forests’ use is high. During winter, the same forest roads generate almost no usage by vehicles. Additionally, dust generated from unpaved roads generally settles out within a short distance (around 20 feet) of the point of generation. Larger particle sizes of road dust drop out within tens of feet, while smaller particles drop out within a quarter-mile. Unless winds carry road dust a farther distance, dust generated on the forests does not leave the forests.

Water Resources

Water Quality

As reported in Arizona Department of Environmental Quality’s “Status of Water Quality in Arizona – 2012” (ADEQ, 2014), no water bodies were assessed or found to be impaired. Luna


~ 231 ~

Lake was listed as not attaining with regards to ammonia for aquatics and wildlife coldwater fishery (A&Qc) designated use. Although, recent data indicated an impairment, Luna lake was put into a Category 4A ‘Non attaining’ because the sources of ammonia was the same as that for low dissolved oxygen and high pH. A TMDL was developed for the Luna Lake in 2000 for dissolved oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, and pH. Nutrioso Creek from the Headwaters to Nelson Reservoir was placed into a Category 3 ‘Inconclusive’ status. Nutrioso Creek from Nelson Reservoir to Picnic Creek was placed in a Category 4A ‘Non attaining’ status because it was found to be not attaining with regards to turbidity and suspended sediment concentration (SSC) for a A&Wc designated use. A turbidity TMDL was completed in 2000.

Roads can be a major contributor of sediment to streams. Including closed (ML1) roads, there are approximately 290 miles of system roads currently within the project area, which does not include the approximate 122 miles of unauthorized roads. Average road density for the project area is approximately 2 miles/square mile.

Water Quantity

The major drainages within the project area are: San Francisco River, Nutrioso Creek, Coyote Creek and Stone Creek. Most of the streams within the project area have experienced, especially Stone Creek, Bob Thomas Creek, Little Creek and tributaries to Coyote Creek, direct or indirect effects from the 2011 Wallow Fire. These effects included increased stream flow volumes and peak flow magnitudes, with accompanying excess channel erosion and sedimentation. Spring discharge, a source of perennial water for a number of streams, has increased from the decreased transpiration associated with the loss of overstory vegetation. Recovery of the hydrologic regime following wildfire typically occurs within a 5 to 10 year period, however it can take longer.

Riparian Resources

Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) was performed on a total of 43 miles of perennial and intermittent streams within the project boundary in 2014 and 2015. These stream segments possessed the strongest riparian characteristics as far as vegetative diversity and density (note: the PFC protocol is not applicable to ephemeral streams). The results of the PFC survey effort for this project are shown in Table 40. Most of the assessed reach miles, 48%, were rated as Functional-at-Risk. The percentages of reach miles that were Proper Functioning Condition and Nonfunctional were 39% and 12%, respectively. Of the Functional-at-Risk miles, only 14% were found to be on an upward trend, whereas the percentages of miles with a downward trend and trend not apparent were 47% and 39%, respectively. The three most commonly identified problems identified by the PFC surveys were1) upland watershed is not contributing to riparian-wetland degradation 2) vertical stability and 3) diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland. Many of streams reaches within the project area exhibit legacy effects from past land management, such as poor logging practices, road locations, and overgrazing. The effects of these practices included entrenchment of stream channels, increased gradient, decreased

sinuosity, and subsequent loss of access to the floodplain. Superimposed on these conditions were the effects of the Escudilla Fire of 1950 and more recently the Wallow Fire of 2011. The Wallow Fire was the primary reason for such a large number of surveys that indicated that upland watershed conditions were contributing to degradation. These post-fire upland conditions also contributed to many of the other assessment items being negatively rated including vertical stability. Vertical instability in the form of ‘headcuts’ was commonly reported. The lack of a diverse age-class distribution of riparian-wetland vegetation was mostly likely a legacy effect. There was evidence of recruitment of woody vegetation, however older age classes were lacking. The older classes that were present, such as in the case for Bebbs Willow, were decadent. The seedling and sapling woodies that were coming in appeared to be heavily browsed.

Assessed reaches are discussed by HUC12 (6th code) watershed. Stream type based on the Rosgen Classification system are given for some reaches based on general appearances. It should be noted that these are just estimates and surveyed stream geometric parameters would be needed for a precise classification.

Table 40 - PFC Results within the Project Boundary. HUC12 (6th code) Watershed REACH CODE PFC RATING MILES

Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek

Coyote Creek 1 FAR NA 1.9

Coyote Creek 2 PFC 1.2

Coyote Creek 3 PFC 2.4

Lily Creek 1 FAR D 2.0

Lily Creek 2 FAR NA 0.4

Mamie Creek 1 FAR NA 0.5

Mamie Creek 2 FAR U 0.9

Mamie Creek 3 FAR D 0.9

Mamie Creek 4 FAR NA 0.1

Morrison Creek 1 FAR NA 1.5

Trout Creek ELC Creek 1 PFC 1.5

Stone Creek-San Francisco River

Bob Thomas Creek 1 NF 1.7

Bob Thomas Creek 2 FAR D 0.3

Little Creek 1 NF 2.6

Little Creek 4 FAR U 1.4

San Francisco River 6 PFC 1.7

San Francisco River 7 PFC 1.1


~ 233 ~

HUC12 (6th code) Watershed REACH CODE PFC RATING MILES

Stone Creek 1 PFC 0.8

Stone Creek 2 FAR D 2.0

Stone Creek 3 FAR D 2.7

Stone Creek 4 NF 0.9

Dry Blue Creek

Jackson Creek 1 FAR D 1.9

Jackson Creek 2 FAR NA 0.9

Pace Creek 1 PFC 0.9

Pace Creek 2 FAR NA 1.0

Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek Nutrioso Creek 10 FAR U 0.6

Nutrioso Creek 11 PFC 1.3

Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek

Nutrioso Creek 11 PFC 4.0

Nutrioso Creek 12 FAR NA 1.8

Rudd Creek Rudd Creek 1 PFC 2.0

Watershed Condition Framework

All the watersheds within the project area were rated as condition Class2-Functioning-at-Risk with the exception of Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek and Rudd Creek watersheds which were rated as Class 3-Impaired Function (Table 41). These two watershed were downgraded from their previous Class 2 ratings after a reassessment of watershed scores following the 2011 Wallow Fire.

Table 41 - Watershed Condition Classes.

6th Code Watershed % of watershed within project

area

Watershed Condition Class

Canovas Creek-Coyote Creek 32.8% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

Dry Blue Creek 21.3% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

Dry Lakes-Nutrioso Creek 94.8% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

Long Lake 45.6% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

Picnic Creek-Nutrioso Creek 5.0% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

6th Code Watershed % of watershed within project

area

Watershed Condition Class

Pratt Lake 70.9% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

Riggs Creek-Nutrioso Creek 9.7% Class 3-Impaired Function

Rudd Creek 7.2% Class 3-Impaired Function

San Francisco River-Luna Lake 9.0% Class 3-Impaired Function

Stone Creek-San Francisco River 19.5% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk

Trout Creek 17.8% Class 2-Functioning-at-Risk


Air Quality Effects for All Alternatives

There will be minimal differences in regards to air quality between the alternatives. Total smoke emissions from a wildfire would be expected to be greater than from a controlled prescribed burn, which must comply with Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) requirements for reporting and approval. Smoke emissions modeling will be completed as part of the permitting process. The Fire and Fuels section provides a detailed analysis of prescribed burning and air quality. Air quality impacts other than smoke are limited to the generation of dust generated by timber harvesting and pinyon-juniper treatments. Fugitive dust may be generated in areas where mechanical operations are occurring and associated hauling and vehicle travel. These impacts are expected to stay within the analysis area as dust from the very few roads settles out relatively quickly. There is no measurable difference expected between alternatives as related to dust generated from restoration activities. BMPs should be effective in retaining protective ground cover, reducing exposed soil susceptible to wind erosion and creation of dust in all action alternatives. This project is not within a State designated non-attainment area, therefore no conformity assessment was necessary or completed.

Alternative 1: No Action

Water Resources

Water Quality and Quantity: Absence of Stream (Aquatic and Riparian) and Wet Meadow Improvements

Several stream reaches are experiencing increased water flows and sediment delivery from the effects of the 2011 Wallow Fire. The increased flows are causing both vertical and lateral stream


~ 235 ~

instabilities. Stabilizing riparian vegetation has been scoured away causing detachment and movement of channel and bank material. Without active stabilization activities water quality may not improve as quickly, or may continue on a downward trend as with Alternative 2.

Water Quality and Quantity: Absence of Upland Soil Stabilization

Water quality benefits from stabilization of areas that are highly erosive will not occur with this alternative.

Water Quality and Quantity: Absence of Forest Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

This alternative would not provide for vegetative conditions that are more resistant to uncharacteristic wildfire. The effects to water quality and quantity from wildfire caused high soil burn severities are well documented, and include heavy sediment and ash inputs to streams, as well as damaging flows in streams to riparian areas and downstream structures. It is likely that under any conditions, a wildfire entering these untreated watersheds under the no action alternative would have considerably greater impacts to water quality and channel stability than wildfire occurring after implementation of Alternative 2. There are possible short term sediment fluxes associated with temporarily opening level 1 roads that are currently stable and not contributing sediment. However, the long-term benefits to water quality outweigh the temporary short-term effects.

This alternative would not improve water quantity. In areas that are overstocked with trees, water quantity will continue to decline as less water would be available for springs and stream flows due to the closing of the overstory.

Water Quality and Quantity: Absence of Woodland and Grassland Health Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

In areas where overstory densities are high, little long-term improvement in hydrologic flow regime will occur without mechanical treatment and/or prescribed fire. The soils in these areas have reduced moisture storage and infiltration capacity and are frequently overwhelmed by high intensity summer precipitation events, producing runoff events with relatively large peak flows of short duration. There would be no potential benefit to water quality from improvement of the hydrologic flow regime and reducing the risk of an altered sediment regime associated with potential high severity wildfire in areas with current fuel loadings.

Water Quality and Quantity: Absence of Road Improvements

This alternative is would not allow for the obliteration of unauthorized travel courses or decommissioning of Forest Service system roads. These roads and travel courses will continue to discharge runoff and sediment to project area streams, especially where the roads are poorly

located in stream bottoms, have inadequate drainage structure, and are hydrologically connected to the stream network.

Riparian Resources

Riparian Resources: Absence of Stream (Aquatic and Riparian) and Wet Meadow Improvements

Many of the stream reaches assessed are currently not at desired conditions being in a condition less than PFC (Proper Functioning Condition). It is expected that the condition of these reaches may continue to decline or if recovering, at a slower rate than with Alternative 2.

Riparian Resources: Absence of Upland Soil Stabilization

Alternative 1 does not allow to complete upland soil stabilization in cases where soil conditions are contributing to headcut formation. Headcuts can adversely affect riparian vegetation from the scouring away of plants and their substrate and subsequent lowering of the water table.

Riparian Resources: Absence of Forest Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

Under this Alternative and considering the absence of wildfire, current trends in condition of riparian areas within the project area would be expected to continue. Tree density and canopy closure within the riparian areas would increase. Current levels of large woody debris would be available to the stream channel both from the riparian and adjacent upland zones. Areas where deciduous woody riparian vegetation are being shaded out by invading conifers would remain in that condition. This alternative will allow riparian condition improvement at a slower rate than Alternative 2 as there would be no direct reduction to conifer overstory to allow riparian vegetation vigor to increase and improve riparian functions.

Riparian Resources: Absence Woodland and Grassland Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

With the No Action alternative there would no benefits to riparian condition from improving upland watershed condition to desired conditions from vegetative treatments and prescribed fire. There would be no potential improvement hydrologic flow conditions and altered sediment regime by restoring herbaceous ground cover. Fuel loading would remain high, thus greater risk of high burn severity and subsequent flooding effects, which could negatively affect riparian condition.

Riparian Resources: Absence of Road Improvements

Unauthorized roads will not be obliterated, resource degradation from these roads will continue, and the improvement to riparian condition will not occur.


~ 237 ~

Alternative 2: Proposed Action

Water Resources

Water Quality and Quantity: Stream (Aquatic and Riparian) and Wet Meadow Improvements

Limited ground disturbance in and around stream channels and wet meadows may cause some short-term erosion with possible sediment detachment and movement, however there would be no changes with compliance with the Clean Water Act. BMPs are prescribed to limit the timing, extent, and intensity of these activities in order to reduce impacts to water quality. Long-term water quality would benefit with improved stream energy dissipation and water storage capacity from promoting soil and channel stability.

Specifically, Nutrioso Creek would benefit from restoration work and also activities on its tributary Rudd Creek. The San Francisco River “303d” listed in New Mexico and would benefit from restoration work in its tributaries including Stone Creek and Little Creek. The Coyote Creek watershed with Coyote Creek and its tributaries is currently a priority watershed for the National Water Quality Initiative (NWQI) because of downstream sediment impairment to the Little Colorado River.

Water Quality and Quantity: Upland Soil Stabilization

Upland soil stabilization activities could help mitigate possible headcut formation and soil erosion which would benefit water quality.

Water Quality and Quantity: Forest Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

Water Quality

Potential negative water quality impacts from the actions proposed in this alternative would include increased short- term inputs of ash and sediment to streams. The increase in ash would occur in response to prescribed burning in the project area. Water quality impacts from the production of additional sediment are primarily expected from road and ground disturbing treatment activities.

Approximately 290 miles of roads would be needed for the proposed activities that are currently in the forest system road network. Alternative 2 requires re-opening and minor maintenance of approximately 61 miles of maintenance level 1 (ML1) roads. In the short term, it is possible that sediment inputs to area streams will increase from the re-opened, constructed temporary roads, or improved roads in the project area. The short term impact to water quality from sediment emanating from roads utilized for and during harvest operations are to be minimized by employing BMPs, including the forest’s road maintenance BMP protocols (USDA-FS, 2011). BMPs are effective in preventing sediment from reaching streams when strictly followed. All opened roads and temporary roads will be closed and decommissioned, respectively, when they

are no longer needed. Sediment production from roads diminishes over time after proper closure and non-use (Beschta, 1978).

A second source of potential sediment input to streams will be from areas where ground cover has been reduced or eliminated from mechanical harvesting, and prescribed fire activities. BMPs are prescribed to limit the timing, extent, and intensity of these activities in order to reduce impacts to water quality. BMP’s designed to protect water quality are effective in preventing long term degradation of water quality, point sources of contamination and nonpoint sources of sediment. The use of aquatic management zones-(see Appendix A) to limit impacts in and around streams and riparian areas, while promoting sediment filtration has been shown to reduce sediment entering water ways to non-significant levels (Rashin, 2006).

Water Quantity

Fuel reduction treatments in forested watersheds can have long-term increases in water yields either on-site or downstream (Brewer, 2008; Bosch and Hewlet 1982; Troendle et al., 2003, 2007) in streams, springs, and wet meadows. Water yield varies depending on basal area removed, vegetation type, and if it occurs in a wet or dry year. Prescriptions that cover most of the project area and remove greater than 20 % of tree basal area are generally needed to generate a detectable change in flow. In cases where there is a detectable hydrologic response to fuel management treatments, the observed response will be greatest in wet years and smallest or non-detectable in dry years. Increases can be temporary occurring less than six years following treatment, and modest (0-3%) when compared to total mean runoff from the study watershed (Robles et al., 2014).

Prescribed fires, when designed and used as a fuel reduction tool alone, are probably less likely to influence water yield than mechanical treatments or burning with mechanical treatments because of the resulting smaller reduction in basal. Alternative 2 would have the highest herbaceous understory response and promote understory plant diversity. Measures taken to reduce the potential impact of increased peak flows and runoff are described in the following section on Cumulative Watershed Effects.

Water Quality and Quantity: Woodland and Grassland Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

Water Quality

Long-term water quality will benefit from treatment of upland areas currently not meeting desired conditions because of departures in vegetation and fuel composition. Increased vegetative ground cover and decreased heavy fuel loading will promote stability in natural flow and sediment regimes. Rainfall-runoff monitoring from a study in New Mexico reported much greater runoff coefficients, total discharge, and sediment yield in pinyon-juniper woodland sites


~ 239 ~

than those in grasslands (Puttock et al., 2013). Although there may be isolated, short-term, disturbance of soils and vegetative cover from implementation of these treatments, BMPs (Appendix A) will be used to maintain compliance with federal and state water quality laws. BMPs will also be utilized to minimize potential effects of road maintenance necessary for project implementation. All proposed opened and temporary roads will be closed and decommissioned, respectively when they are no longer needed.

Water Quantity

Long-term watershed functioning would likely improve with the proposed mechanical treatments and prescribed fire, moving portions of the uplands to desired conditions. Departures from historical ranges of variability in vegetation and fire regimes have the potential for alteration of hydrologic regimes. Increased herbaceous ground cover, residual plant material, and plant vigor would increase surface roughness intercepting precipitation and slowing runoff. Soil compaction would start to break up and additional organic material incorporated into the soil promoting increased water infiltration and moisture retention, which will reduce surface runoff. Overall, these conditions could promote more stable hydrologic flow regimes. Mechanical treatments of pinyon- juniper woodlands have had mixed results as far as increasing water yield. In one study juniper treatments were shown to increase spring flow, groundwater, and soil moisture (Deboot et al. 2008). Other studies showed that water yield increases were lost to transportation from increases in herbaceous cover (Zou et al., 2009). Any water yield increase is thought to be lost to the several-fold increase in transpiration by the increased occurrence of herbaceous plants.

Water Quality and Quantity: Road Improvements

Alternative 2 provides for decommissioning of approximately 16 miles of unneeded forest service system roads and obliteration of 122 miles of unauthorized roads. Road densities, considering obliteration of all unauthorized routes, would decrease from an existing condition of 3.61 mi/mi2 to 2.33 mi/mi2. Long -term sediment reduction would benefit from these activities. Sediment production from roads diminishes over time after proper closure and non-use (Beschta, 1978).

Riparian Resources

Riparian Resources: Stream (Aquatic and Riparian) and Wet Meadow Improvement

Stream and wet meadow stabilization structures would aid in promoting water retention reducing erosion and which will improve conditions for riparian plant production. In some areas, riparian vegetation will be augmented by planting of riparian herbaceous and woody species appropriate to those locations. Stabilization techniques would include hand or mechanical installation methods, depending on site needs, access and other resource concerns. The implementation of stabilization activities will strictly follow project BMPs.

Continued heavy to extreme use of woody species can limit the plant’s ability to regenerate (Winward, 2000). Riparian fencing would aid to reduce impacts from large ungulates to riparian vegetation. Fencing is to be completed using small, removable panels.

Riparian Resources: Upland Soil Stabilization

Alternative 2 would allow for completion of upland soil stabilization in cases where soil conditions are contributing to headcut formation. Headcuts can adversely affect riparian vegetation by scouring away of plants and soils and lowering of the water table.

Riparian Resources: Forest Vegetation and Prescribed Burning Treatments

Under the proposed action alternative 2, thinning and burning operations would occur both in the upland adjacent side slopes and within aquatic management zones (AMZs). These treatments should reduce the risks to riparian communities and stream channel integrity from scorching, and damaging peak flows associated with uncharacteristic wildfire. Reductions in upland tree density and the long-term maintenance of open stands and forest openings could respond with increased stream flow and water yield (Brewer, 2008), which in turn would provide longer periods of intermittent stream flow. These treatments are specifically designed to reduce the conifer canopy cover in riparian areas to stimulate the development of the understory vegetation including deciduous woody riparian vegetation (e.g., aspens, willows and cottonwoods). This desired change in riparian vegetation would likely have a positive impact on stream channel stability and move unsatisfactory riparian conditions towards properly functioning condition more quickly than Alternative 1. Adherence to project BMPs will limit the extent and degree of impacts from thinning and burning activities both in the uplands and riparian areas. Project-specific AMZs have been determined for stream channels and wet meadows (see Watershed BMPs in Appendix A, and proposed AMZ maps in Appendix B). Treatments within the AMZs would be limited in scope, space, and time to achieve multiple resource management objectives. Strict application of BMPs designed to maintain ground cover and large woody material within the AMZs.

Riparian Resources: Woodland and Grassland Vegetation Treatments and Prescribed Fire

Item 6 on the PFC Standard Checklist is whether ‘Riparian impairment from the upstream or upland watershed is absent’. The proposed mechanical treatments and prescribed burning could benefit riparian areas by moving the upland vegetation and fire regime towards desired conditions. Watershed hydrologic and sediment regimes are more likely to remain in balance, thus reducing potential degradation of riparian systems from excess erosion or deposition. Improved upland vegetative conditions could reduce stream channel bank and bed instability (Fisher et al. 2008) by improving infiltration, thereby reducing runoff and potential damaging storm flows. Specific BMPs to limit timing, extent, and intensity of treatment activities will be in place to ensure that potential negative effects from mechanical and prescribed fire treatments will be minimized.


~ 241 ~

Riparian Resources: Road Improvements

The removal of poorly located roads will aid riparian resources by removing roads that are damaging riparian vegetation directly or causing instabilities resulting in excess erosion and deposition, which may impact riparian diversity, extent, and vigor.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Watershed Condition Framework

Cumulative effects analysis was completed at the watershed scale. Watershed condition is defined as the state of the physical and biological characteristics and processes within a watershed that affect the hydrologic and soil functions supporting aquatic ecosystems (USDS, 2011). Watershed condition scores are based on twelve indicators composed of attributes related to watershed processes. This analysis will qualitatively describe the potential changes of the relevant ten indicators and consequently the watershed condition scores in relation to 1) the effects of past, present and reasonable foreseeable activities within the watershed and 2) the effects that are expected with implementation of the alternatives associated within the project. Examples of activities and events which are at a scale and magnitude to effect watershed condition indicators include but are not limited to: wildfire, prescribed fire, forest thinning, and grassland and woodland restoration. Table 42 is a summary of the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities on the indicators.

Table 42 Summary of Effects on Watershed Condition Indicator Scores. Summary of Effects on Watershed Condition Indicator Scores.

Action Effect on Indicators Past Activities and

events (prior to 2012) Watershed condition indicator ratings originally developed in 2010 incorporated past activities

and events prior to 2010, ratings were updated in 2012 after Wallow Fire in 2011. Activities and events

after 2012 and reasonably foreseeable

Maintenance or improvement of the following indicators: water quality, water quantity, soils, roads and trails, fire regime and wildfire, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, and forest health

Proposed Action Indicators Alternative 1 No Action

Alternative 2 Proposed Action

Forest vegetative treatments (thinning

and prescribed burning)

Fire Regime and Wildfire Condition, Water Quality and Quantity, Riparian Vegetation, Forest

Health, Forest Cover, Soil Condition

No Benefit or Potential Decline

Maintenance or Improvement

Grassland, savannah, and woodland (thinning and prescribed burning

Water Quality and Quality,

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation, Soil

Condition, Rangeland Vegetation Condition,

Fire Regime and Wildfire Condition



Summary of Effects on Watershed Condition Indicator Scores. Action Effect on Indicators

Riparian and Stream Treatments

Riparian/Wetland Vegetation, Aquatic

Habitat, Water Quality and Quantity, Soil, Condition, and Fire

Regime



Unauthorized road and forest system road decommissioning

Road and Trail, Aquatic Habitat,

Water Quality, Soil Condition



Past activities and events for a 25 year period ending in 2010 were considered in development of the initial watershed condition ratings in 2010. Watersheds affected by the Wallow Fire in 2011 were rescored in 2012. The wildfire which burned in excess of half a million acres affected soils, fire regime and wildfire, and aquatic and riparian/wetland indicators in numerous watershed. Reasonably foreseeable activities include those that are anticipated to occur now to 25 years into the future and include projects with completed NEPA (planned) and those still in the planning process. Superimposed on the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable activities, are the effects with respect to full implementation the proposed action (Alternative 2).

The following projects were considered to be reasonably foreseeable:

• Nutrioso WUI

Fuels Reduction-thinning

• Eagar South WUI Fuels Reduction-thinning

• Escudilla Landscape: Luna and Pueblo Park Restoration Project –Gila National Forest Service Fuels Reduction-thinning, broadcast burning

Grasslands Restoration-mechanical treatment, broadcast burning

Stream and Riparian Restoration

Road improvements

Other Projects in the Planning Stage

A signed decision is expected for the Forest’s implementation of the 2005 Travel Management Rule (TMR) in early 2020. The implementation of TMR may reduce the number of roads crossing drainages and riparian areas, and keep road users in designated areas. These activities will be consistent in improving aquatic and riparian habitat, and water quality and quantity.


~ 243 ~

These projects, with the exception of travel management, include fuels reduction through prescribed fire or are mechanical vegetative treatments. Coupled with similar fuels reduction and vegetative treatments included in the proposed action for the West Escudilla Restoration Project, these activities will maintain or potentially improvement many of the Watershed Condition Framework indicators. In addition, some of the projects include road improvements through obliteration of unauthorized travel courses and decommissioning of Forest Service system roads can also improve watershed condition. Implementation of the Travel Management Plan will likely improve the density, location, and distribution of the Forest’s roads, thus benefiting the roads and trails indicator. The water quality and quantity, aquatic habitat, riparian/wetland vegetation, soils, fire regime or wildfire indicator, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, and forest health indicators would benefit from moving upland vegetation towards desired conditions through mechanical treatment. Some short-term, localized negative effects from ground disturbance via heavy machinery operations may occur on soils where previously completed projects overlap proposed or future activities in watersheds across the project. Opening, temporary road construction, and closing of roads in order to implement treatments would follow well established BMPS. There would be short- term effects, however only long-term improvement to the roads and trails WCF indicator. No long-term cumulative effects from ground disturbance (compaction, topsoil displacement, etc.) from mechanical operations are anticipated to occur to a degree or spatial extent that would negatively affect current soil condition ratings and the existing trend for any TES map unit within the project area with the proper implementation of soil and watershed BMPs.

Prescribed fire activities as part of this project have the potential to benefit the water quality and quantity, aquatic habitat, riparian/wetland vegetation, soils, fire regime or wildfire indicator, forest cover, rangeland vegetation, and forest health with respect to attaining desirable vegetation structure and composition, fuel composition, and restoring natural fire regimes in the long-term. Upland satisfactory soil condition will remain stable and impaired soils have the potential for improvement. The proper timing and frequency of burns planned accordingly with vegetation type characteristics (type of vegetation, climate, veg. structure, moisture conditions, etc.), burn severity maintenance, adequate soil and watershed BMP implementation, and the proper temporal / spatial planning of burns as not to overlap previously burned areas still recovering are all important factors for reaching the desired condition. Recurring, low intensity prescribed fire is a key component in the maintenance of desirable ecological and soil condition. As long as it is maintained regularly at low to low-moderate intensities, it has the potential to increase the rate of soil organic matter decomposition and incorporation in the long term. This helps stimulate more vigorous herbaceous plant growth which improves site stability / productivity. Ultimately, this should increase infiltration rates, reduce overland flow, promote stable hydrologic / sediment regimes and ultimately improve the fire regime, aquatic habitat, water quality and quantity and riparian/wetland indicators overtime.

Stream and riparian restoration activities will improve water quality and quantity, aquatic habitat, riparian/wetland vegetation, and soils, by bringing these systems to desired conditions through stabilization techniques involving instream structures and riparian planting. Stabilization will promote water quality and quantity attributes and aquatic habitat functioning.

Changing a watershed condition class would, in most cases, require changes within a watershed that are substantial in their scope and include treatments from multiple resource areas, however all indicator scores are expected to be maintained or improved with the multitude of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions (including the proposed action). Although, future watershed activities are expected to have long-term benefits to watershed condition, the intensity of coincidental watershed activities (too proportionally large of a watershed, over too short of time) could lead to potential negative effects.

Equivalent Disturbed Area

Equivalent Disturbed Area (EDA) percentages computed for the worst-case scenario, which considered completion of all future activities, including the proposed action, by the end of 2018. This worst-case scenario also considers opening of all the ML-1 roads and does not consider the benefits of decommissioning of system roads nor the obliteration of unauthorized routes. The highest watershed EDA percentages occurred in Trout Creek, Long Lake, and Stone Creek-San Francisco River-Luna Lake watersheds with 15.2%, 12.8%, and 12.4 %, respectively. All watersheds were below their respective thresholds with the exception of Trout Creek which was 0.2 % over. Long Lake and Stone Creek-San Francisco River were almost 3% below their respective thresholds. Based on the EDA analysis, there is a need for treatment timing considerations in Trout Creek watershed. The implementation plan for this project will need to build in vegetation treatments (mechanical thinning and/or prescribed burning) spread over a multi-year period.

Range

Existing Conditions The project area occurs within all or part of 13 grazing allotments on three ranger districts (Alpine, Springerville and Quemado (administered by the Gila National Forest)). These allotments make up 94% of the project area, the Table 43 below displays allotment name, total acres, acres within project area, percent of allotment within project area, and percentage of project areas containing an allotment. There are 128 miles of fence, 20 miles of pipeline, multiple stock ponds, and several water developments and corrals within the perimeter of the project. Table 44 displays permitted numbers, season of use, and pastures within the project area compared to the total number of pastures in allotment operation. Combined these allotments are permitted to graze 2,684 cow/calf pairs throughout the summer season with exception of the Spur Lake allotment that grazes year round and the Picnic allotment that is grazed in the winter


~ 245 ~

season. Grazing management follows deferred and rest rotation strategies and can be considered intensive management due to relatively small pastures sizes, and routine rotations. Proper livestock stocking rates were determined through range analysis and allotment management plan (AMP) development. All the allotments with the project area except for North Escudilla have gone through the NEPA process and Environmental Assessment for AMPs that considered production, capability, suitability, vegetation, wildlife, air/watershed, soils, recreation, and other resources and uses.

Table 43 - Grazing allotment acres within the West Escudilla Restoration Project area. Allotment Name Total Allotment

Acres Acres within Project Area

Percentage of Allotment within

Project Area

Percentage of Project Area Containing Allotment*

Springerville Ranger District ELC 30,667 24,392.09 80% 37% Molina Springs 3,340.49 3,340.49 100% 5% Murray Basin 4,243 127.27 3% .2% North Escudilla 12,944 11,798.12 91% 18% Picnic 3,166 2,782.17 88% 4% Alpine Ranger District Alpine 8,041 1,372 17% 2% Boneyard 2,729 149.23 5% .2% Colter Creek 11,774 267.33 2% .4% Coyote-Whitmer 14,704 6,870.10 47% 10% Stone Creek 8,725 2,508.34 29% 4% Tenney 305 211.18 69% .3% Turkey Creek 10,628 2,976.64 28% 5% Quemado Ranger District Spur Lake 5,561.17 5561.17 100% 8%

*66,000 acres was used as total percentage of project area.

Table 44 - Summary of Permitting on Grazing Allotments within Project Area. Allotment Name Permitted #’s Season of Use # of Pastures within Project Areas

vs. Total #of Pastures Springerville Ranger District ELC 434 cow/calf 6/1-1031 19 out 20 Molina Springs 320 cow/calf 6/1-10/31 2 out of 2 Murray Basin 62 cow/calf 7/1-10/31 1 out of 7 North Escudilla 320 cow/calf 6/1-10/31 5 out 6 Picnic 180 cow/calf 11/1-12/15 3 out of 3 Alpine Ranger District Alpine 59 cow/calf 7/15-10/31 2 out of 9 Boneyard 87 cow/calf 7/15-10/15 Colter Creek 221 cow/calf 9/1-10/31 2 out of 12 Coyote-Whitmer 190 cow/calf 7/15-10/31 4 out of 12 Stone Creek 126 cow/calf 5/16-9/30 4 out of 7 Tenney 14 cow/calf 7/15-10/15 5 out of 5 Turkey Creek 70 cow/calf 7/15-10/31 4 out of 7 Quemado Ranger District Spur Lake 315-438 cow/calf 3/1-5/31 31 out of 31

Allotment Name Permitted #’s Season of Use # of Pastures within Project Areas vs. Total #of Pastures

478-601 cow/calf 315-438 cow/calf

6/1-10/31 11/1-2/28

15 FS pastures, 16 Privet pastures

Grand Total 2,684 cow/calf

Condition of Range Resource Post Wallow Fire

A review of the Burned Area Reflectance Classification (BARC) map, which indicates burn severity on soils, was used to consider changes to range resources and interpret conditions post Wallow Fire. Primary rangeland burned at low severity in grassland, riparian, and low to moderate in ponderosa pine vegetation types. Areas that burned at high severity were in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer/spruce fir stands with dense canopy, and on steep slopes, considered non-capable for livestock grazing.

Field observations performed post-wallow fire showed rapid recovery of grasslands, riparian, and grass understory vegetation. High severity burn areas were seeded post fire with non-persistent sterile grains for erosion control, mixed with a small amount of native grasses (BAER 2011). Kuenzi found post fire species composition was influenced by seeding in the short term, and influenced by drought (2006). Monitoring occurred on primary rangeland to measure impacts of the fire on production, species composition, and ground cover. These monitoring sites were located primarily in the high elevation open grasslands, meadows, and a ponderosa pine sites that burned at low severity.

A general interpretation is presented here, while site specific data is housed in district files. Ground Cover measurements were collected from September 2011 to November 2011 on 11 different sites in the grassland and ponderosa pine types. Even shortly after the Wallow fire, vegetation comprised the majority of ground cover (50%). Production measurements were collected in November 2011 on nine different sites. Production on the sites ranged from 350 lbs. /acre in the ponderosa pine to 1500 lbs. /acre in the grasslands. Other measurements were taken in July and then again in August. Production shortly after the fire (July) was around 100 lbs. /acre and then increased to over 1000 lbs. /acre in August. This demonstrates the rapid response and recovery of grassland, and grass understory response to fire and monsoon moisture.

Plant composition measurements were collected in August, 2011 at two different sites in the grassland vegetation type. While post fire composition seemed to favor Elk sedge, dominant grass species pre-fire maintained their dominance post-fire.

Understory vegetation in the mixed conifer and ponderosa pine at high severity were not monitored for range resources. These areas are considered non-capable for livestock grazing, both pre and post Wallow Fire. High severity areas were seeded with annual sterile grasses for soil stabilization, with tremendous success and response.


~ 247 ~

Noxious weeds

Currently there is over 50 species of invasive plants found on at least 30,000 acres on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The area within the West Escudilla Restoration project area has 4 known species of noxious weeds that occur within the perimeter of the project area, which are federally listed as a noxious weeds (USDA 2015). Populations are located along major roads and recreation areas.

Table 45 - Noxious weeds acres within the West Escudilla Restoration Project area. Common Name Species* Acres within

Project Area Locations

Siberian Elm Ulmus pumila .10 acres Along HWY 180, between FS road 571 and county road 2310.

Musk Thistle Carduus nutans L. .20 acres Along HWY 180/191, around parking lot on south end of Nelson Reservoir and .25-.5 miles north of Nelson Reservoir.

Camelthorn Alhagi pseudoalhagi

7 acres T 8N, R 31 E, Sec. 26, SE ¼. Just west of forest road 205.

Salt Cedar Tamarix spp. .10 acres T 8N, R 31 E, Sec. 26, SE ¼. Just west of forest road 205.

Desired Conditions Desired conditions are based on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land Management Plan (USDA 2015) direction, and current regional direction on vegetation structure and composition within the southwest. The desired condition for vegetation is based on the desired state of the PNVTs.

Range Desired conditions for Livestock grazing:

• Livestock grazing contributes to the social, economic, cultural diversity and stability of rural communities.

• Livestock grazing and associated activities occur such that healthy, diverse plant communities, satisfactory conditions soils, and wildlife habitat are maintained or improved.

• Range developments for livestock minimize impacts to wildlife and blend with the natural environment.

• Livestock grazing is in balance with available forage (i.e., grazing and browsing by authorized livestock, wild horses, and wildlife do not exceed available forage production within established use levels).

• Livestock grazing and associated activities do not negatively impact cultural resources.

Standards for Livestock Grazing:

• New or reconstructed fencing shall allow for wildlife passage, except where specifically intended to exclude wildlife (e.g., elk fencing);

• New livestock watering facilities shall be designed to allow wildlife access and escape.

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing:

• As areas are mechanically treated or burned, or after large disturbances, timing of livestock grazing should be modified as needed, in order to move toward desired conditions and to accomplish the objectives for the treatment or disturbed area.

Noxious Weeds Desired Conditions for Invasive Species

• Invasive species (both plant and animal) are nonexistent or in low occurrence to avoid negative impacts to ecosystems.

Objectives for Invasive Species

• Annually, contain, control, or eradicate invasive species (e.g., musk thistle, Dalmatian toadflax) on 500 to 3,500 acres.

• Annually, control or eradicate invasive species (e.g., tamarisk, bullfrogs) on at least 2 stream miles.

Standards for Invasive Species:

• Projects and authorized activities shall be designed to reduce the potential for introduction of new species or spread of existing invasive or undesirable aquatic or terrestrial nonnative populations.

Guidelines for Invasive Species:

• Project areas should be monitored to ensure there is no introduction or spread of invasive species.

• Treatment of invasive species should be designed to effectively control or eliminate them target plant. Timely initial treatments with follow-up treatments may be required.

• As a preventative measure the forest continue to utilize vehicle wash stations for pre and post work equipment sanitation to prevent spread of noxious weeds, nonnative invasive plants, insects, and disease pathogens.

• As a preventative measure require the use of certified weed-free seed on rehab sites.

This involves prioritizing species and areas treatment, depending on risk, and identifying the most appropriate methods for control and/or eradication. Efforts are focused on roadways, areas with mechanical treatments or concentrated use (e.g., driveways, log landings, pile burn sites).


~ 249 ~


Range Alternative 1-No Action

Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct effect to the rangeland resources. Indirect effects would include trees encroaching into grasslands, dry and wet meadows, reducing the amount and variety of herbaceous vegetation resulting in the variety of understory vegetation to depart from the desired vegetation state.


Direct effects of the proposed action would primarily be associated with range improvements and permittees. There is a possibility that the range improvements could be damaged during treatment operations and that gates could be left open allowing livestock into a pasture of the allotment when they are not scheduled to be in those pastures. This would be mitigated by stipulating that all damaged range improvements be repaired and that gates remain closed during the grazing season. Temporary construction of electrical fencing by permittees in pastures grazed may also mitigate effects in treatment areas. There is also a temporary direct effect to the permittee on the construction, maintenance of electrical fencing to keep cattle out of treatment areas for recovery.

Indirect effects would be an increase in herbaceous vegetation production within all the treatments areas (% of treatment area in project area). Tree removal/cutting will restore and/or maintain approximately 15,700 acres of grasslands and meadows, 1,757 acres that is currently dominated by a mix of ponderosa pine, pinion pine and juniper species and 248 acres of riparian restoration. Areas opened up in within the heavily timbered areas along with the new temporary road construction could also help to better distribute livestock resulting in a more uniformed use of the forage resource and lower use levels on herbaceous component.

Cumulative Effects The effects of this project on the pasture rotations for each allotment would be minimal as there are other pastures that could be used and construction of temporary electrical fencing to avoid treatment areas if necessary. After the treatments have been completed, the cumulative effects from on-going grazing would be better livestock distribution patterns and lower use levels, by having more forage available.

Noxious Weeds Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1-No Action

Under the No Action alternative there would be no direct or indirect effects to noxious weeds.


Direct effects of the proposed action would be the potential to transport and spread noxious weed seeds on equipment being used to complete treatments within project areas. While noxious weeds can establish with or without disturbance, it is unlikely that this treatment will result in the spread of noxious weeds due to adhering to the Best Management Practices (BMPs).

Cumulative Effects The effects of this project on each allotment would be minimal by following best management practices, design features and mitigations for noxious and invasive weeds. After the completion of treatments, along with past weed treatments, the cumulative effects would be a continued reduction of populations of noxious and invasive plant species, and early treatment of new detected plant populations in and around the project area. Early detection of noxious and invasive weeds during future treatments covered under this project would be beneficial to the continued reductions of noxious and invasive weeds in the area.

Recreation

Existing Conditions Recreation Opportunity Spectrum

Recreation opportunities on the forests are identified and managed through the recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS). A recreation opportunity is defined as “the availability of a real choice for a user to participate in a preferred activity in a preferred setting, in order to realize desired experiences” (Forest Service, 1982). ROS is a method used to categorize, evaluate, and monitor settings and opportunities based on the natural, managerial, and social environments. Six ROS classes currently apply to NFS lands: primitive (P), semi-primitive nonmotorized (SPNM), semi-primitive motorized (SPM), roaded natural (RN), rural (R), and Urban (U) (Forest Service, 1982).

Table 46 - The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classification within the analysis area. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classifications

Symbol Classification Acres in project area R Rural 3,300 acres RN Roaded Natural 41,920 acres SPM Semi Primitive Motorized 16,669 acres SPNM Semi Primitive Non-motorized 4,161 acres


~ 251 ~

Management Areas

Management areas are areas that have similar management intent and a common management strategy. Four management areas have been identified and are listed in table below. See Proposed Action section for treatments proposed in management areas.

Table 47 - Management Areas and Acreage in the project area. Management Areas and Acreage Management Area: Acres Community-Forest Intermix 553 General Forest 64,142 High Use Developed Recreation Area 590 Natural Landscape 857

General Forest

The General Forest Management Area encompasses the majority of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. This area is capable of providing a variety of forest products—both commercial and noncommercial—that may contribute to local and regional communities. The management area contains undeveloped areas as well as developed facilities and open roads and trails. It also contains special areas including eligible and suitable wild and scenic rivers, national recreation trails, and scenic byways. The scenery in some parts of this area may reflect an intensively managed landscape where human influence is evident.

Community-Forest Intermix

The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area consists of National Forest System (NFS) lands that are within one-half mile of communities-at-risk. Due to the threat of fire moving into or from developed areas, more intensive treatments (including regular maintenance) may be needed to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and restore fire-adapted ecosystems. This management area may act as a zone in which fire suppression activities can be safely and effectively conducted. Likewise, it can act as a buffer to protect forest resources.

The Community-Forest Intermix Management Area makes up a portion of the wildland-urban interface (WUI). The WUIs were identified in community wildfire protection plans (CWPPs) and may be located in several management areas. A WUI includes areas around human development at imminent risk from wildfire.

High Use Developed Recreation Area

The High Use Developed Recreation Area Management Area includes places with relatively high levels of visitor use that are managed to provide a wide variety of opportunities to a broad

spectrum of visitors. High use developed recreation areas contain one or more facilities and may accommodate large numbers of people. They are associated with, and often provide, access to popular destinations, transportation corridors, scenic byways, scenic vistas, lakes, and streams. Interaction among visitors is high. The High Use Developed Recreation Area Management Area includes the following recreation areas: Rim Lakes, Fool Hollow, Woodland Lake Park, Big Lake, Greer Lakes, and Luna Lake.

Natural Landscape

These are generally undeveloped areas that are natural appearing and provide primitive and semiprimitive recreation opportunities. Management activities are allowed but are primarily focused on ecosystem restoration. This management area includes most of the inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. IRAs are managed to protect and conserve their roadless character. There are small portions of two Inventoried Roadless Areas located within the project area, totaling 326 acres.

Wilderness

The project boundary is approximately 445 ft. from the Escudilla Wilderness boundary at its closest proximity, which is just north of the FR275/FR577 intersection. Because if it’s proximity, the Escudilla Wilderness may experience direct and indirect effects from timber management and prescribed fire activities within the West Escudilla Project area.

Escudilla Wilderness, approximately 5,200 acres, was designated in 1984 (Public Law 98-406). This area encompasses the top and sides of Escudilla Mountain. It is home to several high elevation meadows which include some relatively rare plant associations. Notable landmarks in or just outside the wilderness include Profanity Ridge, Terry Flat, Toolbox Draw, and the Punchbowl. The Escudilla National Recreation Trail leads to the top of Escudilla Mountain.

Recommended Wilderness

The Escudilla Addition Recommended Wilderness is located immediately adjacent to the project area, and shares approximately 14 miles of it’s boundary with the West Escudilla project boundary. Because if it’s proximity, the Escudilla Addition Recommended Wilderness may experience direct and indirect effects from timber management and prescribed fire activities within the West Escudilla Project area.

Affected Environment Overall Recreation Opportunities

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs receive approximately 2 million visitors per year. A high proportion of these visitors spend at least one night on the forests. Approximately 70 % of the forests’


~ 253 ~

Arizona visitors are from the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. These visitors, including those that view wildlife, hunt, and fish, contribute significantly to the economic well-being of the surrounding areas. The forests’ contribution to the local economy from the recreation and wildlife areas is approximately 69 % of the local jobs and 68 % of the local labor income (Forest Service, 2009a).

Highway improvements provide easier access to the forests from Arizona’s major metropolitan areas, increasing the number of visitors and demand for recreation. The demographics of the recreating public are changing. An aging and urban population and increased ethnic diversity contribute to an increased demand for an array of recreation opportunities. Forest managers face major challenges in providing quality recreation opportunities, maintaining a safe transportation system, and providing for resource protection.

Desired Conditions for Overall Recreation Opportunities • The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs offer a spectrum of recreation settings and opportunities varying

from primitive to rural and dispersed to developed, with an emphasis on the natural appearing character of the forests.

• Recreation activities occur within the ability of the land to support them and with minimal user conflicts.

• Recreation enhances the quality of life for local residents (e.g., social interaction, physical activity, connection with nature), provides tourist destinations, and contributes monetarily to local economies.

• Recreation use does not negatively affect wildlife habitat and populations. Negative interactions between people and wildlife are minimized.

• Recreation use does not negatively affect the use and character of cultural resources.

• “Leave No Trace” principles are practiced.

Dispersed Recreation

Visitors to the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs participate in a variety of dispersed recreation activities. These activities range from motorized to nonmotorized and consumptive to non-consumptive. Some examples of dispersed recreation are hunting and fishing, camping, trail use, sightseeing, driving for pleasure, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, wildlife viewing, and picnicking.

Game management (hunting) unit 1 is located in the analysis area in the Springerville Ranger District and northern portion of the Alpine District. The Arizona Game and Fish Department manages for a number of game species within this unit, and big and small game hunting are among the most popular dispersed recreation activities that occur within the project area.

There are over 300 user-developed campsites that have been identified within the project area. Along with holiday weekends, big-game hunting seasons are among the most popular times for dispersed camping associated with hunting activities.

Desired Conditions for Dispersed Recreation

• Dispersed recreation opportunities (e.g., hunting, fishing, hiking, camping) are available and dispersed recreation sites (e.g., campsites, trailheads, vistas, parking areas) occur in a variety of ROS classes throughout the forests.

• Facilities for dispersed recreation activities are appropriate for the ROS class and scenic integrity objective of the location and are designed to the minimum necessary to protect natural and cultural resources.

• Wildlife viewing areas are dispersed throughout the forests and provide opportunities to view waterfowl, migratory birds, elk, and other species.

• Roads and trails provide a variety of opportunities to view natural landscapes and wildlife.

Developed Recreation

The following developed recreation sites are located with the project area:

Table 48 - Developed Recreation Sites Located Within the Project Area. Name Primary Uses/Available Facilities General Location

Luna Lake Recreation Area

Camping, group camping (concessioned with hosts, water system, vault toilets, firewood for sale), day use facilities (parking boat ramp, picnic facilities with shelters charcoal grills) Marina (under GRFS permit providing boat rentals, bait, snacks)

Adjacent to US HWY 180 Approximately 3 mile east of Alpine, AZ

Nelson Reservoir Recreation Area

Day use only facility with 2 separate facilities at either end of the lake (boat ramps, accessible trails and fishing platforms, picnic facilities, vault toilets, parking)

Adjacent to US HWY 191/180 approximately 10 miles south of Eagar, Arizona

Luna Lake Trailhead Facility includes parking area and information kiosk

Luna Lake Recreation Area approximately 1/8 mile east of Luna Lake Campground entrance

Desired Conditions for Developed Recreation Sites

• Developed recreation sites provide opportunities for people to camp, obtain information, and participate in day-use activities (e.g., picnic areas, fishing piers, scenic overlooks, wildlife viewing sites).

• Forest vegetation in developed sites is healthy (species, size, and age) and complements recreational activities, scenery, and human safety.


~ 255 ~

• Developed campgrounds are places where structures and human caused vegetation changes may be seen but they do not dominate the view or attract attention (low to moderate scenic integrity). Human activities in the areas visible from campgrounds (foreground to middle ground, 300 feet to 4 miles) should not attract attention or stand out, and the landscapes should appear natural (moderate to high scenic integrity)

• Developed campgrounds provide roaded natural or roaded modified recreation opportunities.

Motorized Recreation Opportunities

Access and opportunities to experience areas through motorized travel are key components of recreation, as well as a management emphasis for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs. The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs provide a serviceable and sustainable transportation system that meets the need for public access, land management, resource protection, and user safety.

Measures (e.g., education, signage, law enforcement, seasonal road closures) are used to discourage encroachment of motorized vehicles into nonmotorized areas and to protect wildlife, infrastructure, and other resources. Emphasis is placed on reducing user conflict and resource damage. Resource damage from vehicle use is rehabilitated as soon as possible.

Trail maintenance priorities are based on providing user safety, minimizing erosion, providing appropriate recreation opportunities, and accommodating administrative needs.

Desired Conditions for Motorized Opportunities

• A maintained road and motorized trail system is in place and provides for safety and access for the use (e.g., recreation, minerals, vegetation treatment, fire protection) of the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs.

• Users have opportunities for motorized access and travel on a system of designated NFS roads, NFS motorized trails, and motorized areas.

• The transportation system provides a variety of recreation opportunities including varying degrees of difficulty, from OHV trails to paved scenic byways, while limiting resource and/or user conflicts.

• NFS roads, motorized trails, and motorized areas are easily identified on the ground (e.g., well-marked).

• The road and trail system is accessible from local communities, State, county, and local public roads and trails.

• Loop trails exist for motorized trail users.

• Tread Lightly! ® Principles are commonly practiced.

• The location and design of roads and trails does not impede wildlife and fish movement.

Non-Motorized Recreation Opportunities

The following USFS trails and/or segments of the trails are located within the analysis area:

Table 49 - Non-motorized Forest System Trails within the Project Area.

Name User Type Level of Use Season of Use Length

(miles)

Luna Lake Long loop #2 Hiker, mtn. biker, equestrian moderate April -

November 7.2 mi.

Luna Lake Short Loop #2A

Hiker, mtn. biker, equestrian moderate April -

November 3 mi.

Total Trail Miles 10.2 mi. Desired Conditions for Nonmotorized Recreation Opportunities

• Nonmotorized opportunities are available in a variety of settings that provide differing levels of challenge and seclusion.

• Blocks of forest land accessible from populated areas are available for nonmotorized opportunities. These areas are free from the sights and sounds of motorized recreation.

• Opportunities for primitive recreation are available.

• Destination and loop trails exist for nonmotorized users.

Scenic Byways

Approximately 6 miles of the Coronado Trail National Scenic Byway pass through the project area. Scenic byways are considered special areas by the Forest Service.

In September 2005, the 120-mile Coronado Trail National Scenic Byway was designated by the Federal Highway Administration. This route has also been a national forest byway and Arizona State scenic byway since 1989. This byway traverses the Springerville, Alpine, and Clifton Ranger Districts.

Desired Conditions for Scenic Byways

• Viewsheds along scenic byways provide natural appearing landscapes and enhance recreation tourism that supports local communities.

• The intrinsic qualities identified for each scenic byway remain intact.

• Scenic byways exhibit natural appearing landscapes where human activities do not stand out in the foreground, up to one-half mile (high scenic integrity).

• Scenic byways provide roaded natural recreation opportunities.

Wilderness

The Escudilla Wilderness is located nearby, with the boundary approximately 445 feet at its closest point from, but not within, the project area. The Escudilla Wilderness Addition


~ 257 ~

Recommended Wilderness, located adjacent to the project analysis area, separates the wilderness from the project area. The U.S. Congress designated the 5,200 acre Escudilla Wilderness in 1984 (Public Law 98-406).

This area encompasses the top and sides of Escudilla Mountain. It is home to several high elevation meadows which include some relatively rare plant associations. Notable landmarks in or just outside the wilderness include Profanity Ridge, Terry Flat, Toolbox Draw, and the Punchbowl. The Escudilla National Recreation Trail leads to the top of Escudilla Mountain. Common recreational activities in Escudilla Wilderness include hiking, horse-back riding, and backpacking, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, and hunting.

Desired Conditions for Wilderness

• Ecological conditions are affected primarily by natural ecological processes, with the appearance of little or no human intervention.

• Fire functions as a natural ecological process.

• There is little evidence of human developments and little or no evidence of camping activity, unauthorized trails, trash, or other human impacts on the environment.

• Visitor use does not affect wilderness characteristics.

• Wilderness boundaries are posted and visible to visitors.

• There are unconfined opportunities for exploration, solitude, risk, and challenge. The nonmotorized trail system enhances the wilderness character. Where there is public demand, outfitters and guides provide services to visitors seeking a wilderness experience.

• Within Mount Baldy and Escudilla Wilderness areas, trails concentrate use and provide access to popular destinations. Encounters with other users may occur.

• Wilderness areas maintain natural landscapes where generally only ecological changes occur (very high scenic integrity) and provide primitive and/or semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities.

• Wilderness contributes to preserving natural behaviors and processes that sustain wildlife populations.


In 2009, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest System lands were evaluated to determine potential wilderness areas. Approximately 14 miles of the project boundary is shared with the 6,813-acre Escudilla Wilderness Addition eastern boundary.

Recommended Wilderness is a preliminary administrative recommendation that will receive further review, including the applicable NEPA analyses, and possible modification by the Chief of the Forest Service, Secretary of Agriculture, and President of the United States. Congress has reserved the authority to make final decisions on wilderness designation.

Desired Conditions for Recommended Wilderness

• Recommended wilderness areas display natural landscapes where generally only ecological changes occur (very high scenic integrity) and provide primitive or semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities.

• Recommended wilderness contributes to preserving natural behaviors and processes that sustain wildlife populations.

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRA)

There are small portions of two Inventoried Roadless Areas located within the project area, totaling 326 acres (see table 54 below). Inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) are a Forest Service administrative designation. IRAs are managed to protect and conserve their roadless character. Management direction for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) mandates retaining the roadless character of these areas.

There are nine roadless area characteristics identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR). Roadless area characteristics are resources or features that are often present in or characterize roadless areas:

High quality or undisturbed soil, water, and air;

Sources of public drinking water;

Diversity of plant and animal communities;

Habitat for threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, and sensitive species and for those species dependent on large, undisturbed areas of land;

Primitive, semi-primitive nonmotorized, and semi-primitive motorized classes of dispersed recreation;

Reference landscapes;

Natural appearing landscapes with high scenic quality;

Traditional cultural properties and sacred sites; and

Other locally identified unique characteristics.

The following inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) that were identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule are partially located within the project area.

Table 50 - Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) Within the Project Area. IRA Name: Acres within project: Mother Hubbard 248 acres Campbell Blue 78 acres Total IRA Acres in Project Area 326 acres


~ 259 ~

Scenic Resources

The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs contain some of the most scenic landscapes in the State of Arizona ranging from rugged canyons to rolling hills and grasslands to alpine forests. A favorite activity of forest visitors is viewing natural features and wildlife.

Table 51 - Scenery Management System (SMS) Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs) Located Within the Project Area.

Scenic Integrity objective Degree of Landscape Alteration Acres VH – Very High Unaltered 267 acres H - High Appears Unaltered 22760 acres M - Moderate Slightly Altered 43117 acres

The SIOs located within the project area are described below, ranging from allowing almost no change to the landscape to allowing many types of changes:

Very High (VH): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “is intact” with only minute, if any, deviations. The existing landscape character and sense of place is expressed at the highest possible level.

High (H): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears intact.” Deviations may be present, but they must repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so completely and at such scale that they are not evident

Moderate (M): Refers to landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being viewed.

In May and June of 2011, the Wallow Fire burned over 538,000 acres on the Apache NF and adjoining ownerships, and includes parts of the proposed West Escudilla project area. Many trees in the forested areas were killed; while others are likely to die. Flooding and increased erosion have occurred and will continue for several years. Aspen regeneration is expected across much of the burned area, which may result in more widespread fall color displays. The Wallow Fire does not change the proposed scenic integrity levels (and objectives) because they are tied to management areas and resource features.

Desired Conditions for Scenic Resources

• The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs appear predominantly natural, and human activities do not dominate the landscape.

• The natural and cultural features of the landscapes that provide a “sense of place” are intact.

• Landscapes possess vegetation patterns and compositions that are naturally variable in appearance and contribute to scenic values.

• Visitors have opportunities to experience important scenic elements including fall colors, rolling grasslands, picturesque vistas, and green riparian corridors.

• Lakes (reservoirs) and surrounding lands (¼ mile from the shore) provide landscapes which vary from slightly altered where human activities may be seen but do not attract attention (moderate scenic integrity) to natural appearing where human activities do not stand out (high scenic integrity).

• The scenic vistas associated with canyons and other landforms retain their scenic integrity.

Special Uses

Occupancy and use of NFS lands for public and private purposes, where the use is consistent with natural resource management goals, occur through the issuance of special use authorizations and easements. A wide range of uses may be permitted including, but not limited to, water storage and transmission, electric transmission and distribution lines, communications sites, alternative and renewable energy generating facilities, research permits, resorts, organization camps, outfitters and guides, recreational events, and large group gatherings.

There are a range of special uses within the project area, primarily consisting of road easements to private and public entities, minor utility corridors, and water developments associated with individual water rights. Recreation special uses primarily consist of Outfitter/Guide permits, non-commercial group use permits for events like Easter church services at Luna Lake, and recreation events such as fishing tournaments. Two graduated rate fee system (GRFS) special use permitted facilities, one a golfing fairway, the other a Marina at Luna Lake, are located within the project area.

Desired Conditions for Special Uses

• Energy developments and other special uses are not major features on the landscape and should not attract attention (moderate scenic integrity).

• Lands where special use activities have occurred show little evidence of impacts.

Lands

Many communities are completely surrounded by the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs and, therefore, the forests are limited in the ability to expand. Forest managers face many challenges associated with growing communities within and adjacent to the forests. Apache-Sitgreaves NFS lands provide less developed opportunities than residents and visitors find in urban settings, such as greenbelts and parks.

Desired Conditions for Lands

• The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs exist in a pattern that promotes efficient management which consists of large contiguous tracts of NFS lands.


~ 261 ~

• Residents and visitors are aware of Forest Service regulations and respect common property boundaries.

Environmental Consequences Recreation, Lands, and Special Uses-Alternative 1-No Action

Developed and Dispersed Recreation, Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities, Scenic Byways, Scenic Resources, Wilderness, Recommended Wilderness, Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs), Special Uses, and Lands

Existing recreation opportunities would continue to be available under Alternative 1. Forest visitation would also continue under this alternative. There would be no effect to the current Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications throughout the project area.

Under Alternative 1, Management of the Coronado Trail Scenic Byway would continue under current direction. Motorized vehicle use at current levels on Forest System roads and use of unauthorized routes would continue.

Alternative 1 scenery impacts will remain unchanged initially, but over time scenic resources may be negatively affected by views of unhealthy overstocked forest, including increased mortality in vegetation.

There would be no change in the authorization or administration of the Lands, and Special Uses Programs under this alternative, or impacts to special uses permittees. There would be no change in the segments of Inventoried Roadless Area located within the project boundary under this alternative.

However, over time fuels would accumulate in the project area and subject the existing recreation facilities, trails, private land, and special uses installations to a higher probability of damage due to severe wildland fires. These fires reduce or essentially eliminate the quality of recreational settings and experiences that are desirable in the project area. Loss of recreation facilities and infrastructure would result in closed or limited facilities, displacement of forest visitors and loss of revenue to local business owners.


Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) Classifications

Under Alternative 2, there would be some minor, and site specific, short-term effects to areas within the project under the Roaded Natural (RN), Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM), and Semi-Primitive Non-motorized (SPNM) Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) classifications. Effects to the Rural (R) ROS classification would also occur, but would be even less in magnitude, and would also be site-specific and short-term in nature. Of the ROS classifications

within the project, the most pronounced short term effects would be on the SPNM ROS, with the presence of equipment associated with ground-based timber management activities and prescribed fire.

Although negative effects under this alternative are site-specific, short-term, and temporary in nature, the forest restoration activities will have a much longer term, overall positive effect on all of the ROS classifications by reducing the risk of large scale, high intensity wildfires throughout the project area. This greatly increases the likelihood that the settings required for each ROS classification will be preserved within their respective areas.

Developed and Dispersed Recreation

Effects to designated developed and dispersed recreation opportunities under Alternative 2 are similar. Recreation users may be temporarily displaced by mechanical treatments and prescribed fire operations. Dispersed camping areas may also be intermittently closed during restoration treatment operations. Recreation opportunities would be available but may be impacted by logging traffic associated with ground-based timber management activities.

Motorized and Non-motorized Recreation Opportunities

Under Alternative 2, dust from logging traffic could cause reduced visibility along forest roads during the months of little to no precipitation, having an effect to motorized recreation opportunities on these routes. Motorized and non-motorized trails would benefit from the removal of hazard trees that could impede the trail and/or cause a hazard to trail user. Temporary displacement of trail users would occur during restoration activities.

This alternative prescribes removal and rehabilitation of unauthorized routes for resource protection purposes and could impact users who use these unauthorized routes. Obliteration and rehabilitation of these unauthorized routes would decrease erosion and sedimentation which are currently affecting sensitive resources such as streams, meadows, and cultural resources.

Long term positive effects to both motorized and non-motorized recreation opportunities are the decreased likelihood of large-scale catastrophic wildfires having a negative effect on the condition and availability of non-motorized trails and motorized recreation opportunities throughout the project area.

Scenic Byways

Alternative 2 is not likely to have direct effects to the Coronado Trail Scenic Byway. However, there may be temporary indirect effects to travelers of the scenic byway in the form of reduced visibility due to smoke, noise, and visuals from prescribed fire and timber management activities. There may also be increased logging traffic along the byway as an indirect result of timber


~ 263 ~

management activities that may temporarily have an effect on visitors travelling along the byway.

As with many other program and resource areas, this alternative has a positive long-term effect to the Scenic Byway by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire that would damage the scenic values and visitor experiences.

Scenic Resources

Under this alternative, improvement to the viewshed would occur in much of the project area to achieve much of the natural scenic potential that existed historically. With implementation of the proposed actions it is anticipated there would be an overall beneficial effect by enhancing the visual quality within the project area.

The reduced risk of the occurrence of catastrophic wildfires, which has a high likelihood to have a lasting and detrimental effect to scenic resources within the project area, is a long-term positive effect to scenic resources within the project area under this alternative.

Wilderness

Under this alternative, there would be no direct effect on wilderness values, as the Escudilla Wilderness is not immediately adjacent to the project area but with the boundary approximately 445 feet at its closest point from, but not within, the project area. There could be indirect effects to wilderness values and wilderness visitor experiences, as the sights and sound of ground-based timber management activities may be evident from some parts of the wilderness. Smoke and noise from prescribed fire activities could also have an indirect effect on visitors and wilderness values.

The reduced likelihood of the spread of unnatural, human-caused wildfires from the project area into the wilderness, with its associated fire management activities, is a positive effect to wilderness values. Although it is beneficial to wilderness values to restore the role of naturally occurring wildfire to wilderness ecosystems, human-caused wildfires are not natural, and fire management activities may include ordinarily prohibited actions under the Wilderness Act, that are detrimental to wilderness characteristics. Activities under this alternative may also increase the future ability of the forest to allow the natural role of fire to return to the Escudilla Wilderness.


The Escudilla Addition Recommended Wilderness also lies outside of the project area, but is located immediately adjacent to the project boundary. There would be no direct effects to the recommended wilderness, however indirect effects would be similar to those for the Escudilla Wilderness. However, because the recommended wilderness is directly adjacent to the project

boundary, these secondary effects are both more likely and are more likely to be of a higher level of intensity than those experienced by the wilderness.

Positive effects under this alternative are similar in nature to those under congressionally designated wilderness areas. Activities under this alternative may also increase the future ability of the forest to allow the natural role of fire to return to the Escudilla Addition Recommended Wilderness.

Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs)

Prescribed fire activities would occur in both Mother Hubbard and Campbell Blue IRAs under alternative 2. This would not have any effect on either area’s administrative status or suitability as an IRA, and prescribed fire would not require road building or other actions prohibited under the Inventoried Roadless Rule. However, recreationists may be temporarily displaced by prescribed fire activities, or be otherwise impacted by noise and smoke.

Prescribed fire will have a beneficial effect to the areas by reducing the probability of catastrophic wildfire, and will contribute to returning the natural role of fire to the areas.

No ground-based timber management activities will occur within the Campbell Blue Inventoried Roadless Area, and so there would be no direct effects to the other roadless characteristics such as dispersed recreation opportunists or the area’s identified unique characteristics.

Under Alternative 2 there will be some thinning treatment along the FS Road 8442 that borders the Mother Hubbard IRA. The Mother Hubbard IRA’s is within the Natural Landscape Management Area, which provides the following management direction:

Limited cross-country motorized vehicle use may be authorized for administrative purposes.

Temporary road construction and motorized equipment may be used in order to achieve ecological desired conditions.

NFS roads should be maintained to the minimum standard to meet the objective maintenance level.

The prescribed mechanical thinning activities will only occur within the area directly adjacent FSR 8442 and no new roads or temp roads will be created. This type of thinning activity for purposes of forest restoration is permitted under the language of the Roadless Rule 36 CFR 294.13:

Section 294.13 -Prohibition on timber cutting, sale, or removal in inventoried roadless areas.

(a) Timber may not be cut, sold, or removed in inventoried roadless areas of the National Forest System, except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section.


~ 265 ~

(b) Notwithstanding the prohibition in paragraph (a) of this section, timber may be cut, sold, or removed in inventoried roadless areas if the Responsible Official determines that one of the following circumstances exists. The cutting, sale, or removal of timber in these areas is expected to be infrequent.

(1) The cutting, sale, or removal of generally small diameter timber is needed for one of the following purposes and will maintain or improve one or more of the roadless area characteristics as defined in Sec. 294.11.

(i) To improve threatened, endangered, proposed, or sensitive species habitat; or

(ii) To maintain or restore the characteristics of ecosystem composition and structure, such as to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire effects, within the range of variability that would be expected to occur under natural disturbance regimes of the current climatic period;

There may also be indirect effects to the Inventoried Roadless Areas as a result of alternatives 2. Timber harvest activities or prescribed fire activity may generate smoke, dust and noise that are usually associated with ground-based logging systems or fire management operations. This effect would be limited to the duration of the activities. Those recreating in an Inventoried Roadless Area would potentially hear noise associated with heavy equipment. Dust or smoke would also be seen by recreationists in an Inventoried Roadless Area as a result of a timber sale or prescribed fire.

As with many other program and resource areas, this alternative has a positive long-term effect to the IRAs by reducing the risk of catastrophic wildfire that could damage the roadless qualities and unique characteristics of the areas. Activities under this alternative may also increase the future ability of the forest to allow the natural role of fire to return to these areas.

Lands and Special Uses

This alternative is not likely to have any direct effects to the Lands and Special Uses program management within the project area. Secondary effects may consist of temporary displacement of access for special uses permittees due to short-term timber management or prescribed fire activities.

The lands and special uses programs would see the beneficial effects of the reduction of the probability of catastrophic wildfire that may cover large areas of the forest. Such catastrophic fires could cause both temporary and long term negative effects to infrastructure, resources, and visitor experiences, and the reduced likelihood of their occurrence is a positive effect across all resource areas.

Cumulative Effects Alternative 1: No Action

Activities that created the current recreation conditions include improvements and maintenance to the recreation facilities to meet the needs of the forest visitor and provide for public health and safety, resource protection, and the maintenance of lands special uses.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include implication by the forest of the travel management in conformance with the Travel Management Rule, including prohibiting motor vehicle use off the designated National Forest Road System.

On November 2, 2005, the Forest Service announced final travel management regulations governing OHVs and other motor vehicle use on national forests and grasslands. Under the new rules, forests that do not restrict OHV travel to "designated roads-and-trails" must do so. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests has not yet signed a Record of Decision on the Travel Management Rule.

The Escudilla Addition Recommended Wilderness, immediately adjacent to the project area has been recommended to Congress for consideration as a federally designated wilderness. Wilderness designation by congress will mean law, policy, and regulations applicable to all wilderness will become applicable to this area as well.

Under the no action alternative, potential prescribed fire and/or mechanical thinning treatments may take place near the project area as part of the Black River project. These actions could result in temporary exclusion and displacement of recreation for the duration of treatment.

Under the no action alternative, the risk of catastrophic, stand-replacing wildfire is significantly higher than under the proposed action. Such an event would result in displacement of recreation for so long as an unsafe condition persists. Further, a catastrophic fire could alter the recreational landscape within the project area for several years as wildlife, plant life, and visual resources recover. Nevertheless, access and recreational opportunity impacts would be temporary and less than significant.


Activities that created the current recreation conditions include improvements and maintenance to the recreation facilities to meet the needs of the forest visitor and provide for public health and safety, resource protection, and the maintenance of lands special uses.

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include implication by the forest of the travel management in conformance with the Travel Management Rule, including prohibiting motor vehicle use off the designated National Forest Road System.


~ 267 ~

On November 2, 2005, the Forest Service announced final travel management regulations governing OHVs and other motor vehicle use on national forests and grasslands. Under the new rules, forests that do not restrict OHV travel to "designated roads-and-trails" must do so. The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests has not yet signed a Record of Decision on the Travel Management Rule.

The Escudilla Addition Recommended Wilderness, immediately adjacent to the project area has been recommended to Congress for consideration as a federally designated wilderness. Wilderness designation by Congress will mean law, policy, and regulations applicable to all wilderness will become applicable to this area as well.

The proposed action would not cumulatively contribute to permanent reductions in recreational opportunity within the project area, as the impacts are temporary.

In addition to the effects from the proposed action, all of the past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects would have the potential to impact recreation resources in the project area. Recreation within the project area may be periodically limited by restoration actions of the Black River project. Prescribed fire generates smoke which could impact recreation throughout the project area. Cumulative impacts would be temporary and less than significant.

This alternative would not have negative, long-term cumulative effects to Wilderness or Recommended Wilderness located outside the project area boundary, but located adjacent and nearby the project area. No Wilderness or Recommended Wilderness lie within the project boundary. A positive cumulative effect would be the increased likelihood that restoration activities adjacent and nearby may contribute to the future ability to allow the return of the natural role of fire to these areas, while preventing the risk of uncharacteristic high intensity wildfire.

Cumulative effects to scenic values would be minor as management actions would be site specific and would not further contribute to improved or degraded visual character across the landscape.

Inventoried Roadless areas are administratively designated, and all activates occurring under Alternative 2 are permitted under the Inventoried Roadless Rule. Therefore, this alternative would not have any cumulative effect on Inventoried Roadless Areas designations within and outside the project area.

This alternatives would not have any cumulative effects to administration of the forest lands, and special uses, programs.

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment and Existing Conditions Cultural resources are comprised of the material remnants of human occupation and behavior, cultural landscapes, and local botany (ethnobotany) as well as more abstract aspects of cultural heritage. The cultural resources on the ASNFs provide a tangible, interactive link to the intangible Native American and Euro-American pasts on the landscape. The protection of cultural resources ensures that peoples who visit the ASNFs now and in the future will be able to experience or interact with a range of archaeological heritage. Cultural resources on the ASNFs are comprised historic properties, archaeological sites, heritage sites, sacred sites, Traditional Cultural Properties, traditional use areas, etc.

Generally, cultural resources are considered non-renewable. Those aspects of cultural resources that have been or could be affected by project activities define the affected environment. An analysis of the affected environment requires understanding existing conditions through literature, background research, and reviewing surveys and sites to determine potential effects. A review of ASNFs’ heritage files and records (both digital and paper), literature regarding settlement patterns for both pre- and post-contact populations, geodatabases, tribal consultation, and historical land ownership records all informed this section. Understanding site density and patterns provides a better understanding of how past actions and reasonably foreseeable actions have or could affect archaeological, historical, TCPs, and American Indian sacred sites, and traditional use areas and plants.

Existing Conditions The existing conditions of cultural resources in the West Escudilla Restoration Project area are defined by existing literature on temporal climatic changes and regional cultures, previously conducted surveys, and known cultural resource sites and traditional use areas. Our current understanding of the existing conditions of cultural resources is imperative to achieving the desired conditions set forth by the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) Heritage Program and ASNFS Land Management Plan (LMP). An account of the number and types of previously recorded archaeological sites, and site eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places, and the last 25 years of cultural resources clearance acreage in the West Escudilla Restoration Project are found in Appendices C and D of the Cultural Resources Specialist Report in the Project Record.

The elevation, ecozone, and ecotone changes that occur across the project area support a wide array of temporal-spatial human activities. The cultural resources on the land under the stewardship of the ASNFs are indicative of human presence on the landscape from Paleoindian (9500 B.C. – 6500 B.C.), Archaic (6500 - 400 B.C.), several phases of Mogollon culture (400 B.C. - A.D. 800), Proto-historic (A.D. 1300-1540), Historic (A.D. 1540 - 1966), and contemporary times. Though population density fluctuated through time, often with changes in


~ 269 ~

climatic condition, people continued to use the West Escudilla Restoration Project area landscape for a variety of activities.

Affected Environment To determine the range of existing conditions, the latest ASNFs’ Heritage geodatabases and Heritage event and site records were consulted. Fifty-six cultural resource inventories were conducted in the West Escudilla Restoration Project area over the last 25 years. Of the 56 surveys, 32 surveys for a total of 24,779 acres are valid under current survey standards (see Appendix A). Current standards are defined by the Alternative Identification Methods for Undertakings. The 24 surveys conducted prior to current standards accounted for 19,754 acres of survey in the project area (see Appendix A for a full list). Much of these survey acres overlap since surveys prior to 2000 were reviewed and considered incompatible with current inventory standards.

A total of 151 cultural resource sites lie inside the West Escudilla Restoration Project boundary. Sixty-six sites are on the Alpine Ranger District and 85 sites are on the Springerville Ranger District. Sites in the project area that are unevaluated for the National Register of Historic Places shall be considered eligible for the purposes of this report. The 2014 survey of 6,413 acres as part of Phase 1, or the Little Phase, inventory for the West Escudilla Restoration Project provided a baseline for projected site density. While block surveys were performed in 2014, an existing 1,726 acres of the 6,413 acres of the Little Phase of West Escudilla Restoration Project were surveyed in the last 25 years. Much of the surveys completed were samples of the area. Only one previously recorded site lies inside the Little Phase survey area: the Stone Creek Road (FR 275) which was constructed by the CCC. The Little Phase inventory resulted in 30 new sites recorded and 301 Isolated Occurrences. When comparing the sample surveys to the 100% survey strategy of the Little Phase inventory, it is clear that much of the previous survey, especially sampling surveys, leave gaps in our knowledge about the cultural resources landscape. Inadequate previous survey coverage and unknown or missing site information pose the greatest challenge to understanding the existing conditions of cultural resources in the West Escudilla Restoration Project area.

Desired Conditions Forest Plan Desired Conditions Related to Cultural Resources (USDA, 2015)

• Significant cultural resources (i.e., archaeological, historical, traditional cultural properties (TCPs), and known American Indian sacred sites) are preserved and protected for their cultural importance and are free from adverse impacts.

• Eligible and historically-significant* cultural properties are listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).

*Significance as defined by the National Historic Preservation Act and 36 CFR §60

• Traditionally used resources are not depleted and are available for future generations.

• Sacred sites and significant TCPs are accessible and free of adverse impacts allowing for culturally affiliated tribes to gather traditional forest products and conduct ceremonies.

Forest Plan Standards related to Cultural Resources

• Human remains shall not intentionally be excavated for educational purposes (e.g. research, field schools).

• Contracts, permits, or leases that have the potential to affect cultural resources shall include appropriate clauses specifying site protection responsibilities and liabilities for damage.

Forest Plan Guidelines related to Cultural Resources

• Dispersed campsites should not be located on or adjacent to archaeological sites or sensitive wildlife areas.

• New roads, motorized trails, or designated motorized areas should be located to avoid meadows, wetlands, seeps, springs, riparian areas, stream bottoms, sacred sites, and areas with high concentrations of significant archaeological sites. The number of stream crossings should be minimized or mitigated to reduce impacts to aquatic species.

• As projects occur, roads or motorized trails that contribute to negative impacts on cultural resources should be closed or relocated.

• Activities that have the potential to adversely affect cultural resources should be discouraged in areas with a high concentration of significant archaeological sites or in areas of cultural or religious significance** to American Indians.

**Sacred sites as defined in E.O. 13007, traditional cultural properties as defined in the National Register Bulletin 38, traditional cultural purposes as defined in the 2008 Farm Bill Section 8102, Subtitle B.

• Avoidance or protection measures should be the preferred method to prevent or minimize adverse effects to cultural resources listed in, nominated to, eligible for, or unevaluated for the NRHP.

• Historic facilities that are eligible for the NRHP should be managed to retain their integrity.

• Significant TCPs and sacred sites, that are known to be utilized by tribes for traditional use and religious ceremonies, should be managed to preserve the character and use of the site.

• Activities and uses should be administered in a manner that is sensitive to traditional American Indian beliefs and cultural practices.

West Escudilla Restoration Project Specific Desired Conditions

Consistency with the Forest Plan depends on the project specific desired conditions outlined for the West Escudilla Restoration Project listed above. The project specific desired conditions for cultural resources may overlap with the Forest Desired Conditions.


~ 271 ~

• Cultural resource sites considered unevaluated, eligible for, or listed on the NRHP inside the project shall be left in the same or better condition than before project implementation. Manual vegetation treatments and the reduction of hazardous fuels inside site boundaries allow continued protection and preservation of sites for future enjoyment and research.

• Phased cultural resources inventories of the project area in accordance with Section 106 of NHPA and Appendix J (Large-Scale Fuels Reduction, Vegetation Treatment, and Habitat Improvement Projects) of the Region 3 First Amended Programmatic Agreement.

• Ongoing consultation with traditionally associated American Indian groups and the State Historic Preservation Office.

• When inadequate or missing site information exists, the sites in the project area shall be relocated and fully documented to determine National Register eligibility and appropriate protection measures.

• Cultural resource sites in or near roads, landings, or skid areas shall not be disturbed and new roads, landings, or skid areas shall not be placed in or near cultural resources. If a road, landing, or skid area cannot be relocated, appropriate mitigation measures (for example, plating the site with geotextile and culturally sterile fill) shall be implemented and consultation shall be performed with traditionally associated American Indian groups and the State Historic Preservation Office.

• Dispersed campsites and trails in or near cultural resource sites will be evaluated for relocation, closure, or obliteration.

Environmental Consequences The consequences of the proposed action alternatives on cultural resources can vary widely. Understanding the pros and cons to each action allows the specialist to determine which proposed action will provide the greatest overall benefits or adverse effects to cultural resources. The potential effects of each of the proposed alternative actions are outlined in this section.

Direct and Indirect Affects

Direct affects from activities associated with the forest restoration treatments proposed in the West Escudilla project area are the result of modern human use of the landscape and therefore do not occur as a result of natural processes. Mechanical thinning activities such as mechanized tree harvest, temporary road building and later obliteration, skidding trails and landings for log processing; prescribed fire by means of pile burning or broadcast burning; and the decommissioning and obliteration of Forest Service system roads or unauthorized roads are a few treatments of particular concern to cultural resource specialists. Such activities are the result of undertakings and are therefore subject to Section 106 of NHPA. Adverse effects from treatments can easily be avoided through consultation and phased inventories prior to implementation. Once sites are identified and documented, using the appropriate best management practices (BMPs) and resource protection measures in this report and in Appendix J of the Region 3 PA will ensure no adverse effects.


No treatments would be implemented under this alternative measure. There would be, therefore, no direct effects to cultural resources. No project design features or mitigation measures would be necessary to protect heritage resources. However, taking no action to reduce hazard fuel buildup in sites would put cultural resources sensitive to wildfire impacts at risk.

While no activities with the potential to affect heritage resources will take place, the potential for dense vegetation and fuel build-up may adversely affect cultural resources. Dense stands of vegetation and timber may lead to uncharacteristically hot fires burning in or adjacent to sites. Fire spalling may affect rock art panels, lithic and ceramic artifacts, and masonry features. In addition, historic sites of a fire sensitive nature, such as cabins and other wood features, risk obliteration by fire if vegetation and timber are not thinned. Thinning would allow for adequate access and increased fire protection in the event of a wildfire. Post-fire erosion would cause additional irreparable damage to sites, particularly those with high levels of subsurface integrity. The high number of both system roads and unauthorized routes in the forest also threaten the integrity of sites. Access to sites is increased by the high number of roads. Data indicate that sites within 100 meters of a road have a higher likelihood of being affected by looting and vandalism or of having an overall “poor” site condition rating (Hedquist, Ellison, and Laurenzi 2014).


Given all site identification, documentation, and protection, and consultation measures are followed, the proposed action for the West Escudilla Restoration Project will result in no adverse effects to cultural resources. The proposed treatments employed in conjunction with appropriate resource protection measures will likely benefit sites. In particular, hand thinning inside sites and closing roads that disturb or are within 100 m of sites will reduce the cumulative effects of fuel buildup, engineering, and looting/vandalism disturbances.

Cumulative Effects To determine cumulative effects of undertakings on archaeological heritage in the project area, a review of both alternatives presented in this section is necessary. Direct and indirect effects on cultural resources must be analyzed to determine which alternative would result in no effect or beneficial effect on cultural resources.


Projects completed in the past 25 years, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects inform our understanding of cumulative effects. The past twenty-five years’ worth of ground disturbing activities on the West Escudilla Restoration Project landscape were mostly guided by mark and avoid mitigation. However, many past activities were carried out with a sample percentage of cultural resource inventory and not 100% survey coverage. An untold number of sites were


~ 273 ~

potentially affected by past project activities in project areas where only sample surveys were performed.

Additionally, a potentially extreme level of hazard fuel buildup on cultural resource sites may exist if mark and avoid mitigation measures were employed without complementary hand-thinning of cultural resources. A buildup of hazard fuels can be detrimental to a site in the event of a wildland fire or even prescribed burn. No action would also result in the continued buildup of hazard fuels in and around cultural resources. Fire often stimulates the growth of edible forest products. Humans throughout time have collected such forest products for consumption. Continuing suppression or delaying reintroduction of fire to the landscape can result in the decreased availability of edible and medicinal forest products that visitors or traditionally associated Native American groups can gather.

The majority of the geological, biological, and meteorological disturbances that effect sites are generally of little archaeological concern since they occur very slowly through time. Sheetwash, Aeolian deposition and erosion, colluviation, gullying (especially post-Wallow Fire), cryoturbation, bioturbation, dry rot, wet rot, and pre-suppression-strategy fire ecology are examples of ongoing natural disturbances that effect sites in the project area. Benign neglect is an archaeological approach which allows such natural processes and degradation to occur without immediate mitigation. The majority of these natural or biological disturbances are approached under benign neglect methodology, however, mitigation is required in cases when neglect is no longer benign.


One hundred projects with related cultural resources events have occurred in the bounds of the West Escudilla project over the course of the last 25 years. The previous 25 years’ worth of heritage surveys in the West Escudilla project boundary encompassed 46,498 acres of often over-lapping inventory. The list of heritage clearance reports does not necessarily correspond with the individual past and present Timber and Silviculture program projects. Non-ground disturbing silviculture surveys, prescribed burns, forest seedling plantations, and mechanical thinning comprise the majority of activities in the last 25 years as produced by a search of the FS FACTS database (see Table 24). The past Timber and Silviculture activities resulted in 253,813 acres of project work completed in the last 25 years inside the West Escudilla boundary. Suffice to say many of the activities had overlapping boundaries since the West Escudilla project boundary generally encompasses only 68,000 acres. This contrasts starkly with the number of acres surveyed in the last 25 years inside the project boundary. Many of the prior years’ project areas were sample surveyed and not surveyed to 100%. Cultural resources were only identified and documented for avoidance in the extent of the survey transects. Thus, cultural resources that were not in the sample survey transects were likely effected by past project activities. The extent of such cumulative effects cannot be quantified for sites that were outside the extent of the

survey transects performed in the past 25 years. For those cultural resources that are in the project area, with the implementation of design features/mitigations such as mark and avoid, it is expected to minimize cumulative effects to known cultural resource sites, and those discovered prior to implementation during phased cultural resource clearance consultations.

While the West Escudilla Restoration Project and the various treatments that will take place do pose threats to cultural resources, following appropriate laws, policies, the R3 PA, the Forest Land Management Plan, and cultural resource protection and special treatment measures allows the ASNFs to carry out treatments in the project area with no adverse effect to cultural resources. In some cases, the effects will beneficial.


~ 275 ~

Other Requirements Considered under NEPA

Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice NFS lands contribute to community economic and social sustainability by providing multiple-use goods and services. It is recognized that many goods and services are provided by forests, such as timber and recreational visits, which provide an important contribution to the economic vitality of rural communities. Tourists and seasonal residents are major contributors to the small communities of Alpine, Nutrioso, and Springerville-Eagar in Apache County, AZ, and Blue, Greenlee County, AZ.

Population and Demographics Descriptions of the population of these small communities surrounding the project area are challenged by the dual nature of the resident population. During the summer tourist season resident populations swell in the area from tourists and seasonal residents. Population numbers in Apache County were estimated to be 71,474 in 2015 based on the US Census Bureau report of 2010 (U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 2010a). In the Springerville-Eagar communities population was estimated to be 6,910. Alpine and Nutrioso permanent resident population numbers are incorporated into the Census Designated Place Eagar-Springerville Division of Apache County.

The following demographic discussion focuses on the permanent, year-round residents-utilizing Apache County statistics. The population is predominantly families and retirees. Individuals over the age of 65 represented approximately 14% of the population in 2015; those aged 18 to 65 represented 57% of the population (USCB 2010a).

Civilian labor force employment in Apache County by the end of 2016 was 18,217. The unemployment rate for Apache County in December of 2016 was 10.4% compared to the state of Arizona unemployment rate for the same date at 4.8% (USBLS 2016).

The top employment category in the county was management, professional and related occupations accounting for 33.2% of employment. The second-highest employment category was sales and office occupations accounting for 21.7% of employment. The third-highest employment category was service occupations accounting for 17.9% of employment. The fourth-highest employment industry was construction, extraction, and maintenance accounting for 16.3% of employment (USCB 2010a).

Principal Economic Activities

For many years, agriculture and trading were the focus of the area. While ranching is still important, the construction of two power plants, sawmills and other timber-related industries, and the growing tourism/recreation trade have broadened the economic base. Eagar is in the center of the White Mountain Recreation Area. Tourist activity brings approximately 100,000

people to the national forest, making the trade and services sector vital to the economy. A variety of industries shape Springerville’s economy. Tourism, agriculture, construction, forestry and retail sales have helped Springerville grow. Service to the tourist trade and local community is the major contributor to the employment structure, followed by retail trade. Springerville Generating Station, operated by Tucson Electric Power, employs 200 people.

Environmental Justice In 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order (EO) 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority and Low-Income Populations (Environmental Justice), to focus the attention of federal agencies on human health and environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities. EO 12898 aims to ensure that federal agencies identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on these communities. This environmental justice analysis focuses on the distribution of race and poverty status in areas potentially affected by implementation of the proposed action.

This analysis defines minority populations and low-income populations as:

• Minority Populations: All categories of non-white population groups as defined in the U.S. Census, including African American, Hispanic, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian or Pacific Islander, and other groups.

• Low-Income Populations: Persons living below the poverty level, as defined by the 2000 Census.

Because children may suffer disproportionately from environmental health risks and safety risks, President Clinton issued EO 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks (1997), to prioritize the identification and assessment of environmental health and safety risks that may affect children, and to ensure that federal agency policies, programs, activities, and standards address environmental and safety risks to children. This section identifies the distribution of children and locations where the number of children in the affected area may be disproportionately high (e.g., schools, childcare centers).

Native American (73.5%) and White (20%) races accounted for the highest percentage of racial composition in the county; Hispanic or Latino comprise 6.5% of the county population. The corresponding percentages of White, Hispanic/Latino, and Native American at the state level, are 58.5%, 29.8%, and 4.1%, respectively (USCB 2010b, c, d).

The median household income in Apache County was $31,757. Comparatively, the statewide average for Arizona was $50,296 for the same time span. Per capita personal income from 2005 to 2009 in the county was $13,011. The county had 38% of its population living below the poverty line from 2005-2009, significantly higher than the 14.7% population living below the poverty line in Arizona (USCB 2010b, c, d).


~ 277 ~

Potential Impacts Associated with the Proposed Action The implementation of the proposed action would result in an economic benefit to local industries contracted to execute the timber harvests and fuels treatments, as well as any other action elements, which the USFS may choose to contract. However, the proposed action does not manage for or include actions tied to socioeconomics and there are no major effects to project area socioeconomics.

Values for landownership by race, ethnicity, or age are not available specifically for the project area; however, there is no information that would suggest any higher proportion of minority populations. Children have the potential to be more sensitive to smoke impacts associated with prescribed burning. Days when prescribed burning is planned would be publicly announced in advance of activities and burning would be limited by ADEQ standards and CAA threshold requirements. Thus, implementation of the proposed action would not be expected to have any disproportionate negative impacts to low income, minority, or child populations.

Climate Change The Revised Draft Guidance on the Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and the Effects of Climate Change in NEPA Reviews issued by the CEQ on December 18, 2014 recommends incorporating impacts associated with climate change as part of the standard cumulative impact analysis of all NEPA documents. The draft guidance encourages agencies to determine which climate change impacts warrant consideration in their analyses based on both the proposed action’s potential impact to climate changes and the potential impact a changing climate may have on implementation of the proposed action.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) developed a “State of Knowledge” website following the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report. The USEPA affirms that while the contribution is uncertain, human activities are substantially increasing greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, which, in turn, are contributing to a global warming trend (USEPA 2014d). The U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) is a working group coordinating the efforts of 13 different federal agencies, including the USDA, the Department of the Interior, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Energy. The USGCRP releases regular reports presenting the most current scientific consensus of predicted changes associated with global climate change. The 2014 National Climate Assessment report is the most recent complete report. This report summarizes the science of climate change and the impacts of climate change on the United States, now and in the future, and is recommended by the CEQ 2014 draft guidance as the primary source for framing climate change discussions.

Predicted Future Conditions Currently, there appears to be broad agreement among climate modelers that the Southwest United States is experiencing a drying trend that would continue well into the latter part of the 21st century (IPCC, 2007; Seager et al., 2007). While the ensemble scenario used by Seager et al.

(2007) included two models with predictions of increased precipitation, the researchers concluded that the overall balance between precipitation and evaporation would still likely result in an overall decrease in available moisture. The current drought conditions may very well become the new climatology of the American Southwest, including the ASNFs, within a timeframe of years to decades.

According to recent multi-model ensemble scenarios, the slight warming trend observed in the last 100 years may continue, with the greatest warming to occur during winter. These climate models depict temperatures rising approximately 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) by the end of the century (IPCC, 2007). This trend would increase pressures on the region’s already limited water supplies, as well as increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and ecosystems, create risks for human health, and affect agriculture (Sprigg, 2000).

The number of extremely hot days is also projected to rise during the 21st century. By the end of the century, parts of the Southwest, including the ASNFs, are projected to face summer heat waves lasting 2 weeks longer than have been occurring in recent decades. Some climate model interpretations also suggest a fivefold increase in unusually hot days by the end of the century, compared to annual hot days observed in the period from 1961 to 1985. In effect, the high temperatures that formerly occurred on only the hottest 5% of days could become the norm for a quarter of the year—100 days or more—in much of the Southwest (IPCC, 2007).

Since 1976, the average annual temperature increased by 2.5°F in Arizona and 1.8°F in New Mexico. The recent temperature increase is unusual, even in the context of records compiled from tree rings and other natural temperature archives dating back more than 1,200 years for the northern hemisphere (Trouet et al., 2009; Hughes and Diaz 2008; Herweijer et al., 2007; Meko et al., 2007).

Warmer winter temperatures in the Southwest have serious implications for snow cover, an important natural reservoir of water in the West. In a study conducted on two watersheds in central Arizona (one watershed partially located on the ASNFs), Svoma (2009) found that between water years 1934 and 2007, average snowpack elevation levels have increased with a decrease in snow amounts. In his study, he directly correlated this with increasing temperatures. Shorter winters and less snowpack also affect the timing of natural cycles such as plant dormancy and blooming and peak river flows. Throughout the West, the number of days in the frost-free season, which varies by location, has been increasing more rapidly than in the East (Lenart, 2007). Summer temperatures have also climbed, especially since the mid-1970s. Maximum temperatures regularly reach above 100°F daily for weeks on end in many southwestern cities (Lenart, 2007). The temperature rise alone has some predictable effects on aridity in the region. For instance, higher temperatures increase evaporation rates. Higher temperatures and a drier landscape increase wildfire hazard and put extra stress on ecosystems (Lenart, 2007).


~ 279 ~

Precipitation changes remain much more difficult to predict than temperature, because precipitation is more variable and operates on a smaller scale. Predicting future precipitation is difficult in the Southwest, due to added complexities such as topography and monsoonal timing. When comparing climate model simulations to what actually occurred, researchers found the results roughly matched 50 to 60% of the time for precipitation. This compares to about 95% of the time for temperature (Lenart, 2007).

Precipitation is projected to decline by 5% by 2100 for much of Arizona and New Mexico, based on modeling results from an ensemble of 18 general circulation models. A 10% decrease could occur for the southern half of Arizona; while northeastern New Mexico is projected to remain roughly stable, based on the same estimates. Such a precipitation decrease could have a more serious impact than the numbers suggest. The decrease of water draining into rivers and reservoirs typically can be double or triple the proportional reductions in rainfall amounts, especially when combined with higher temperatures (Christensen and Lettenmaier, 2006).

In another study, researchers using a multi-model ensemble of 19 models projected an increase in aridity for the Southwest. Their study defined the Southwest as the land area stretching from east to west, from Houston to San Francisco and north to south from Denver to Monterrey, Mexico; this area includes the ASNFs. Only 2 of the 19 climate models evaluated suggested a potential decrease in aridity for the southwestern quadrant of the country (Seager et al., 2007).

Snowpack measurements suggest that rising temperatures are melting winter snow progressively earlier in the year, delivering water to reservoirs and water users in greater quantities earlier in the spring season. Historically, snowmelt has occurred at the same time community’s ramp up their water consumption, which has drained reservoirs as they fill. When streamflows rise earlier in the year, reservoirs fill more quickly. Earlier future streamflows would likely increase the chance that spikes in river flows occur when the reservoirs are at full capacity, increasing the probability of flash floods (Guido, 2008).

Average air temperatures are rising, and it is likely that continued warming would accentuate the temperature difference between the Southwest and the tropical Pacific Ocean, enhancing the strength of the westerly winds that carry moist air from the tropics into the Southwest during the monsoon. This scenario may increase the monsoon’s intensity, duration, or both, in which case, floods would occur with greater frequency (Guido, 2008).

While the region is expected to dry out, it is also likely to see larger, more destructive flooding. Along with storms in general, hurricanes and other tropical cyclones are projected to become more intense. Arizona and New Mexico typically receive 10% or more of their annual precipitation from storms that begin as tropical cyclones in the Pacific Ocean. In fact, some of the largest floods in the Southwest have occurred when a remnant tropical storm hit a frontal storm from the north or northwest, providing energy to intensify a remnant tropical storm (Guido, 2008).

In summary, based on multi-model ensemble climate models, by the end of the 21st century the Southwest is likely to experience the following conditions: temperature increases of 5 to 8°F; an increase in the number of extremely hot days, with summer heat waves lasting 2 weeks or more, accompanied by warmer winters with a reduced snowpack, and a later monsoonal season; a 5% drop in precipitation throughout most of Arizona, including the ASNFs, and possibly a 10% drop in southern Arizona; and an increase in extreme flood events following an overall increase in tropical storms.

Impact of the Proposed Action on Climate Change Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are gases that trap heat in the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation. The most common GHGs emitted from natural processes and human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O).

With regard to GHGs, federal agencies on a national scale address emissions of GHGs by reporting and meeting reductions mandated in federal laws, EOs, and agency policies. The most recent of these is EO 13693 and the USEPA Final Mandatory Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Rule. Groups of states also have formed regionally based collectives (such as the Western Climate Initiative) to jointly address GHG pollutants.

The proposed action has the potential to release GHGs through the short-term use of mechanical equipment to implement treatments and road improvements. This release would be at least partially offset by the improved productivity of the habitats (i.e., vegetation and soil condition improvements that help take up GHGs) with the implementation of the proposed habitat restoration measures. Furthermore, one of the largest regional causes of carbon and GHG release in recent years has been the large-scale wildfires. Thus, by restoring the project area to be more resilient and reduce the likelihood of stand-replacing fires, the proposed action may indirectly benefit local climate change minimization efforts.

Impact of Climate Change on the Proposed Action Climate change likely would increase flash floods, making the region’s growing population more susceptible to loss of life and property. While the Southwest and ASNFs is expected to become warmer and drier, it is likely to experience more flooding. The frequency of floods is also influenced by the rate of snowmelt in the winter and spring, the character of the summer monsoon, and the incidence of tropical hurricanes and storms in the autumn (USFS 2015). Flash flood risk would impede project implementation and also could contribute to increased erosion on road surfaces and throughout the project area.

Climate change in the region may also increase the risk of catastrophic wildfire. Fire frequency and severity would likely increase as temperatures rise and precipitation decreases. Population growth in the Southwest may also lead to greater numbers of human-caused wildfires. Furthermore, increased temperature and moisture variations can cause stress and increase the


~ 281 ~

susceptibility of forest ecosystems to insect, disease, and nonnative species, creating stands with more dead and dry material to fuel fires (USFS 2015). The high stand density keeps the project area at risk of major fires, which the proposed action would reduce.

Irreversible Resource Commitments and Irretrievable Losses (General) The physical and biological effects are limited to the project area and/or immediate adjacent areas. No known irreversible resource commitments or any irretrievable losses of vegetation resources, wildlife habitats, soil productivity, watershed resources, or other resources would occur. The only resources lost would be forest vegetation, which is desired and a renewable resource.

Effects on Floodplains and Wetlands There are floodplains within the project area. These areas would not experience any measurable impact by upstream influences from management activities of the proposed action with design criteria in place (see Appendix A). Management activities designed to protect these resources conform to the federal regulations for floodplains (EO 11988).

Invasive Species Executive Order 13112 of February 3, 1999 Land actions that disturb the ground have the potential to contribute to the spread of noxious weeds and other non-native plants. Alternative 2 includes design criteria requirements to monitor mechanically cut areas to determine whether project activities have caused an increase of noxious weeds (see Appendix A). If monitoring shows noxious weeds are increasing, a strategy for control would be implemented where necessary as follows the Decision Notice and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Environmental Assessment for the A-SNFs Integrated Forest-wide Noxious or Invasive Weed Management Program (USFS 2008).

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination Agencies and Persons Consulted The following Forest Service employees served on the interdisciplinary team to complete the analysis for this project.

Name Title Responsibility Steve Best Forest Supervisor Deciding Officer Ed Holloway Alpine District Ranger Recommending Officer Richard Madril Springerville District Ranger Recommending Officer

Sheila Williams Zoned NEPA Coordinator ID Team Leader, NEPA documentation.

Loren LeSueur Wildlife Biologist Wildlife report, consultation with USFWS

Stephen Boe Fisheries Biologist Aquatic wildlife report

James Johnson Silviculturist Forest Vegetation and Prescriptions, Climate Change

Ray Rugg Timber Management Officer Implementation Effectiveness. Timber Operations

Adam Simmons Fuels Specialist Fire/Fuels Analysis, Air Quality Chris Miller Civil Engineer Engineering/Transportation Paul Brown Hydrologist Hydrology/Air Quality Eric Robertson Forest Soil Scientist Soils Stephanie Welch District Archaeologist-Alpine Heritage Resources Eric Flood (transferred) Recreation Specialist Recreation Analysis

Curtis Chee Range Staff Range and Noxious Weeds Mary Ellen Komnath

Geographic Information Systems Coordinator Maps, Data Analysis

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, tribal, and local agencies during the development of this environmental assessment:

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: Bureau of Land Management Natural Resources Conservation Service US Fish and Wildlife Service US House of Representatives – Office of Ann Kirkpatrick US Senate – Office of Jeff Flake US Senate – Office of John McCain Arizona Governor – Office of Doug Ducey Arizona House of Representatives - Office of David Stevens Arizona House of Representatives – Office of David Gowan


~ 283 ~

Arizona House of Representatives – Office of Jennifer Benally Arizona House of Representatives – Office of Albert Hale Arizona Senate – Office of Gail Griffin Arizona Senate – Office of Carlyle Begay Arizona Department of Environmental Quality Arizona Department of Transportation Arizona Game and Fish Department Arizona State Forestry Arizona State Historical Preservation Office Arizona State Land Department Arizona State Parks Northern Arizona University Ecological Restoration Institute University of Northern Arizona Apache County Greenlee County Navajo County Eastern Arizona Counties Eagar/Springerville Chamber of Commerce Alpine Fire Department Eagar Fire Department Nutrioso Fire Department Alpine Alliance Eagar Town Council

Tribes: Pueblo of Acoma Tribe White Mountain Apache Tribe San Carlos Apache Tribe Hopi Tribe Navajo Nation Navajo Nation, Ramah Chapter Pueblo of Zuni

Others: Scoping list available upon request.

Laws, Regulations, and Policies Federal Statutes:

The following is a partial listing of relevant laws which have been enacted by Congress. A Federal statute, or law, is an act or bill which has become part of the legal code through passage by Congress and approval by the President (or via congressional override). Although not specified below, many of these laws have been amended.

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act of July 22, 1937 - Directed the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a program of land conservation and utilization in order to correct maladjustments in land use and thus assist in such things as control of soil erosion, reforestation, preservation of natural resources, and protection of fish and wildlife.

Clean Water Act (see Federal Water Pollution Control Act)

Emergency Flood Prevention (Agricultural Credit Act) Act of August 4, 1978 - Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to undertake emergency measures for runoff retardation and soil-erosion prevention, in cooperation with land owners and users, as the Secretary deems necessary to safeguard lives and property from floods, drought, and the products of erosion on any watershed whenever fire, flood, or other natural occurrence is causing or has caused a sudden impairment of that watershed.

Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended - Authorizes the determination and listing of species as endangered and threatened; prohibits unauthorized taking, possession, sale, and transport of endangered species; authorizes the assessment of civil and criminal penalties for violating the Act or regulations; and, authorizes the payment of rewards to anyone furnishing information leading to arrest and conviction for any violation of the Act or any regulation issued there under. Section 7 of the Act requires Federal agencies to use their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and to insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat. Section 4 of the Act directs the development and implementation of recovery plans for threatened and endangered species and the designation of critical habitat. Several species listed under the Act are found on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs, some with recovery plans and some with designated critical habitat.

Federal Land Policy and Management Act of October 21, 1976 - Requires that 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; that, where appropriate, will preserve and protect certain public lands in their natural condition; that will provide food and habitat for fish and wildlife and domestic animals; and that will provide for outdoor recreation and human occupancy and use. Also states that the United States shall receive


~ 285 ~

fair market value of the use of the public lands and their resources unless otherwise provided for by law.

Federal-State Cooperation for Soil Conservation Act of December 22, 1944 - Authorized the adoption of eleven watershed improvement programs in various states for the improvement of water runoff, water flow retardation, and soil erosion prevention.

Federal Water Pollution Control Act and Amendments of 1972 (Clean Water Act) - Enacted to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and ecological integrity of the Nation’s waters. Provides for measures to prevent, reduce, and eliminate water pollution; recognizes, preserves, and protects the responsibilities and rights of States to prevent, reduce, and eliminate pollution, and to plan the development and use (including restoration, preservation, and enhancement) of land and water resources; and provides for Federal support and aid of research relating to the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution, and Federal technical services and financial aid to state and interstate agencies and municipalities for the prevention, reduction, and elimination of pollution.

Established goals for the elimination of water pollution; required all municipal and industrial wastewater to be treated before being discharged into waterways; increased Federal assistance for municipal treatment plant construction; strengthened and streamlined enforcement policies; and expanded the Federal role while retaining the responsibility of States for day-to-day implementation of the law.

Federal Water Project Recreation Act of July 9, 1965 - Requires that recreation and fish and wildlife enhancement opportunities be considered in the planning and development of Federal water development.

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of August 17, 1974 - Directs the Secretary of Agriculture to prepare a Renewable Resource Assessment every ten years; to transmit a recommended Renewable Resources Program to the President every five years; to develop, maintain, and, as appropriate, revise land and resource management plans for units of the National Forest System; and to ensure that the development and administration of the resources of the National Forest System are in full accord with the concepts of multiple use and sustained yield.

Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (H.R. 1904) - Purposes are to reduce wildfire risk to communities and municipal water supplies through collaborative hazardous fuels reduction projects; to assess and reduce the risk of catastrophic fire or insect or disease infestation; to enhance efforts to protect watersheds and address threats to forest and rangeland health (including wildfire) across the landscape; to protect, restore, and enhance forest ecosystem components such as biological diversity, threatened/endangered species habitats, enhanced productivity.

Joint Surveys of Watershed Areas Act of September 5, 1962 - Authorizes and directs the Secretaries of the Army and Agriculture to make joint investigations and surveys of watershed areas in the United States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, and to prepare joint reports setting forth their recommendations for improvements needed for flood prevention, for the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and for flood control.

Knutson-Vandenberg Act of June 9, 1930 -Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to establish forest tree nurseries; to deposit monies from timber sale purchasers to cover the costs of planting young trees, sowing seed, removing undesirable trees or other growth, and protecting and improving the future productivity of the land; and to furnish seedlings and/or young trees for the replanting of burned-over areas in any National Park.

Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of September 3, 1964 - Authorizes the appropriation of funds for Federal assistance to States in planning, acquisition, and development of needed land and water areas and facilities and for the Federal acquisition and development of certain lands and other areas for the purposes of preserving, developing, and assuring accessibility to outdoor recreation resources.

National Forest Management Act of October 22, 1976 - The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of renewable resources on National Forest System lands. The National Forest Management Act requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of National Forests.

National Forest Roads and Trails Act of October 13, 1964 - Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to provide for the acquisition, construction, and maintenance of forest development roads within and near the National Forests through the use of appropriated funds, deposits from timber sale purchasers, cooperative financing with other public agencies, or a combination of these methods. The Act also authorizes the Secretary to grant rights-of-way and easements over National Forest System lands.

Organic Administration Act of June 4, 1897 - Authorizes the President to modify or revoke any instrument creating a national forest; states that no national forest may be established except to improve and protect the forest within its boundaries, for the purpose of securing favorable conditions of water flows, and to furnish a continuous supply of timber for the use and necessities of citizens of the United States. Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to promulgate rules and regulations to regulate the use and occupancy of the national forests.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of June 12, 1960 - States that it is the policy of Congress that the national forests are established and shall be administered for outdoor recreation, range,


~ 287 ~

timber, watershed, and wildlife and fish purposes, and authorizes and directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop and administer the renewable surface resources of the national forests for the multiple use and sustained yield of products and services.

National Environmental Policy Act of January 1, 1970 - Directs all Federal agencies to consider and report the potential environmental impacts of proposed Federal actions, and established the Council on Environmental Quality.

Safe Drinking Water Amendments of November 18, 1977 - Amended the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize appropriations for research conducted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to safe drinking water; Federal grants to states for public water system supervision programs and underground water source protection programs; and grants to assist special studies relating to the provision of a safe supply of drinking water.

Sikes Act of October 18, 1974, as amended - This Act authorizes the Forest Service to cooperate with state wildlife agencies in conservation and rehabilitation programs for fish, wildlife, and plants considered threatened or endangered.

Soil and Water Resources Conservation Act of November 18, 1977 - Provides for a continuing appraisal of the United States’ soil, water and related resources, including fish and wildlife habitats, and a soil and water conservation program to assist landowners and land users in furthering soil and water conservation.

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of August 3, 1977 - Authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to enter into agreements with landowners, providing for land stabilization, erosion, and sediment control, and reclamation through conservation treatment, including measures for the conservation and development of soil, water, woodland, wildlife, and recreation resources, and agricultural productivity of such lands.

Water Quality Improvement Act of April 3, 1970 - Amends the prohibitions of oil discharges, authorizes the President to determine quantities of oil which would be harmful to the public health or welfare of the United States; to publish a National Contingency Plan to provide for coordinated action to minimize damage from oil discharges. Requires performance standards for marine sanitation device and authorizes demonstration projects to control acid or other mine pollution, and to control water pollution within the watersheds of the Great Lakes. Requires that applicants for Federal permits for activities involving discharges into navigable waters provide state certification that they will not violate applicable water quality standards

Water Resources Planning Act of July 22, 1965 - Encourages the conservation, development, and utilization of water and related land resources of the United States on a comprehensive and coordinated basis by the Federal government, states, localities, and private enterprises.

Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act of August 4, 1954 - Establishes policy that the Federal government should cooperate with states and their political subdivisions, soil or water conservation districts, flood prevention or control districts, and other local public agencies for the purposes of preventing erosion, floodwater, and sediment damages in the watersheds of the rivers and streams of the United States; furthering the conservation, development, utilization, and disposal of water, and the conservation and utilization of land; and thereby preserving, protecting, and improving the Nation's land and water resources and the quality of the environment.

Regulations

Below is a partial listing of relevant regulations. Federal executive departments and administrative agencies write regulations to implement laws. Regulations are secondary to law. However, both laws and regulations are enforceable.

33 CFR 323 Permits for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material into Waters of the United States - This regulation prescribes those special policies, practices and procedures to be followed by the Corps of Engineers in connection with the review of applications for permits to authorize the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States.

36 CFR 212.5 (b) Roads - ...the responsible official must identify the minimum road system needed for safe and efficient travel and for administration, utilization, and protection of National Forest System lands. ... The minimum system is the road system determined to be needed to meet resource and other management objectives adopted in the relevant land and resource management plan (36 CFR 219), to meet applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, to reflect long-term funding expectations, to ensure that the identified system minimizes adverse environmental impacts associated with road construction, reconstruction, decommissioning, and maintenance.

Identification of unneeded roads. Responsible officials must review the road system on each National Forest and Grassland and identify the roads on lands under Forest Service jurisdiction that are no longer needed to meet forest resource management objectives and that, therefore, should be decommissioned or considered for other uses, such as for motorized routes.

Regional Forester’s direction: Roads analysis process (RAP) for all other existing roads should be completed in conjunction with implementation of the off-highway vehicle (OHV) Record of Decision, watershed analyses, other project level activities or Forest Plan revisions.

Travel Management Rule - On December 9, 2005, the Forest Service published the TMR. The agency rewrote direction for motor vehicle use on National Forest Service (NFS) lands under 36 CFR, Parts 212, 251, and 261, and eliminated 36 CFR 295. The rule was written to address at least in part the issue of unmanaged recreation. The rule provides guidance to the Forest Service


~ 289 ~

on how to designate and manage motorized recreation on the Forests. The rule requires each National Forest and Grassland to designate those roads, motorized trails, and Areas that are open to motor vehicle use.

36 CFR 241 Fish and Wildlife - Sets forth the rules and procedures relating to the management, conservation, and protection of fish and wildlife resources on National Forest System lands.

40 CFR 121-135 Water Programs - Sets forth the provisions for the administration of water programs including: state certification of activities requiring a Federal license or permit; EPA administered permit programs; state program requirements; procedures for decision making; criteria and standards for the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System; toxic pollutant effluent standards; water quality planning and management; water quality standards; water quality guidance for the Great Lakes System; secondary treatment regulation; and, prior notice of citizen suits. See Title 40 (Protection of Environment), Chapter 1 (Environmental Protection Agency), subchapter D (Water Programs).

40 CFR 1500 Council on Environmental Quality - Council on Environmental Quality regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

Executive Orders

Below is a partial listing of relevant executive orders. Executive orders are official documents by which the President provides instructions to executive departments and agencies. An executive order may be used to reassign functions among executive branch agencies. It may adopt guidelines, rules of conduct, or rules of procedure for government employees or units of government. It can also establish an advisory body or task force.

EO 11988 Floodplain Management, 1977 - Requires each Federal agency to provide leadership and to take action to reduce the risk of flood loss, to minimize the impact of floods on human safety, health and welfare, and to restore and preserve the natural and beneficial values served by floodplains in carrying out its responsibilities for acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.

EO 11990 Protection of Wetlands, 1977 - Requires each Federal agency to provide leadership and to take action to minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial values of wetlands in carrying out the agency's responsibilities for acquiring, managing, and disposing of Federal lands and facilities; providing federally undertaken, financed, or assisted construction and improvements; and conducting Federal activities and programs affecting land use, including but not limited to water and related land resources planning, regulating, and licensing activities.


~ 291 ~

Appendix A Best Management Practices/Design Features for the West Escudilla Restoration Project

This page left intentionally blank.


~ 293 ~

Appendix B West Escudilla Project Maps



~ 295 ~

Appendix C West Escudilla Old and Large Tree Retention Strategy



~ 297 ~

Appendix D West Escudilla Project: Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring, and Adaptive Management



~ 299 ~

Appendix E Glossary



~ 301 ~

Appendix F References


Documents

West Escudilla Restoration Projecta123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/forestservic.download.akam… · West Escudilla Restoration Project Environmental Assessment . Alpine Ranger