Removal of these trees may constitute a relatively small part of an overall wet meadow
restoration effort when compared to addressing root causes of overall degradation. Thinning
alone without addressing other sources of degradation is unlikely to restore wet meadows.

Ecological Objectives
Conserve and restore the biophysical conditions of wet meadows upon which terrestrial native
biological diversity depend.

Criteria
Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed to conserve the unique
biophysical attributes of wet meadows according to these criteria:

(1) Where large trees are growing (rooted) in a wet meadow, and;
(2) Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Note: Where there is evidence of pre-settlement trees having grown in similar root and crown proximity to
said wet meadows in the past, leave an equivalent number of large replacement trees.

4. Encroached Grasslands

Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “EG”

Identifiable Circumstance

Encroached grasslands are herbaceous ecosystems that have infrequent-to-no evidence of pine
trees growing prior to settlement. The two prevalent grassland categories in the 4FRI landscape
are montane (includes subalpine) grasslands and Colorado Plateau (a subset of Great Basin)
grasslands, with montane grasslands being most common (Finch 2004). A key indicator of
grasslands is the presence of mollisol soils, which are typically deeper with higher rates of
accumulation and decomposition of soil organic matter relative to soils in the surrounding
landscape. Grasslands in this region evolved during the Miocene and Pliocene periods, and the
dark, rich soils observed in grasslands today have taken more than 3 million years to produce. In
addition to their association with mollic soils, grasslands in this region are maintained by a
combination of climate, fire, wind desiccation, and to a lesser extent by animal herbivory (Finch
2004).

Typical montane grasslands in this region are characterized by Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica)
meadows on elevated plains of basaltic and sandstone residual soils. Montane grasslands are the
most naturally fragmented grasslands in the region, ranging from thousands of acres in size (e.g.,
in the White Mountains, Baker 1983) down to only a few acres. They generally occur in small
(<100 ac.) to medium-sized (100 to 1000 ac.) patches. Historic maintenance of the herbaceous
condition in these grasslands is subject to some debate though appears to be primarily driven by
periodic fire. The cool-season growth of Arizona fescue also plays a large role in maintenance of
parks and openings by directly competing with ponderosa pine seedlings.

Identification of grasslands in this region should use a combination of the Terrestrial Ecosystem

Survey, Southwest Regional GAP Analysis, Brown and Lowe Vegetation Classification (Brown
and Lowe 1982; TNC GIS Layer 2006) among other existing vegetation and soils data.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

18


9. If noxious/invasive weeds are identified during or post implementation, treat the weeds and
monitor the site for a minimum of three growing seasons to determine weed treatment
success (noxious weeds).

10. Minimize soil disturbance by limiting the extent of the area traveled by vehicles, and by
avoiding areas with wet soils (noxious weeds).

Monitoring

1. Conduct Implementation and Effectiveness Monitoring for Best Management Practices: The
desired result of BMP monitoring is to document that BMPs have been applied as prescribed
and that they appear effective in reducing sediment and moderating flow regimes in forest
streams. BMPs that are found to be ineffective in protecting identified resource, aquatic, and
water quality goals will be adjusted. EDA related BMPs (monitoring).

2. Soil disturbance class monitoring (Page-Dumroese 2009) will be used to monitor site
disturbance during and after treatment. Strive to limit soil disturbance class to 3-5 percent or
less in the administration of the operation. Class 3 can be minimized by using the following
BMPs (monitoring).

Wildlife Habitat Protection

1. All VSS 6 groups will be retained where they occur throughout the project area in alternative C
as described in the forest plan (as amended).

2. Mexican spotted owl timing restrictions will be applied to management activities within one-
quarter mile of PACs. Within these areas, no treatment related activities will occur from
March | through August 31.

3. Implement forest plan and MSO recovery plan guidelines for treatments in Mexican spotted
owl protected and restricted habitats.

4. Retain all trees greater than 24 inches in diameter in MSO restricted habitat areas.

5. Broadcast burning in MSO restricted and protected habitat will be to reduce woody debris
while retaining other habitat components. Broadcast burning will be managed to preserve
large (greater than 24 inches) trees of all species, maintain dense forest canopy where it
exists, and retain snags and downed logs at or above forest plan amendment 6 guidelines.

6. No broadcast burning or thinning will occur within the 100-acre core areas of MSO PACs.

7. Burning proximate to PAC(s) during the breeding season (March 1—August 31) would be
conducted in such a manner that only limited smoke would occur within a PAC and smoke
would not settle in PACs for long durations having a negligible indirect effect to MSO.

8. During all treatments, retain substantive amounts of key MSO and goshawk habitat
components (e.g. snags greater than or equal to 18 inches in diameter, logs greater than or
equal to 12 inches in diameter, and hardwood tree species).

9. Fire-created openings should be minimal and not greater than 2 acres in restricted habitat.

10. In mixed conifer stands where low severity burning is allowed, broadcast burning will not
occur until mechanical treatments are completed in those units. Low severity burning is
allowed in mixed conifer stands not proposed for mechanical treatment.

11. Live trees with the potential to provide nesting habitat cavities will be favored for retention.

12. Northern goshawk timing restrictions will be applied to management activities within PFAs.
No treatment related activities will occur from March 1 through September 30.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 39


© The authorized FS officer will identify exceptions where restoration or additional thinning
is needed for resource concerns.

o The authorized FS officer will use their authority for skid trail and log landing location to
protect, as needed, stream courses that were not designated on the project contract map.

5. Mechanical slash piling shall not occur in meadows, SMZs along perennial and intermittent
streams, and riparian areas.

6. Wetlands, springs, seeps and meadow protection during tree removal activities: These areas
will be protected from treatment activities and include a 50-foot buffer that excludes
mechanized equipment. Treatments may occur within these areas if specific restoration
objectives are identified and approved by the FS officer. Ground based harvest operations
may only be conducted within the buffer if at least 6 inches of snow cover over a minimum of
3 inches of frozen ground are present. Harvest operations will be suspended if these
conditions are not met due to warm temperatures. This BMP will be applied to mapped and
unmapped wetlands, springs, seeps, and meadows.

7. For SMZs along perennial and intermittent streams, directional falling of trees shall be away
from the stream channel. Ground skidding, decking of logs, and machine piling are permitted
only on existing roadbeds that are located within SMZs. Road construction and burning of
concentrated slash are prohibited within the SMZ. Stream channels to be protected within
SMZs will be identified on watershed and project area contract maps. Stand prescriptions
shall include a sketch of the SMZ location and width. Ground based harvest operations may
be conducted in SMZs if at least 6 inches of snow cover over a minimum of 3 inches of
frozen ground are present. Harvest operations will be suspended if these conditions are not
met due to warm temperatures.

8. Log landings (decking areas) shall not be allowed in meadows, riparian areas, stream channels,
and SMZs along perennial and intermittent streams. The authorized FS officer may authorize
landings, in these areas, if required. These treatment areas will be clearly designated on the
project area contract map.

9. Prescribed burn to allow for low to moderate burn intensities for the retention of long-term soil
productivity, to maintain the sediment filtering capacity of streamside management zones,
and to reduce erosion,

10. Fire control lines shall not be constructed on slopes greater than 40 percent or within SMZs.
Exceptions will be identified by the authorized FS officer and specific mitigations will be
determined at that time.

11. Ignition shall be above slope breaks of active flood plain. Fire will be managed such that
burning into streamside management zones is limited to 15 percent or less of the area of the
SMZ when adjacent upland zones have not recovered hydrologically from project entries.
Utilize jackpot burning where appropriate.

12. Livestock grazing will be coordinated with prescribed burning, especially relative to
drainages and their flood plains. Livestock use may be deferred, if necessary in order to
establish grasses in sufficient quantity to carry fire, prior to burning, or to protect new growth
after burning.

Ephemeral Drainages

1, Ephemeral drainages are recognized in the following ways: (1) they form the lowest spot of the
surrounding ground; (2) they form obvious channel continuity along its length and joins with
more obvious channels downstream; and (3) they show evidence of having run water on

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 35


project, but no long-term impairment to soil productivity will result (FEIS pages 222 and
233).

12. Alternative B is consistent with applicable Federal, State, and local air quality standards.
All riparian areas are avoided, and soil and water will be protected.

Executive Order 11990 (Wetlands Management) and Executive Order 11988
(Floodplain Management)

Appendix C of the FEIS pages 260 to 262 contains the BMPs and mitigation measures including
a section titled Riparian/Stream Measures: wetlands and floodplains will be avoided and
protected by streamside management zones.

Executive Order 12898 and 13045 (Environmental Justice)

Executive order 13045 governs Federal actions to protect children from environmental health and
safety risks. Executive order 12898 governs Federal actions to address environmental justice in
minority and low-income populations.

Neither internal scoping nor public scoping identified disproportionate effects on minority or low-
income populations or children from the proposed action. This decision does not pose any
significant socio-economic risks that disproportionately affect low-income or minority
populations in communities where timber producing employment opportunities and workers are
located. While the project will create jobs and timber harvest will provide consumer goods, no
quantitative output, lack of output, or timing of output associated with these projects would affect
the civil rights, privileges, or status quo of consumers, minority groups, or women.

Local Indian tribes were consulted throughout this project development. Area tribal members use
the area for personal collection of traditional and medicinal plants. Low-income groups use the
area for the collection of fuelwood. Overall, there will be no shift in risk or potential risk to
impacts.

Forest Plan Amendment

All of the Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource Management Plan Forestwide and Management
Area standards and guidelines that are appropriate to the project decision being made have been
incorporated into the design of Alternatives B, with some of the applicable guidelines being
amended as part of this project’s decision (FEIS page 15). This amendment is necessary in order
to assure the project’s restoration objectives can be met and to assure consistency with the forest
plan. This amendment is described in Appendix B.

The amendment was initiated as part of the notice of intent in March 2012, utilizing the 1982
planning rule provisions to amend the plan. Once the 2012 planning rule came into effect in May
2012, the amendment continued forward under the provisions of the 1982 planning rule, as
allowed by the transition language of the 2012 rule (36 CF 219.17(b)(3)).

The Forest Service Manual (FSM 1926.5) describes changes to the land management plan that are
either not significant (FSM 1926.51) or are significant (FSM 1926.52). Changes that are not
significant can result from:

1. Actions that do not significantly alter the multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term
land and resource management.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 12


large oaks with vigorous crowns and enhanced acorn production (Abella 2008b), and may
increase oak seedling establishment (Ffolliott and Gottfried 1991).

Ecological Objectives:

(1) Maintain and restore all growth forms of Gambel oak, focusing on enhancing and maintaining
larger, older oak trees.

(2) Restore frequent, low intensity surface fire to ponderosa pine-Gambel oak forests.

(3) Restore and maintain brushy thicket, pole and dispersed clump growth forms of Gambel oak
by allowing natural self-thinning, thinning dense clumps, and/or burning.

(4) Protect Gambel oak growth forms from fuel wood cutting, damage during restoration
treatments including thinning and post thinning slash burning.

Criteria

In pine-oak, which occurs when >10% of the stand basal area consists of Gambel oak >13 cm (5
in) diameter at root collar, large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed
to conserve oaks according to these criteria:

In MSO restricted habitat:
(1) Within MSO habitat and designated critical habitat, the Recovery Plan for the Mexican
spotted owl should be followed to improve key habitat components and primary biological
factors, which includes Gambel oak, or

Outside MSO restricted habitat: where large post-settlement trees’ drip lines or roots overlap with
those of Gambel oak trees exhibiting dre of >12”; and
(2) Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

7. Within Stand Openings

Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “WSO”

Identifiable Circumstance

Within Stand Openings are small openings (generally 0.05 to 1.0 acres) that were occupied by
grasses and wildflowers before settlement (Pearson 1942, White 1985, Covington and Sackett
1992, Sanchez-Meador et al. 2009). Pre-settlement openings can be identified by the lack of
stumps, stump holes, and other evidence of pre-settlement tree occupancy (Covington et al.
1997). These openings are most pronounced on sites with heavy textured (e.g., silt-clay loam)
soils (Covington and Moore 1994). Current openings include fine scaled canopy gaps. It is not
necessary that desired within stand openings and groups be located in the same location that they
were in before settlement (the site fidelity assumption). Trees might be retained in areas that were
openings before settlement, and openings might be established in areas which had previously
supported pre-settlement trees. The within stand opening criteria described here are distinct from
and should not be considered as guidance relating to regeneration openings. The stakeholder
group does not support the cutting of large trees to create regeneration openings.

Problem Statement

Within stand openings appear to have been self-perpetuating before overgrazing and fire
exclusion (Pearson 1942, Sanchez-Meador et al. 2009). Fully occupied by the roots of grasses and
wildflowers as well as those of neighboring groups of trees, these openings had low water and

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


13. Advanced regeneration (20 percent of group openings) will be protected with reduced burn
intensity.

14. Created openings in goshawk habitat will not exceed the size directed by forest plan direction
(2 acres in PFAs, 4 acres outside PFAs), and will occur over no more than 20 percent of the
entire project area to create VSS 1 and manage VSS 2.

15. Low severity broadcast burn in goshawk PFAs to reduce woody debris while retaining a more
dense mosaic of VSS classes than areas outside the PFA. Manage for snag and log numbers at
or above forest plan amendment 6 guidelines.

16. Existing snags will be protected outside of landing areas. Recruitment of future snags will
occur as treatment stands are marked for mechanical treatment. Retain two to three large
(greater than18 inches in diameter) trees per acre as recruitment snags. Live trees with dead
tops or lightning scars are top priority for retention as future snags. Retain three snags and
recruitment snags per acre around meadows.

17. American peregrine falcon timing restrictions and habitat alteration guidelines will be applied
around existing eyries. Treatment related disturbances a half mile around an active eyrie and
line-of-sight disturbances up to 3 air miles from an active eyrie will be avoided from
February | through August 15.

18. Maintain forested escape cover around at least half the perimeter of stock tanks, springs, and
wetlands.

19. Protect existing elk exclosure fences during all treatment activities.
20. Preserve existing known turkey roosts.

21. Buffer known raptor nests from mechanical treatments according to forest plan or other
established guidelines.

22. For bald eagle, enforce a forest closure period (March 1 through August 31) unless the first
nesting attempt fails and another nesting attempt does not occur within 45 days after the
failure.

23. Where known, bald eagle roost trees will be protected from project activities. If bald eagle
winter roost sites are discovered in the EMA during project implementation, buffers will be
established around the sites according to guidelines in the “Bald Eagle Conservation and
Assessment Strategy.”

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Ensure that mistletoe infection is not used as the sole basis for removal of a large young tree.
Place a primary focus on creating interspaces in groups of trees in VSS 3 and 4.

Conduct MSO surveys prior to implementation and in accordance with the Forest Plan. If
these surveys reveal significant new MSO information not considered in the original
consultation, consultation will be reinitiated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

The selected alternative includes implementation of the complete list of BMPs and mitigation
measures in Appendix C. Monitoring requirements will be implemented according to the Forest
Plan (Chapter 5, 1987 Forest Plan as amended in 1996— PR 250). All practicable means to either
avoid or minimize environmental impacts have been adopted as part of this decision.

In addition to these actions, I have decided to amend the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests
Land and Resource Management Plan” pages 56 and 57, to add clarifying language to: (1)
describe desired conditions for the project area managed for northern goshawk; (2) express
relative amounts of forest cover, as well as the special distribution of that cover, including the
interspaces between tree groups; (3) define the relationship between the interspaces and natural
openings, such as meadows; and (4) clarify that canopy closure is evaluated at the tree group
scale within vegetation structural stages (VSS) 4, 5, and 6. The final forest plan amendment is in
Appendix B of this document.

Decision Rationale

The need to change conditions within the Rim Lakes.Forest Restoration Project area is a critical
step that will move the forest stands toward the desired conditions. This will result in a forest
ecosystem that is more sustainable and resilient to natural disturbances such as drought and
climatic variability, insects, disease, fire, and wind.

Meets Purpose and Need

My decision to select Alternative B with the modifications described above, will best meet the
purpose and need of this project. Tree densities will be reduced with the introduction of canopy
gaps and interspaces among tree groups. Compared to Alternative C, the selected alternative will
move the stands toward uneven-aged conditions where Alternative C is likely to result in even-
aged forest stands due to the 16-inch dbh cutting limit. With that cutting limit, a greater number
of smaller trees would need to be removed in order to meet the density objectives and fewer small
trees would be available for future forest development. The selected alternative will result in
regeneration of shade intolerant species, increased understory vegetation growth, and improved
hydrologic function.

The selected alternative will best reduce the risk of crown fire for 30 years or longer due to the
creation of uneven-aged conditions such as tree group openings and reduction in tree densities.
This decision will result in moving the Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) from FRCC 3 to the
desired condition of FRCC 1 over more than 54 percent of the project area. Around half of the
project area is currently in an even-aged condition with closed canopies that are very departed
from historical conditions, which is classified as FRCC3. By moving over half of the project area
to FRCC 1 and maintaining those conditions over the next 20 years, there will be a reduction in
the risk of crown fire and stand-replacing fires. In contrast, Alternative C would only move 14
percent of the project area into FRCC | and areas moved into FRCC 2 would likely revert to
FRCC 3 over 20 years.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


lowest prioty. Some areas can receive fire in consecutive years but then should be rested from
fire for at least 3 years.

3. Dry mixed conifer forest that have not experienced fire in the last 25 years should be a priority
for maintenance burning. Areas that have experienced fire in the last 5 years should be lower
priority. Areas in dry mixed conifer should not experience fire in consecutive years.

4, Areas adjacent to recent fires should be of lower priority than those farthest from recent fires.

5. Stands that are being managed for old growth will not be prescribed burned in years associated
with drought.

6. Stands that are being managed for old growth will be burned frequently.

7. Stands that meet or are being managed for old growth will be thinned to a desired basal area
prior to prescribed burning.

Watershed Protection

The following are site-specific BMPs required for the project. The following list covers
watersheds, riparian areas, uplands, roads, and noxious weeds. Some of the BMPs listed for one
purpose may benefit other purposes.

General

1. If unforeseen events occur in the future (e.g., large wildfires, prescribed burns producing
higher than planned levels of severely burned conditions, etc.) that result in significant
disturbances to a sixth code watershed involved in this project, and if those effects are above
those anticipated from this project, an equivalent disturbed area (EDA) analysis would be
performed to determine if the watershed has sustained levels of disturbance which are above
threshold values (generally interpreted as an EDA level equivalent to 15 percent of a sixth
code watershed). This analysis would be used, along with field investigations, to determine if
the planned schedule of treatment activities in that watershed needs to be revised to allow for
recovery of watershed conditions before the next treatment action there is taken.

2. The timber sale administrator or contracting officer representative will require operators to
maintain a copy of these BMPs onsite for each vehicle conducting operations within a task
order unit.

3. No more than 50 percent of a sixth code watershed would be treated within any 2-year time
period.

4. The Canyon Creek watershed has a current EDA rating of 11.3 percent. Any
action/treatment(s) taken in this watershed will require “timing” and “spacing” which would
result in no additional increase to the current calculated EDA. The Canyon Creek watershed
may be prescribe burned and/or hand thinned with no consideration for timing or spacing.
The mechanical thinning should begin no sooner than the second year of the project,
estimated to be 2014 to 2015.

5. The Christopher Creek watershed EDA of 14.7 percent will go above the 15 percent threshold
based on Tonto National Forest actions/treatments on that portion of Christopher Creek
within the Tonto National Forest boundary. The Rim Lakes treatments are a small portion of
projected worst-case scenario EDA. It is recommended that treatments are spaced in two or
three increments over a 10-year span beginning in year 2 or 3 (2014-2015). This would allow
for recovery of treatments being implemented at this time on the Tonto NF and other past
vegetative and fire treatments.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


This exception category will require an iterative process of collaborative mapping, field
verification, and refinement. There are some debate and questions about where and how much the
grassland-forest mosaic shifts over time and space. There are also debates and questions about
whether some recently-burned areas are early seral forests or stable grasslands, whether or how
they may be surrogates for historical grasslands, and if or how that should factor into the overall
retention of forest cover. Recognizing the importance of montane grassland restoration, we
encourage all parties to seek resolution to these issues on a case-by-case basis through field visits,
literature review, and/or discussion.

Problem statement

Prior to European settlement, pine trees rarely established in grasslands because they were either
outcompeted by production of cool-season grasses or killed by frequent fire (Finch 2004). In the
late 1800s, unsustainable livestock grazing practices significantly reduced herbaceous cover,
releasing competition pressure on pine seedlings. Coupled with the onset of fire suppression in
the early 1900s, pine trees rapidly encroached and recruited into native grasslands (e.g., Allen
1984, Moore and Huffman 2004, Coop and Givnish 2007).Pine encroachment into grasslands has
contributed to a significant loss of biodiversity (Stacey 1995) and wildlife habitat particularly for
grassland-dependent species such as pronghorn. Plant diversity is particularly important in
grassland ecosystems: grassland plots with greater species diversity have been found to be more
resistant to drought and to recover more quickly than less diverse plots (Tilman and Downing
1994); this resilience will become even more important in a warming climate. Pine tree removal,
restoration of fire, and complementary reductions in livestock grazing pressure are all necessary
to restore structure and function of native grasslands.

Ecological Objectives

(1) Enhance, maintain, and restore naturally functioning grasslands.

(2) Ensure native grassland composition, increase native species diversity, improve resilience to
drought.

(3) Restore natural fire regime.

Criteria
Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be cut and/or removed to restore the
unique biophysical attributes of grasslands according to these criteria:

(1) Where existing grasslands are being encroached, and large trees are interfering with
overall restoration objectives, and

(2) Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Note: There may be additional areas and/or circumstances identified for grassland restoration through a site
specific agreement-based, collaborative process as described in the 4FRI Charter.

5. Aspen Forest & Woodland

Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “AF”

Identifiable Circumstance

Quaking aspen (Populus tremuloides) occurs in small patches throughout the 4FRI area. Bartos
(2001) refers to three broad categories of aspen: (1) stable and regenerating (stable), (2)
converting to conifers (seral), and (3) decadent and deteriorating. Almost all of the aspen within

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

19


Appendix B—Forest Plan Amendment (from FEIS pages 25-28)

The following forest plan amendment is included with this decision in order to achieve project
restoration objectives and assure consistency with the forest plan.

For the purpose of this amendment, the following definitions apply:

1. Astand is defined as a contiguous area of trees sufficiently uniform in forest type,
composition, structure, and age class distribution, growing on a site of sufficiently
uniform conditions to be a distinguishable unit. Four classification characteristics are
generally used to distinguish forest stands: biophysical site (soils, aspect, elevation, plant

community association, climate, etc.), species composition, structure (density, and age (1-

aged, 2-aged, uneven-aged)), and management emphasis (administrative requirements
and local management emphasis that will shape structure over time). Based upon Agency
guidelines, the minimum stand mapping size is 10 acres.

2. Interspaces are defined as the open space between tree groups intended to be managed
for grass-forb-shrub vegetation during the long term. Interspaces may include scattered

single trees.

Consistent with the Forest Plan Standard to “manage for uneven-aged stand conditions in
Northern goshawk habitat”; the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource
Management Plan” will be amended for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project as follows

(Guidelines):

Existing Guideline Language
Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource
Management Pian (2009 update)
Pages 56-58

Proposed New Guideline Language

Management Scale

Distribution of habitat structures (tree size and
age classes, tree groups of different densities,
snags, dead and down woody material, etc.)
should be evaluated at the ecosystem
management area level, at the mid-scale such as
drainage, and at the small scale of site.

Distribution of habitat structures (tree size and age classes, tree
density, snags, dead and down woody material, etc.) should be
evaluated at the ecosystem management area level, at the mid-
scale such as drainage, and at the small scale of site.

Where VSS 6 is deficit within the ecosystem
management area, all VSS 6 will be maintained
regardless of location. However, over time, the
intent is to sustain a relatively even distribution
(again, based on site quality) of VSS 6 across
the ecosystem management area.

Where VSS 6 is deficit within the ecosystem management arca,
all VSS 6 will be maintained regardless of location, except in
situations when occasional trees may be removed in order to
provide for understory health and development. For example,
the exemption might be used for protection of young tree groups
from diseased over-story trees. Threats to public health and
safety would be another example when this exception is
exercised. However, over time, the intent is to sustain a
relatively even distribution (again, based on site quality) of VSS
6 across the ecosystem management area

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

25


6. Ponderosa Pine/Gambel Oak Forest (Pine-Oak)

Suggested Tree Marking Code: “P-O”

Identifiable Circumstance

A number of habitat types exist in the southwestern United States that could be described as pine-
oak. Ponderosa pine forests are interspersed with Gambel oak trees in locations throughout the
4FRI area in a habitat association referred to as PIPO/QUGA (USFS 1997, USDI FWS 1995).
Specifically, any stand within the Pinus ponderosa series where >10% of stand basal area consists
of Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii) >13 cm (5 in) diameter at root collar (drc) is considered to be
pine-oak within the 4FRI area (USDI FWS 1995). In southwestern ponderosa pine forests,
Gambel oak has several growth forms distinguished by stem sizes and the density and spacing of
stems within clumps. These include shrubby thickets of small stems, clumps of intermediate-sized
stems, and large, mature trees that are influenced by age, disturbance history, and site conditions
(Brown 1958, Kruse 1992, Rosenstock 1998, Abella and Springer 2008, Abella 2008a). Different
growth forms provide important habitat for a large number of varying wildlife species (Neff and
others 1979, Kruse 1992).

Gambel oak provides high quality wildlife habitat in its various growth forms, and is a desirable
component of ponderosa pine forests (Neff and others 1979, Kruse 1992, Bernardos et al. 2004).
Gambel oak enhances soils (Klemmedson 1987), wildlife habitat (Kruse 1992, Rosenstock 1998,
USDI FWS1995, Bernardos et al. 2004), and understory community composition (Abella and
Springer 2008). Large oak trees are particularly valuable since they typically provide more
natural cavities and pockets of decay that allow excavation and use by cavity nesters than
conifers. In addition to its important ecological role, Gambel oak has high value to humans as it is
a popular fuelwood that possesses superior heat-producing qualities compared to other tree
species (Wagstaff 1984).

Problem Statement

Although management on public lands with regard to oak has changed to better protect the
species, illegal fuelwood cutting of Gambel oak and elk and livestock grazing negatively impact
oak growth and regeneration (Harper et al. 1985, Clary and Tiedemann 1992, Rick Miller, 1993,
unpublished report) and continues to result in the removal of rare, large diameter oak trees
(Bernardos et al. 2004).

A literature review by Abella and Fule (2008) found that Gambel oak densities appear to have
increased in many areas with fire exclusion, especially in the small and medium-diameter stems
(<8” dbh). Chambers (2002) found that Gambel oak on the Kaibab and Coconino National
Forests was distributed in an uneven-aged distribution, dominated by smaller size classes (<5 cm
dbh) and few large diameter oak trees. Because of Gambel oak’s slow growth rate, there may be
little opportunity for these small Gambel oak trees to attain large diameters (>85 cm) (Chambers
2002).

Pine competition with oak has been identified as an issue in slowing oak growth, particularly for
older oaks (Onkonburi 1999). Onkonburi (1999) also found that for northern Arizona forests, pine
thinning increased oak incremental growth more than oak thinning and prescribed fire. Fule
(2005) found that oak diameter growth tended to be greater in areas where pine was thinned
relative to burn only treatments and controls. Thinning of competing pine trees may promote

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


6. The Chevelon Creek Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs watershed EDA of 2.7 percent could
potentially move above the threshold if actions/treatments are not allotted with appropriate
timing, spacing, and/or mitigation of treatments. Vegetation, fuels, and watershed specialists
met and modified proposed treatment of residual material on approximately 25 percent of the
treated area. Disturbance factors were reduced where top and limb material was lopped and
scattered instead of piled and burned, or whole trees were to be removed. This action
improves resistance to overland flow and generally results in quicker ground cover response.
By implementing actions in three stages over 10 years, recovery of portions of the watershed
can mitigate actions. The timing of treatment implementation is expected to mitigate
cumulative effects within this watershed.

7. Final unit closeout or seasonal closeouts shall include a combination of water-barring,
ripping/seeding, and slash of skid trails, haul roads, landings, disturbed areas, and areas
potentially impacting intermittent, ephemeral, and perennial drainages. Any disturbed route,
road, or trail having slopes exceeding 3 percent shall be water-barred.

Riparian/Stream Measures (Including Wetlands, Springs, Seeps)

1. Use project area maps for designating stream courses for water quality protection. Locations of
protected stream channels and filter strips (streamside management zones) will be delineated
on the project area and contract maps. Riparian areas and meadows designated for protection
will also be delineated on the project area and contract maps. A smaller map of buffers is
located at the end of the “BMP” section of the satershed report (Nelson 2011).

2. Streamside management zones (SMZs) were created using the following criteria: width is
based on the nature of resource values at risk (such as the presence of aquatic ESA species or
its potential introduction), special concerns for water quality degradation, erosion hazard,
existing vegetative ground cover conditions, streambank and riparian conditions, natural
geologic features, and flow regime. SMZ widths were designated using the established matrix
as a guide.

3. A map of the buffers (Strm_Buffers_nad83.mxd) can be found in the project record.

4. Stream channels and other wetlands to be protected will be shown on the project contract maps
along with their associated streamside management zones (SMZs), if applicable. SMZs shall
be designated along intermittent and perennial stream channels and selected ephemeral
channels.

o Stream channels shall be crossed at designated crossings only and shall be preapproved by
the authorized Forest Service (FS) officer.

© Unless approved otherwise by the authorized FS officer, SMZ BMPs may prohibit, limit, or
constrain mechanized activities within all or part of the SMZ.

o There shall be no skidding or road construction longitudinally within stream channels.

© There shall be no decking and machine piling of slash within stream channels.

© Leadout ditches or waterbars shall not be constructed in such a manner as to divert runoff
into stream channels.

o Unless designated by the authorized FS officer, debris generated from treatment activities
will be removed from stream channels.

© Trees designated for removal shall be felled outside the stream channel.

o Trees, in or on the banks of stream courses that are providing bank and stream channel
stability are not to be removed.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Criteria
Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed to conserve the unique
biophysical attributes of seeps & springs according to these criteria:

(1) Where large trees’ roots are encroaching on mesic soils associated with a seep or spring, or
such trees’ drip lines are overlapping or nearly overlapping a seep or spring such that its
shading compromises the integrity of a spring’s unique biophysical attributes, and;

(2) Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Note: Where there is evidence of pre-settlement trees having grown in similar root and crown proximity to
said seep or spring in the past, leave an equivalent number of large replacement trees.

2. Riparian

Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “R”

Identifiable Circumstance
Riparian areas occur along ephemeral or perennial streams or are located down-gradient of seeps
or springs. These areas exhibit riparian vegetation, mesic soils, and/or aquatic environments.

Problem statement

Riparian areas exhibit unique biophysical conditions that can sustain unique, mesic-adapted or
aquatic biological diversity. Riparian areas and the streams, springs and seeps connected to them
often harbor imperiled species and can be sources of endemism. Riparian areas also provide water
and other habitat to terrestrial wildlife. In the absence of frequent fires and in the presence of
livestock grazing, water development projects and other factors, large post-settlement trees may
have established and grown within riparian areas such that they compromise available soil
moisture or light that support those unique biophysical conditions. However, it is likely to be a
very rare circumstance that trees of any size will need to be removed from forested riparian
zones.

Cutting of any trees within riparian areas should minimize impacts by following Best
Management Practices (BMPs).

Whenever possible, large trees identified for cutting should be left onsite as snags or downed
logs.

Removal of these trees may constitute a relatively small part of an overall riparian area
restoration effort when compared to addressing fundamental causes of overall degradation.
Thinning alone without addressing other sources of degradation is unlikely to restore riparian
areas.

Ecological Objectives
Conserve and restore the biophysical conditions in riparian habitat upon which terrestrial and
aquatic native biological diversity depend.

Criteria

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

16


¢ Original Proposed Action: According to 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii), modifications and
incremental changes to the alternatives may be considered as part of the range of alternatives.
The original proposed action first scoped in 2008 was modified in response to public
comment and internal analysis. Therefore, the 2008 proposed action was not analyzed in
detail and is considered part of the range of alternatives.

¢ No Burn Alternative: During scoping for the DEIS, a concern was raised about the effects
of prescribed burning in terms of smoke effects, and the potential effects of burning
vegetation that contain radionuclides, which would be emitted. An alternative that would
conduct only mechanical treatments was considered as a way to avoid all potential smoke
impacts. Only reintroducing fire as a process can achieve restoration of forest ecosystem
functions and processes across the project area. This alternative was not analyzed in detail
because without putting fire back into the ecosystem, the purpose and need of the project
would not be met.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The CEQ Regulations (40 CFR 1505.2(b)) require the ROD to identify the alternative(s) that
could be considered environmentally preferable. The Environmentally preferable alternative is
defined by CEQ as: (1) the alternative that causes the least damage to the biological and physical
environment, and (2) the alternative that best protects, preserves, and enhances historic, cultural,
and natural resources.

Alternative B is the environmentally preferable alternative, because as explained in the Decision
Rationale section, it restores the project area most effectively for a longer duration than the other
alternatives. Compared to Alternative C, it better reduces the amount of the project area that has
potential for high severity stand-replacing fires. Alternative B improves the hydrologic function
as stand densities are reduced, with increased canopy gaps that will allow for more effective
capture of precipitation, which increases soil moisture. Alternative B also results in greater
herbaceous/shrub understory for a longer period providing greater biological diversity.

Public Involvement

A description of the public involvement for the project is found on pages 11-12 of the FEIS.
Earliest collaboration of this project began in May 2004. The “Community Wildfire Protection
Plan for At-Risk Communities of the Sitgreaves National Forest in Apache, Coconino, and
Navajo Counties” was completed with participation from Apache, Coconino, and Navajo
Counties (PR 200). The proposed action has been listed on the Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests schedule of proposed actions (SOPA) since January 2006 using the original project title
“Rim Lakes Forest Health Project,” which was changed to “Rim Lakes Forest Restoration
Project” to more accurately reflect its objectives (PR 571).

As required by HFRA, an announcement was published (PR 295, PR 300, PR 303) to give the
public notice of a meeting held on January 26, 2008, in Overgaard, Arizona, to provide project
area information, present the proposed action, and discuss local concerns and interests in the
analysis (PR 305, PR 306, PR 307, PR 310). Six people attended the meeting (PR 308). From
2008 until 2011, public involvement continued by actively working with Arizona Game and Fish
Department, White Mountain Stewardship Project’s Multi-Party Monitoring Board, Natural
Resources Working Group (NRWG), and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD). A number of
field trips were conducted.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


necessary for the driveway. Should additional sites be discovered during project
implementation, all work in that locale shall be halted and the forest or zone archaeologist
will be notified immediately. Work shall not resume in that area until the zone or forest
archaeologist has notified the district ranger that work may proceed.

o Terms and conditions of Section 106 compliance shall include appropriate postproject
monitoring requirements as determined necessary by the forest archaeologist to assess the
effectiveness of protection measures. All site monitoring shall be documented on a site
update form and/or monitoring report as appropriate. Per protocol, the Apache-Sitgreaves
NFs shall maintain an updated list of sites to be monitored that are part of the Rim Lakes
Forest Health Project, which will include the date monitoring is completed and the
monitoring results.

o During prescribed burning, protect fire-sensitive sites by excluding from the burn area,
protect by hand line/black line/wetline/foam retardant/structural fire shelter or remove
heavy fuels from site by hand.

o Remove heavy fuels from site by hand: (1) prevent in-situ heavy fuels that cannot be
removed from ignition (e.g., flush cut and bury stumps); and (2) implement same protective
measures for future maintenance burns.

o Protect selected other sites from burning (optional): allow burning over nonfire-sensitive
sites provided no ignition points within site boundaries and no staging of equipment within
site boundaries and no slash piles within site boundaries.

o No vehicles allowed within site boundaries.

© No firewood gathering within site boundaries, or allow firewood gathering provided no
dragging of logs, trees, or cut material across or within site boundaries.

o Materials removed from the site are removed by hand.

o Allow firewood cutting in areas of large, continuous, low density artifact scatters that cover
large portions of a landscape provided that: all features and artifact concentrations are
recorded and avoided; use of vehicles is prohibited during wet ground conditions; periodic
monitoring is used to assess impacts and if impacts are noted, firewood cutting will be
prohibited in the area.

Protect Range Allotment Infrastructure
Protective measures will be put in place for range improvement structures.

Recreation Public Health/Safety

1. To maintain health and safety for all users on the roads within the analysis area, project haul
traffic speeds will be no greater than 25 miles per hour (m.p.h.).

2. Restrict hauling within the Rim Lakes Recreation Area during times of highest recreation use.
The highest recreation use and associated traffic is on weekends between Memorial Day and
Labor Day. On the weekends of Memorial Day, July 4", and Labor Day, recreation use and
associated traffic is high, including non-holiday days around the holiday. For example, when
July 4 falls on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday, the recreation use and associated traffic is
high the whole week.

3. No hauling between 1200 noon Fridays and 0600 Mondays for weekends between and
including Memorial Day and Labor Day.

4. No hauling on the Federal observed holiday for Memorial Day, July 4th, or Labor Day.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

31


Existing Guideline Language
Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource
Management Plan (2009 update)
Pages 56-58

Proposed New Guideline Language

(overstory and understory), age classes, and
species composition well distributed across the
landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and
down woody debris.

Landscapes Inside Goshawk Post-Fledgling Family Areas

General: Provide for a healthy sustainable forest
environment for the post-fledgling family needs
of goshawks. The principle difference between
“within the post-fledgling family area” and
“outside the post-fledgling family area” is the
higher canopy cover within the post-fledgling
family area and smaller opening size within the
post-fledgling family area. Vegetative structural
stage distribution and structural condition are the
same within and outside the post-fledgling
family area.

No change

No similar direction in forest plan

Canopy cover is evaluated with vertical crown projection within
mid-aged to old forest structural stage groups (VSS 4, VSS 5,
and VSS 6) and not within grass-forb-shrub to young forest
structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3) or in
interspaces, natural meadows, and grasslands, or other areas not
managed for forest conditions.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

28


Arizona

Flagstatt
—, Ninslow

\
)

Apache-Sitgreaves* '. See

National Forests ~— Springervit

~~" Phoenix
\

Figure 1. Vicinity Map of the Project Area

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Habitat for MSO and Northern goshawk would move towards desired conditions with openness
in tree groups being less pronounced. The selected alternative will result in habitat conditions that
meet the forest plan and MSO Recovery Plan thresholds for stand density and forest structure.
The selected alternative will provide the variable tree density, variable age classes and interspaces
that benefit goshawk. This varies from Alternative C, which would result in more uniform tree
distribution leading to more rapid canopy closure, in 5-15 years providing less benefit to MSO
and goshawk habitat. Further, by reducing the risk of crown fire and stand-replacing fires, the
habitats for these species will benefit.

Consideration of Issues

My decision to select Alternative B with modifications includes careful consideration of the
issues that were brought up during the project analysis and the objection period on the FEIS.

One significant issue was identified, which was the concern that thinning and burning would
cause unforeseen mortality among large trees and when combined with the planned removal of
large trees, conditions may result in densities of large trees below target thresholds. Alternative C
was developed to address this issue by introducing a cutting limit of 16 inches. According to the
analysis as summarized in Table 7 of the FEIS, Alternative C would retain 100 percent of trees
over 16 inches in diameter equating to around 287,000 trees. Alternative B, which does not have
the 16 inch diameter cutting limit, would result in the retention of 89 percent of trees over 16
inches in diameter, or around 256,000. In consideration of the benefits to be achieved under
Alternative B, specifically the improved forest health in terms of sustainability and resilience over
30 years as opposed to 10 years, the benefits of the selected alternative outweigh those in
Alternative C.

Issues brought up during the objection period on the FEIS include the retention of old trees (pre-
settlement), and retention of large young trees. Overall, large trees will be retained, however I
have decided to incorporate eight exceptions under which large trees can be cut. These exception
categories were developed by the Four Forest Restoration Initiative through a collaborative
process and are found in the Old Growth Protection and Large Tree Retention Strategy (Sept. 13,
2011). The eight categories found on pages 8-24 of the strategy are located in Appendix A of this
document. It is my expectation that these exceptions to cutting large trees will be used to inform
the marking guides during implementation of this project.

Continued Collaboration

This project is a result of much discussion and collaboration both within and outside of the Forest
Service. I acknowledge the need to compare the effects of thinning trees with a diameter limit and
without a diameter limit. The FEIS provides a thorough analysis of the pros and cons associated
with each approach to managing forest health. This is one of the first projects on the Apache-
Sitgreaves National Forests where we will generally retain large trees but apply exceptions to
when large trees will be cut. I am committed to continuing collaboration efforts as we implement
this project. I feel the information collaboratively gained from developing and applying marking
guides combined with monitoring will improve our understanding of results on the ground. This
in turn will increase our confidence and knowledge-sharing of this approach to improving forest
health.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed to conserve the unique
biophysical attributes of riparian areas according to these criteria:

(1) Where large trees are growing (rooted) within a riparian area and compromising available
soil moisture or light that support that area’s unique biophysical conditions, and;

(2) Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Note: Where there is evidence of pre-settlement trees having grown in similar root and crown proximity to
said riparian in the past, leave an equivalent number of large replacement trees.

There may be additional areas and/or circumstances identified for riparian restoration through a site
specific agreement-based, collaborative process as described in the 4FRI Charter.

3. Wet Meadows

Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “WM”

Identifiable Circumstance

High-elevation streamside or spring-fed meadows occur in numerous locations throughout the
Southwest. However, less than 1% of the landscape in the region is characterized as wetland
(Dahli 1990), and wet meadows are just one of several wetland types that occur. Patton and Judd
(1970) reported that approximately 17,700 ha of wet meadows occur on national forests in
Arizona and New Mexico.

These areas may be referred to as riparian meadows, montane (or high-elevation) riparian
meadows, sedge meadows, or simply as wet meadows. Wet meadows are usually located in
valleys or swales, but may occasionally be found in isolated depressions, such as along the
fringes of ponds and lakes with no outlets. Where wet meadows have not been excessively
altered, sedges (Carex spp.), rushes (Juncus spp.), and spikerush (Eleocharis spp.) are common
species (Patton and Judd 1970, Hendrickson and Minckley 1984, Muldavin et al. 2000). Willow
(Salix) and alder (Alnus) species often occur in or adjacent to these meadows (Long 2000, 2002,
Maschinski 2001, Medina and Steed 2002). High-elevation wet meadows frequently occur along
a gradient that includes aquatic vegetation at the lower end and mesic meadows, dry meadows,
and ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forest at the upper end. These vegetation gradients are
closely associated with differences in flooding, depth to water table, and soil characteristics (Judd
1972, Castelli et al. 2000, Dwire et al. 2006). While relatively rare, wet meadows are believed to
be of disproportionate value because of their use by wildlife and the range of other ecosystem
services they provide. Wet meadows perform many of the same ecosystem functions associated
with other wetland types, such as water quality improvement, reduction of flood peaks, and
carbon sequestration.

Problem statement

Wet meadows are one of the most heavily altered ecosystems. They have been used extensively
for grazing livestock, have become the site of many small dams and stock tanks, have had roads
built through them, and have experienced other types of hydrologic alterations, most notably the
lowering of their water tables due to stream downcutting, surface water diversions, or
groundwater withdrawal (Neary and Medina 1996, Gage and Cooper 2008). In the presence of
livestock grazing and hydrologic changes, large post-settlement trees may have established and
grown within wet meadows such that they compromise available soil moisture or light creating
unique biophysical conditions.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Alternatives Considered
Alternative A

As required by the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, the no action alternative (Alternative A) has
been analyzed to contrast the impacts of the action alternatives with the current condition and
expected future condition if the proposed action were not implemented.

This alternative proposes no vegetative treatments or prescribed fire in the project area.
Alternative A does not meet the purpose and need for the project as it would not move the project
area toward forest plan vegetation (forest health, forest structure) desired conditions.

Alternative B

Alternative B is the selected alternative with modifications as described in the Decision section
above.

Alternative C

Alternative C responds to the issue described in the FEIS (page 12-13) that cutting large trees and
prescribed burning may cause unforeseen mortality among larger size classes of “leave” trees.
When this threat is considered along with the project’s removal of larger trees, Alternative B
threatens the quality of large-tree habitat and wildlife dependent on that habitat within the project
area. Therefore this alternative contains actions identical to Alternative B in location and
treatment method, except that this alternative includes a limit so that only trees less than 16
inches in diameter would be cut and removed.

Other than this tree diameter limit, the alternative includes using mechanical equipment and
prescribed burning to accomplish the treatments using the methods described in alternative B. In
addition to those actions, this alternative would amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan to
clarify the emphasis of even-aged management. (FEIS pages 28-29).

Other alternatives considered but not analyzed in detail

Public comments provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and
need for this project. These alternatives were reviewed during the analysis but were eliminated
from further analysis as described in this section (FEIS pages 30-31).

¢ Alternatives that limit treatment to a specific diameter: Concerns were raised during the
development of this project about having alternatives with diameter caps of 12, 14, and 16
inches diameter at breast height (dbh). Even-aged treatments that concentrate on any one size
class would only partially meet the purpose and need of improving forest health and reducing
the risk of uncharacteristic wildfires. For this reason, the proposals for 12 and 14 inch cutting
limits were considered but eliminated from further analysis. Alternative C was developed to
include a diameter cap of 16 inches dbh. Alternative C was analyzed in detail to display the
differences with and without tree size cutting limits.

e An alternative to retain all trees germinated prior to regular fire suppression: A
suggestion to have an alternative to retain all trees that germinated prior to the regular
suppression of fires to maintain a genetic legacy was considered. These trees are considered
to be about 70 to 100 years old. It was determined that avoidance of high-severity
disturbances is the most effective strategy for retention of genetic diversity, and this objective
is a primary focus of alternatives B and C, therefore this alternative was not considered in
detail.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


nutrient availability because of intense root competition (Kaye et al. 1999). Heavy surface fuel
loads insured that tree seedlings were killed by frequent surface fires, reinforcing the competitive
exclusion of tree seedlings (Fulé et al. 1997). These natural openings appear to have been very
important for some species of butterflies, birds, and mammals (Waltz and Covington 2004). Often
the largest post-settlement trees, typically a single tree, became established in these natural within
a stand opening as soon as herbaceous vegetation was removed by overgrazing (Sanchez-Meador
et al. 2009). Contemporary within stand openings or areas dominated by smaller post-settlement
trees should be the starting point for restoring more natural within stand heterogeneity.

Ecological Objectives

(1) Conserve and restore openings within stands to provide natural spatial heterogeneity for
biological diversity.

(2) Break up fuel continuity to reduce the probability of torching and crowning.

(3) Restore natural heterogeneity within stands.

(4) Promote snow-pack accumulation and retention to benefit groundwater recharge and
watershed processes at small scale.

Criteria
Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed to restore the unique
biophysical attributes of within stand openings according to these criteria:

(1) When the presence of such trees would prevent the re-establishment of sufficient within
stand openings to emulate natural vegetation patterns based on current stand conditions, pre-
settlement evidences, desired future conditions, or other restoration objectives, and

(2) Where desired openings are tentatively identified as >0.05 acre (these openings should be
established wherever possible by enlarging current within stand openings or where small
diameter trees are predominant), and

(3) Where removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Note: It is not necessary that within stand openings and groups be located in the same location that they
were in before settlement. That is, trees might be retained in areas that were openings before settlement,
and openings might be established in areas that had previously supported pre-settlement trees.

8. Heavily Stocked Stands with High Basal Area Generated By a Preponderance of
Large Young Trees

Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “LYT”

Identifiable Circumstance

In some areas irruption of post-settlement has been so robust that current stand structure is
characterized by high density and basal area of large, young ponderosa pine trees. These stands or
groups of stands exhibit continuous canopy promoting unnaturally severe fire effects under severe
fire weather conditions. At the small scales, this circumstance applies on a case-by-case basis
where the cutting of large trees is necessary to meet site-specific ecological objectives such as
reducing potential for crown fire spread into communities or important habitats such as for
Mexican spotted owls and/or goshawk nest stands. This circumstance applies where other
exception categories, when implemented, would not alleviate the afore-mentioned severe fire

effects.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


USDA Iai
—-* Record of Decision

wieswes fOr the Rim Lakes

Department of
Agriculture

Ric Forest Restoration

Service

Southwestern P roj ect

Region

July 2013

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests,
Coconino County, Arizona



Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project is consistent with the revised Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests Programmatic LRMP Biological Opinion dated April 30, 2012 (PR 506) and the updated
Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl (PR 541).

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Federal law and direction applicable to Forest Service sensitive species are included in the
National Forest Management Act and Forest Service Manual (2670). The Regional Forester has
developed the sensitive species list for plants and animals for which population viability is a
concern (FEIS pages 107-132). In reviewing the analyses and projected effects on all sensitive
species listed as occurring or possibly occurring on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, it has
been demonstrated that this decision will not cause a trend toward Federal listing for any sensitive

species.
Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Executive Order 13186

Alternative B—with mitigation measures described in Appendix C—provides for adequate
conservation measures for migratory birds. Overall impacts on land birds and waterfowl are.
expected to be minimal (FEIS pages 167 to 170).

Clean Water Act

Alternative B will not result in adverse impacts to water quality within or downstream from the
area (EIS pp. 200-210). With application of site-specific design criteria, mitigation measures, and
best management practices, this alternative meets the laws and associated regulations designed to
protect water quality. Alternative B is expected to result in a minor first year increase in sediment
delivery to the low gradient, intermittent/ephemeral stream channels during road construction,
road improvement work, and other project activities.

Clean Air Act

Alternative B is designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, it’s implementing
regulations, and associated state and Federal air quality standards. The primary concern with this
project in regards to air quality is with smoke emissions from prescribed burning. The EIS discloses
that under alternative B, concentrations of smoke emission contaminants will not be likely to
accumulate to the point of violating air quality standards (FEIS, pages 74 to 76). Prescribed burns
will be planned, designed, and implemented to achieve good smoke dispersal and minimize adverse
smoke effects to air quality and public health and safety.

National Historic Preservation Act

The Southwestern Region has established a programmatic agreement with the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and State Historic Preservation Officers (SHPOs) that stipulates
the Forest Service’s responsibilities for complying with NHPA. The Southwestern Region has
developed a standard consultation protocol for large scale hazardous fuels reduction, vegetation
treatment, and habitat improvement projects: Appendix J of the programmatic agreement. By
following the procedures of the protocol, the ACHP and SHPOs have agreed that the Forest
Service would satisfy legal requirements for the identification, evaluation, and treatment of
historic properties. The ASNFs is complying with the protocol in lieu of standard consultation in
the programmatic agreement and the council’s regulations (36 CFR 800). In consultation with the
SHPO, the terms of the protocol allow for the appropriate level of cultural resources surveys to be
completed after the NEPA decision, but prior to implementation of the project activities (FEIS

pages 224 to 231).

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

10


The Forest Service identified one significant issue during scoping; Alternative C was developed

to address the issue (PR 313, 352, 357). Scoping in 2012 did not change the significant issue:
Issue 1: Thinning and burning activities may cause unforeseen mortality among larger size classes
of “leave” trees. Removal of trees larger than 16 inches in diameter when combined with potential
mortality may place post-treatment large tree densities below target densities. This may negatively
affect old growth quality and quantity and wildlife habitat quality, quantity, and populations.

In September 2011 as part of the HFRA objection period on the environmental assessment (EA),
an objection was filed, which resulted in reconsideration of the planning process (PR 465) with a
response to the objection from the Regional Forester (PR 471). The EA was used to develop an
EIS with a Notice of Intent (NOD) to prepare an EIS published in March 2012 (PR 477). The
DEIS was published for the notice and comment period in September 2012 (PR 533). Responses
to comments were published as part of the FEIS. The FEIS was provided to the public for an
objection period in May 2013 and the Notice of Availability (NOA) for the FEIS was published in
the Federal Register on May 3, 2013. Three objections were received and were responded to by
the Reviewing Officer in July 2013. Directions provided to the Responsible Official as a result of
one of the objections were incorporated into the decision and are documented in this ROD.

Tribal Consultation

Tribal consultation has occurred throughout the project development and analysis. In July 2008,
the forests sent a consultation letter providing information and seeking involvement and
comments to nine tribes including the White Mountain Apache, San Carlos Apache, Tonto
Apache, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Hopi Tribe,
Navajo Nation, and Fort McDowell Indian Community who all have historic ties and an interest
in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (PR 340). Two responses to the 2008 scoping were
received (PR 341, PR 344). There were no concerns identified by the Tribes with the project or
traditional cultural properties that would be affected by the project. In 2012, the Tribes were
contacted and updated about the progress of the project. Comments on the DEIS from the White
Mountain Apache and Navajo Nation have been included as part of the FEIS.

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations

This decision is consistent with applicable laws, regulations and Agency directives. The following is
not an all-inclusive listing, but summarizes conformance with the laws and regulations most relevant
to this decision.

Endangered Species Act

This decision is consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The FEIS discloses
potential impacts to Federally-listed terrestrial species (FEIS pages 83 to 106), concluding that
the selected alternative may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect any federally listed
species. Minor short-term effects are expected to critical habitat of Mexican spotted owl, which
will result in long-term benefits to the habitat. Aquatic species are also described (FEIS 175-179),
concluding that although some species may occur, none are known to occur in the project area.
The conclusion is that actions from this decision may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect
the listed aquatic species.

Informal consultation occurred with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The USFWS

concurred with the biological finding (PR 444 and PR 511) concluding that this action would not
jeopardize the continued existence of listed, proposed, or candidate species or designated critical
habitat for listed under the Endangered Species Act. As described in the FEIS (page 102-105) the

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


proposed activities. Per appendix J of the programmatic agreement, prior to the authorization of
on-the-ground work for each phase of the project, the following must be completed:

o Inventory (survey), identification (site recording) and NRHP evaluation are documented in

a Section 106 compliance inventory report and a signed Forest Service inventory standards

and accounting (ISA) form are completed.

o Site protection requirements shall be documented in the inventory report and on the FS ISA

form and the protection requirements shall be completed.

3. Timber and fire project managers will work with the zone archaeologist to assure there is
adequate notification and time to conduct inventory surveys prior to implementation. Since the
entire area may not be 100 percent surveyed and the entire area is proposed for prescribed
burning, all phases will result in a “no adverse effect” (unless no cultural resources are present).
All reports shall be sent to the SHPO. Protection measures shall be selected from appendix J,
section II. Section II includes a list of protection measures that the forests can draw from to
ensure that adverse effects to cultural resources are avoided or minimized. These measures
include but are not limited to the following:

o No treatments or ground disturbance within site boundaries -or-

© Allow treatments within site boundaries provided: cutting is accomplished using hand tools
only; large diameter trees are felled away from all features; materials removed from the site
are removed by hand; no dragging of logs, trees, or thinned material across or within site
boundaries.

© No use of vehicles or other mechanized equipment within site boundaries.

© No staging of equipment within site boundaries.

© No slash piles within site boundaries.

© The forest archaeologists may approve additional measures to further protect sites.

o In the case of broadcast burning, only fire sensitive sites will require protection from
prescribed fire. Generally sites sensitive to fire effects include, but are not limited to, rock
art, prehistoric sites with flammable architectural elements and other flammable features or
artifacts, dendrogylphs (aspen art), historic sites with standing or down wooden structures,
or other flammable features or combustible artifact materials (such as wood, historic
properties) will require protection.

o For mechanized treatments, all cultural resources (excluding the General Crook Trail and
Heber Reno Sheep Driveway) listed, eligible, or unevaluated for the NRHP will be marked
for avoidance. Treatments and associated project activities will comply with the guidelines
for the General Crook Trail stated in the forest plan.

Use of motorized vehicles on any portion of the route not specifically designated and
designed for motorized vehicle travel is prohibited. Emphasize protection for the historic
value of the trail route. Manage a 200-foot-wide corridor to preserve evidences of historic
roadway and landscape character, including related historic trees, markers, gravesites, and
water holes.

© Motorized use of the route is defined as traveling on the trail route by motorized
vehicle/equipment. Roads for access and hauling will be used that cross over the
nonmotorized portion of the trail. This activity is in compliance with the forest plan and
will not adversely affect the trail and its associated historic features. Segments of the trail
that are specifically designed for motorized vehicle travel will be used.

o The proposed activities will not adversely affect the characteristics that make the Heber-
Reno Sheep Driveway District eligible for the NRHP. No protection measures are

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Appendix C — Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Mitigation Measures
(from FEIS Appendix B)

Air Quality Protection

Smoke from prescribed burning would comply with Arizona Department of Environmental
Quality (ADEQ) requirements. ADEQ considers the cumulative effects of smoke emissions from
multiple jurisdictions prior to approving daily prescribed burning activities. This mitigates the
potential for severe smoke effects from multiple prescribed fire projects to the entire action area.

Aquatic Protection

The forest plan emphasizes maintaining satisfactory riparian areas in MA 3. This management
gives priority emphasis to the following streams: Chevelon Creek, Willow Springs Creek, Woods
Canyon Creek, and Willow Creek. Specific standards and guidelines for riparian areas in MA 3
include:

1. Prevent siltation not to exceed 20 percent (85 mm) in riffle areas.
2. Manage for and maintain at least 80 percent of near natural shade over water surfaces.
3. Maintain 80 percent of the spawning gravel surface free of inorganic sediment.

4. Manage for stream temperatures not to exceed 68 degrees Fahrenheit, unless not technically
feasible.

5. Manage for and maintain at least 60 percent of the woody plant composition in three or more
riparian species.

6. Manage for and maintain at least three age classes of riparian plants, with at least 10 percent of
the woody plant cover in sprouts, seedlings, and saplings.

7. Manage for and maintain at least 60 percent near natural shade and tree crown cover.

8. Manage and maintain or improve all riparian areas to satisfactory riparian condition.

9. Manage for or maintain at least 60 percent of potential habitat capability (HCI) for Apache
trout, rainbow trout, brook trout, brown trout, loach minnow, and Little Colorado spinedace.

10. Manage for and maintain at least 80 biotic condition index in all perennial streams.
11. In addition, forest plan direction for MA 3 for both priority and nonriparian area includes:

o Manage and maintain or improve all riparian areas to satisfactory riparian condition.

© Manage for or maintain at least 60 percent of HCI for Apache trout, rainbow trout,
brook trout, brown trout, loach minnow, and Little Colorado spinedace.

Cultural Resource Protection

1. Cultural resources in the Rim Lakes Project area are vulnerable to impacts from mechanical
treatment, road construction and improvements, prescribed fire, and human disturbance
associated with these undertakings.

2. All Rim Lakes proposed treatments should be managed as having either “no effect” or “no
adverse effect” to cultural resources. This means that all sites listed, eligible, or unevaluated for
the National Register Historic Places (NRHP) would be avoided or not adversely affected by

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 29


Figure 2. Project Area Map

‘> HisbonatFotestBourday mam State Hghrzay

Sremtoniey | — Foto
TC otter Onner —  Dramages,

I Fesencors

" entetinomne gern wan mae

——— Ginerenngoant Raves,
free pSeincy conse cenamee on

Location

The project area comprises the Rim Lakes Ecosystem Management Area (EMA), which is
approximately 33,600 acres on the Black Mesa Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National
Forests. The northeastern boundary of the project area abuts the community of Forest Lakes. A
small subdivision, Rancho Allegre, is a private land inholding in the western portion of the
project area. The general boundaries are the 500K V power line near the Dude Fire on the west
and along the Mogollon Rim to Forest Lakes on the east (Figures 1 and 2). The Rim Lakes
Recreation Area (RLRA) is within the project area and is a highly desirable recreation destination
for the southern Arizona population for climatic relief, inspiring vistas from the edge of the
Mogollon Rim, and water-based recreation. Most of the district’s developed recreation facilities
are located within the RLRA.

The Chevelon Canyon Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) overlaps the eastern portion of the
project area but no mechanical treatments will occur within the IRA and no roads will be
constructed in the IRA for this project. The Chevelon Creek Wild and Scenic River (eligible at a
“wild” status) is located in the project area, but no mechanical treatments will occur in the
corridor. The legal land description for the project area is: T11N, R13E; T11N, R13E; TIN,
RI4E; TIN, R15E; T12N, R12E; T12N, R13E; TIO“N, R14E; TIO"“N, RISE.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


ponderosa pine of the 4FRI area occurs as seral aspen, and regenerates after disturbance.
Favorable soil and moisture conditions maintain stable aspen over time.

Problem Statement

Aspen occurs within ponderosa pine forests, and is ecologically important due to the high
concentration of biodiversity that depends on aspen for habitat (Tew 1970, DeByle 1985, Finch
and Reynolds 1987, Griffis-Kyle and Beier 2003). In addition, stable aspen stands serve as an
indicator of ecological integrity (Di Orio and others 2005). However, aspen is currently declining
at an alarming rate (Fairweather and others 2008).

The loss of fire as a natural disturbance regime in southwestern ponderosa pine forests since
European settlement has caused much of the aspen-dominated lands to succeed to conifers
(Bartos 2001). Other factors contributing to gradual aspen decline over the past 140 years include
reduced regeneration from browsing by livestock and introduced and native wild ungulates in the
absence of natural predators like wolves (Pearson 1914, Larson 1959, Martin 1965, Jones 1975,
Shepperd and Fairweather 1994, Martin 2007). More recently, aerial and ground surveys indicate
more rapid decline of aspen, with 90% mortality occurring in low elevation aspen sites and over
60% mortality observed in mid-elevations. Major factors thought to be causing this rapid decline
of aspen include frost events, severe drought, and a host of insects and pathogens (Fairweather
and others 2008) that have served as the “final straws” for already compromised stands.

Removal of encroaching pine trees constitutes part of an overall aspen restoration effort. Thinning
alone without addressing other sources of degradation, such as excessive herbivory is unlikely to
successfully restore aspen forests.

Some stakeholders expressed that considerable uncertainty exists around fire regimes for aspen in
ponderosa pine, and that research questions remain unanswered around the prevalence of mixed-
severity fire and its ecological role as a driving force for aspen stands at the top of its elevational
range, and on steep slopes within this vegetation type.

Ecological Objectives

(1) Conserve and restore aspen forests and woodlands within 4FRI area by restoring appropriate
fire regimes and decreasing competition from ponderosa pine.

(2) Protect regeneration, saplings, and juvenile trees from browsing.

Criteria
Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement trees may be cut in conifer-encroached seral aspen stands
according to the following criteria:

(1) Where current post-settlement ponderosa pine tree numbers are above and beyond
residual targets (identified using pre-settlement conifer tree evidences), and

(2) Where fire cannot be used safely and effectively to regenerate or maintain aspen, or
(3) Where site visitation and/or data collection and analysis indicates the need for
encroachment mitigation, and

(4) Where removing large trees does not conflict with existing recovery/conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat

Note: There may be additional areas and/or circumstances identified for aspen restoration through a site
specific agreement-based, collaborative process as described in the 4FRI Charter.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


© Place water control features so there is adequate filter distance between structure outlets
and stream channels (minimum of 50 feet and width can increase as slope steepness
increases).

Water/Soil Protection

1. The contractor shall take all reasonable precautions to prevent pollution of all national forest
soil and water. Equipment operators shall maximize the recovery and proper disposal of all
fuels, fluids, lubricants, empty containers, and replacement parts. Refuse resulting from the
contractor’s use, servicing, repair, or abandonment of equipment shall be removed from
National Forest System lands by the contractor to the appropriate disposal facilities. Any
leaks originating from contractor equipment shall be repaired or the equipment replaced in a
timely manner (pollution/refuse control).

2. Acceptance of Project Erosion Control Measures Before Project Closure: the authorized FS
officer will verify that the contractor has implemented erosion control practices prior to
closure of the project contract (general).

3. Machine Piling of Slash: Where slash is machine piled, minimize disturbance to existing
ground cover, surface soil, and rock material, and any existing surface organic material (i.e.
surface litter and duff and old semi-decomposed branches and logs). Rough piling will also
reduce impacts from equipment. Rough piling involves piling only large concentrations of
slash, leaving areas of low concentration undisturbed. Machine pile when soils are dry or
solidly frozen. Refer to the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Guidelines for Excessive
Rutting,” 6/10/92, as a guide to determine when soils are too wet to operate. Keeping slash
piles free from soil material will minimize smoldering of piles when burning, which should
have a positive effect on air quality. Refer to number 5 above for retention of coarse woody
debris (soil productivity).

4. Landings created by the treatment would be approximately one quarter to | acre in size with an
average of one landing every 20 acres. Landings would have material piled onsite or moved
into smaller piles out from the landings or moved back along skid trails. Material from the
landings may be lopped and scattered in disturbed areas to reduce erosion (erosion control).

5. Log Landing Erosion Prevention and Control: Immediately after use, landings will be scarified
as needed to eliminate compaction. Once scarified, log landings are to be reseeded, as
needed, with an erosion control seed mix consisting of primarily native species. Slash or
chips will be scattered on landings to further retard formation of rills and gullies (soil
productivity).

6. Limit the Operating Season Ground-disturbing Activities (tractor skidding, decking, and
machine piling, etc.): shall be limited to dry or solidly frozen soil conditions to reduce
compaction and soil displacement (rutting) that is associated with tree removal activities
when soils are wet or are saturated. Hauling and skidding will be restricted on all soils by the
contract administrator during wet periods to prevent damage to the road system. (See the
“Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Guidelines for Excessive Rutting,” 6/10/92). This is
most important in areas associated with terrestrial ecosystem unit survey mapping units 197
and 207.

7. Tractor Skidding Design: Skid trail design will be agreed upon by the authorized FS officer
and the contractor. To minimize soil disturbance by equipment use, trees are to be felled to
the lead and the authorized FS officer shall locate skid trails as far apart as possible to reduce
the number of skid trails needed to harvest the unit. Use existing skid trails where properly
located. Designate new skid trails throughout the project area to prevent long, straight skid
trails from running up and down slopes. Skidding of logs will be with one end of the log

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


suspended above the ground surface. Skidders will be required to stay on the skid trail
system, except where other objectives take priority (like maximum site disturbance wanted
for seed cuts, etc.), which shall be noted on the stand prescription field card (soil
productivity).

8. Erosion Control on Skid Trails: Skid trails will be water-barred, scarified, and seeded with
primarily native species as needed. All berms and depressions such as ruts will be filled in or
removed, restoring skid trails to the natural grade of the slope to the greatest extent possible.
In addition, slash generated from the project may be spread in addition to water barring where
conditions require (erosion control).

9. Soil Productivity/Coarse Woody Debris: To maintain or improve soil productivity in areas
more than a half mile from private land, manage toward a minimum of 7-14 tons per acre of
coarse woody debris in pine types, and 8-16 tons per acre in the mixed conifer types, in the
3-inch plus size class. Where 7-14 tons per acre of coarse woody debris currently exists,
break up the continuity to reduce potential fire spread. Reduced levels of organic debris may
be allowed within fuelbreaks. Manage toward a minimum of 8-16 tons per acre on mixed
conifer sites of large woody material (3-inch plus) (soil productivity).

10. Soil Productivity/Coarse Woody Debris: Within a half mile around private land; to maintain
or improve soil productivity and maintain low fuel loads, manage toward a minimum of 3-6
tons per acre of coarse woody debris in pine types, in the 3-inch plus size class. Manage
toward a minimum of 5-10 tons per acre on mixed conifer sites of large woody material (3-
inch plus) (soil productivity).

Noxious Weeds

1, If noxious/invasive weed populations are identified prior to implementation, avoid WUI
treatment in the area until noxious weeds are eliminated, or avoid the site occupied by the
weeds. Monitor the site for a minimum of three growing seasons post weed treatment to
determine success of eradication (noxious weeds).

2. If noxious/invasive weeds are identified within a treatment unit while treatment is occurring,
equipment will be cleaned and inspected before moving to another treatment unit (noxious
weeds).

3. Any fills, mulches, or revegetation seeding used during or after project implementation will be
certified weed free (noxious weeds).

4. The Forest Service will be notified prior to each piece of equipment entering the national
forest. Notification will include the location of the equipment’s most recent operations
(noxious weeds).

5. Ensure that all contract equipment moved onto the national forest is free of soil, weeds,
vegetative matter, or other debris that could harbor seeds. Inspect each piece of equipment to
ensure cleanliness, prior to entering the national forest (noxious weeds).

6. Highly disturbed areas with significant bare ground will be reseeded using native seed to
reestablish perennial plants (noxious weeds).

7. Seeding will be considered if natural revegetation of ground cover species does not occur
rapidly enough to protect an area from erosion (noxious weeds).

8. Survey for noxious weeds in treatment units at a time when the growing season is well
established and prior to treatment implementation (noxious weeds).

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 38


Existing Guideline Language
Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource
Management Plan (2009 update)
Pages 56-58

Proposed New Guideline Language

Guidelines

Vegetation Management

Landscapes Outside Goshawk Post-Fledgling Family Areas

No similar direction in forest plan

General: Within ponderosa pine stands, manage over time for
uneven-aged stand conditions composed of heterogeneous
mosaics of tree groups and single trees, with interspaces
between tree groups. The size of tree groups, as well as sizes
and shapes of interspaces should be variable.

No similar direction in forest plan

Manage to develop and maintain a highly-diverse vegetation
mosaic: 60-80 percent of the uneven-aged stand should be under
conifer and deciduous tree crowns.

General: The distribution of vegetation structural
stages for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and
spruce-fir forests is 10 percent grass-forb-shrub
(VSS 1), 10 percent seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20
percent young forest (VSS 3), 20 percent mid-
aged forest (VSS 4), 20 percent mature forest
(VSS 5), 20 percent old forest (VSS 6). NOTE:
The specified percentages are a guide and actual
Percentages are expected to vary + or - up to 3
percent.

For the areas managed for tree crown development, the
distribution of vegetation structural stages for ponderosa pine,
mixed conifer and spruce-fir forests is 10 percent grass-forb-
shrub (VSS 1), 10 percent seedling-sapling (VSS 2), 20 percent
young forest (VSS 3), 20 percent mid-aged forest (VSS 4), 20
percent mature forest (VSS 5), and 20 percent old forest (VSS 6).
Note: the specified percentages are a guide and actual
percentages are expected to vary plus or minus up to 3 percent.

No similar direction in forest plan

Manage to develop and maintain 20 -40 percent of the uneven-
aged stand as canopy gaps (VSS | and VSS 2) and interspaces
between tree groups. Interspaces consist of mixtures of grass,
forbs, shrubs, scattered single trees, and small areas of
nonforested conditions.

No similar direction in forest plan

Tree group spatial distribution may be highly variable based on
local site and current conditions; the interspaces between groups
may range from 20-200 feet, but generally between 40 and 100
feet apart from drip line to adjacent drip line. This spacing of
groups is not affected by single trees in the interspaces.

No similar direction in forest plan

Natural meadows, grasslands, savanna grasslands, wetlands, talus
slopes, and other nontree dominated areas may also occur as
inclusions within the general forest; these inclusions will not be
managed for forest conditions, and are not included within the
uneven-aged stand structure.

No similar direction in forest plan

Over time the spatial location of the tree groups and interspaces
may shift within the uneven-aged stand.

No similar direction in forest plan

Each tree group is generally dominated by one vegetation
structure stage. The spatial arrangement of trees, high dispersion
of VSS structural stage diversity, and interspaces comprise each
uneven-aged forest stand. Collectively these stands aggregate to
uneven-aged forest landscapes, similar to natural conditions.

The distribution of VSS, tree density, and tree
age are a product of site quality in the ecosystem
management area. Use site quality to guide in the
distribution of VSS, tree density and tree ages.
Use site quality to identify and manage dispersal
PFA and nest habitat at 2 to 2.5 mile spacing
across the landscape.

No change

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

26


Notice of Availability and Objection Process

The Notice of Availability (NOA) and the FEIS for public review was published in the Federal
Register on May 3, 2013 and a legal notice was published in the White Mountain Independent on
May 7, 2013. The 30-day pre-decisional objection period ended on June 6, 2013 (36 CFR 218
(2008)). Three formal objections were received by the Deputy Regional Forester for the
Southwestern Region, who served as the objection Reviewing Officer.

Emissions from prescribed burning were the main concern in two of the objections. The forest
held a conference call with one of the objectors to discuss potential resolutions. The Reviewing
Officer responded with a finding that no modification to the analysis documents was needed
(project record-PR 586, 587).

The main issues in the third objection include the construction of temporary roads, retention of
old trees (pre-settlement) and large young trees, standards for defining interspaces when thinning
groups of trees and effects to Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat (PR 588). The forest held a
meeting with this third objector to discuss potential resolution of the objection issues. As a result
of this meeting, the Reviewing Officer issued direction to the Forest Supervisor to apply a set of
conditions upon implementation of the project. The conditions do not affect the analysis that was
conducted and documented in the FEIS and are reflected in the decision that follows.

Decision

Based on the analysis presented in the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the
complete project record, for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project I have decided to select and
implement Alternative B, with modifications. This alternative will implement the following
actions:

¢ Selectively cut trees and broadcast burn after treatment on approximately 23,615 acres: in
ponderosa pine and pine-oak. Maintenance burns will occur after these initial treatments. In
dry mixed-conifer, no reentry maintenance burns will occur.

e Broadcast burn without selectively cutting trees on approximately 9,339 acres. In ponderosa
pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns will occur after the initial prescribed burns; in dry
mixed conifer, no reentry maintenance burns will occur.

¢ Selectively cut trees with no follow-up broadcast burn on approximately 56 acres.

Open approximately 185 miles of existing closed roads to be used for treatment activity. Close
roads when treatments are finished and rehabilitate as needed.

¢ Construct 1.36 miles of temporary roads, which have been determined necessary to protect
the General Crook historic trail from heavy machinery. No temporary roads will be
constructed in other parts of the project. (This is a modification from Alternative B as
described in the FEIS, which states that 2.6 miles of temporary roads would be constructed.)

e Allocate approximately 6,900 acres of forest to be managed for old-growth characteristics.

There are additional conditions that will be applied to implementation of this decision, resulting
from the objection received and the subsequent direction from the Reviewing Officer. These
conditions become a part of this decision and are as follows:

e Retain all old trees (pre-settlement trees) except where they present a health and safety risk.
Utilize the exception categories from the September 13, 2011 (pages 8-24), Old Growth
Protection and Large Tree Retention Strategy to inform development of the marking guides.
This strategy consists of eight exception categories with criteria under which large trees can
be cut. These eight categories are provided in Appendix A of this document (PR 463).

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


2. Adjustments of management area boundaries or management prescriptions resulting from
further on-site analysis when the adjustments do not cause significant changes in the
multiple-use goals and objectives for long-term land and resource management.

Minor changes in standards and guidelines.

4. Opportunities for additional projects or activities that will contribute to achievement of
the management prescription.
As Forest Supervisor of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, I have determined from the
review of the FEIS that this amendment does not change goals, objectives, or outputs of the
Forest Plan. I have also determined the amendment provides a better means of achieving the
desired ecological conditions described in the Forest Plan for northern goshawk habitat.

Based on review of the EIS, and considering the following factors and findings, I determine this
amendment is a non-significant amendment.

The need for change is described in the FEIS, pages 3 to 9.

Effects of this change are documented in the FEIS.

Public notice of this change occurred in March 2012 during scoping for the EIS and in
September 2012 when the DEIS was published for public comment.

e An option was considered that would have imposed a 16-inch diameter limit on tree cutting.
This option would have required an amendment to the Forest Plan to emphasize even-aged
treatments in places where the current plan requires uneven-aged management. For reasons
stated in the decision rationale section above, I did not select this option.

e Best available science supports this amendment. Habitat needs for the Northern goshawk
have been well defined in the literature for a number of years. However, because of
conservative interpretations, emphasis has been placed on retaining all trees greater than 16
inches in diameter. The science simply does not support that course of action and this
amendment is necessary in order to clarify how to implement uneven-aged treatments to meet
goshawk habitat needs.

Administrative Review

This decision is not subject to further administrative review. The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration
Project is an HFRA project subject to regulations at (36 CFR 218.11—June 2008). The Forest
Service completed the objection process set forth in 36 CFR 218, which implements a pre-
decisional administrative review process for the proposed hazardous fuel reduction projects
authorized by the HFRA (36 CFR 218.13—June 2008). There were three official objections
received on the FEIS, and a decision was made regarding each objection by the Reviewing
Officer on July 5, 2013.

Implementation

This decision was signed after the Reviewing Officer responded to all pending objections and no
sooner than the fifth business day following the end of the objection filing period (36 CFR
218.11). Therefore implementation of this decision is now authorized to begin.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

13


Appendix A— Eight Exception Categories from the Old Growth Protection
and Large Tree Retention Strategy

The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project decision incorporates the eight exception categories
under which large trees can be cut, from the document titled “Old Growth Protection and Large
Tree Retention Strategy.” This document was developed by the Four Forest Restoration Initiative
and is dated September 13, 2011 (PR 463). The eight exception categories will be used to inform
the marking guides for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project upon implementation. The eight
categories found on pages 8-24 of the strategy document have been included here.

1. Seeps & Springs
Suggested Tree Marking Exception Code: “S”

Identifiable Circumstance

Seeps are locations where surface-emergent groundwater causes ephemeral or perennial moist
soil or bedrock, where standing or running water is infrequent or absent and that exhibit
vegetation and other biological diversity adapted to mesic soils.

Springs are small areas where surface-emergent groundwater causes ephemeral or perennial
standing or running water, wet or moist soils and that exhibit vegetation and other biological
diversity adapted to mesic soils or aquatic environments (Feth and Hem 1963).

Problem Statement

Seeps exhibit unique, often isolated biophysical conditions that can sustain unique, mesic-adapted
biological diversity and can facilitate endemism and speciation. In the absence of frequent fires
and in the presence of livestock grazing, large post-settlement trees may have established and
grown in such proximity to seeps to compromise available soil moisture or light upon that afford
those unique biophysical conditions.

Springs exhibit unique, often isolated biophysical conditions that can sustain unique, mesic-
adapted or aquatic biological diversity and can facilitate endemism and speciation. Springs also
provide water and other habitat to terrestrial wildlife. In the absence of frequent fires and in the
presence of livestock grazing, large post-settlement trees may have established and grown in such
proximity to springs to compromise available soil moisture (Simonin et al. 2007) or light upon
that afford those unique biophysical conditions.

Removal of these trees may constitute a relatively small part of an overall seep and spring
restoration effort when compared to addressing root causes of overall degradation. Thinning
alone without addressing other sources of degradation is unlikely to restore seeps and springs
(Thompson et al. 2002).

Ecological Objectives

(1) Conserve and restore the biophysical conditions in seeps and springs upon which
terrestrial, mesic-adapted and aquatic native biological diversity depend.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 15


Record of Decision

Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project
USDA Forest Service
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests
Coconino County, Arizona

Background

The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project is proposed under the authority of the Healthy Forest
Restoration Act (HFRA), which authorizes actions that increase the resiliency of vegetation to
fire, insects, diseases and other stressors such as climatic variability; and to restore the health and
ecological functions of fire-adapted forest ecosystems. Specific to this project area, the need for
change is as follows:

¢ Move forest stand densities toward desired conditions that exhibit forest health, promote large
tree development, and promote herbaceous understory species richness.

e Reduce the risk of a stand-replacing crown fire by reducing stand densities, reducing canopy
bulk density/continuity, increasing crown heights, and creating more stand openness.

¢ Move Mexican spotted owl (MSO) habitat types toward the desired condition of stand density
and forest structure consistent with the forest plan and MSO recovery plan.

¢ Move goshawk habitat types toward desired conditions. For example, variable tree group
sizes, age classes, and densities, as well as variable sized interspaces between groups.

¢ Reduce the basal area on most of the forest to reduce bark beetle hazard, and selectively
reduce the severity and continuity of dwarf mistletoe infection.

¢ Consistency with the 1996 forest plan amendment with respect to old growth management,
which means increasing the allocated old growth toward a 20 percent goal from the 7 percent
current condition.

e Amend the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan
(USDA 1987)” (forest plan) in order to achieve project restoration objectives and to assure
consistency with the forest plan.

The proposed action has been developed using a collaborative process that spans several years.

The framework for developing the desired conditions related to restoration of frequent-fire forests

led to the publication of a manuscript now in press called “Restoring Composition and Structure

in Southwestern Frequent Fire Forests: A Science Based Framework for Improving Ecosystem

Resiliency.”

After developing the proposal and conducting environmental analysis in collaboration with the
public, the environmental assessment for this project underwent an objection process in
September 2011 pursuant to 36 CFR 218. An objection was raised during that period, and after
consideration of that objection, the Forest Supervisor for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests
elected to document the project’s analysis in an environmental impact statement (EIS). A Notice
of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register March 30, 2012. The
Forest Supervisor also elected to include a Forest Plan amendment, as described in Appendix B.

The interdisciplinary analysis, which considered best available science, is documented in the
project record. This decision incorporates by reference the analysis of effects disclosed in the
Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and the project record in its entirety.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


previous occasions, i.e., litter and vegetation has moved, or there is a lack of litter in the
channel.

2. The water quality objectives for harvest treatments within close proximity to ephemeral
drainages is to provide for or to retain sufficient amounts of ground cover possible to mitigate
sediment input to the stream system and to minimize the number of crossings to retain
streambank and stream bottom stability. No specific stream buffers are recommended,
however, there are harvest techniques that aid in the retention of ground cover and are
considered best management practices. The following are recommended BMPs for harvesting
activities around ephemeral drainages, whether designated on a map or not (ephemeral
channels).
© No skidding will be allowed up or down ephemeral channels or in low points or swales.

(ephemeral channels).
© No road construction will be allowed in or immediately adjacent to ephemeral streams
except at designated crossings (ephemeral channels).

o All skid trails crossing drainages will be designated and approved by the authorized FS
officer prior to activity, and will be at right angles to streambanks.

o Minimize the number of skid trail and road crossings across these channels.

© No log decks will be located within or immediately adjacent to the ephemeral streams or
depressions,

© Maintain an undisturbed filter strip of vegetation and litter between skid trails/log
decks/roads and the channel wide enough to prevent sediment from entering the channel.

© Construct water control features (waterbars, leadout ditches, etc.) on these skid trails and
roads.

o Minimize the amount of logging debris deposited in ephemeral channels and remove excess
debris by hand or end lining with one end suspension except where coarse woody debris
is needed for stream health as identified by fisheries or watershed specialists (ephemeral
channels).

© Do not cut trees where the root system is important in maintaining the integrity of the bank.

o The preferred method for extracting biomass using feller-buncher or grapple skidder
equipment near ephemeral drainages (within 75 feet) will be to approach the material to
be extracted on the contour to the ephemeral drainage as much as possible, cut or grapple
biomass, then back equipment out as much as possible. This action will reduce ground
disturbance by limiting the turning of equipment in or near the stream channels, and will
retain as much of the filtering effect of undisturbed ground cover as possible. Slash can
be placed to drive equipment over to reduce rutting and soil disturbance.

o Outslope roads/skid trails to minimize concentration of water/sediment into streams closer
than 50 feet to channel.

o During servicing or refueling of equipment, pollutants shall not be allowed to enter any
waterway, riparian area, or stream course. Select service and refueling areas well away
from wet areas and surface water, and by constructing berms around such sites to contain
spills. Spill prevention, containment, and countermeasures plans are required if the fuel
exceeds 660 gallons in a single container or if total storage at a site exceeds 1,320
gallons. The project contract administrator shall designate the location, size, and
allowable uses of service and refueling areas. The authorized FS officer shall be aware of
actions to be taken in case of a hazardous substance spill (pollution/refuse control).

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 36


Problem Statement

In stands where pre-settlement evidences, restoration objectives, community protection, or other
social or ecological restoration objectives indicate much lower tree density and BA would be
desirable, large post-settlement pines may need to be removed to achieve post-treatment
conditions consistent with a desired restoration trajectory. In stands where evidences indicate that
higher tree density and BA would have occurred pre-settlement, only a few large pines may need
to be removed. Many of these areas would support crown fire, and thus require structural
modification to reduce crown fire potential and restore understory vegetation that supports
surface fire.

Ecological Objectives
Natural heterogeneity of forest, savannah and grasslands occurs at the landscape scale.

e Natural heterogeneity exists within stands.

e Canopy fuel discontinuity reduces the probability of torching and crowning and restores
herbaceous fuel continuity to carry surface fire.

e Natural fire (rather than silviculture) is the principle regulator of forest structure over time.

e Restore groups by retaining the largest trees on the landscape to most quickly re-establish old
growth structure, where appropriate to site conditions, restoration and species conservation
objectives.

Criteria
Large (>16” dbh) post-settlement ponderosa pine trees may be removed to meet restoration
objectives according to these criteria:
(1) When the presence of such trees contributes to continuous canopy promoting unnaturally
severe mid- or larger-scale (100+ acre) fire effects under severe fire weather conditions;
(2) When the cutting of such trees is necessary to meet site-specific social or ecological
objectives such as reducing potential for crown fire spread into communities or important
habitats such as for Mexican spotted owls and/or goshawk nest stands;
(3) When other exception categories, if implemented, would not alleviate the afore-mentioned
severe fire effects;
(4) When removing the trees does not conflict with existing recovery / conservation plan
objectives for managing sensitive, threatened or endangered species or their habitat.

Note: It is not necessary that trees or groups be located in the same location that they were in before

settlement. That is, trees might be retained in areas that were openings before settlement, and openings
might be established in areas that had previously supported pre-settlement trees.

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

24


Cover Photos: Fulton Point now and in 1909. Fulton Point is within the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration
Project area.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and
activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, sex,
marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information,
political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any
public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with
disabilities who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille,
large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and
TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights,
1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or
(202) 720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper — July 2013


5. All operations will require appropriate signing, gates, or other traffic accommodations to
provide for the safety of the public in the project area. Signs placed along haul routes and
adjacent forest development roads must meet the current MUTCD standards developed by the
U.S. Department of Transportation. Implement road closures and/or area closure restrictions
as deemed necessary by forest officials for health and safety concerns during any operation.

6. Restrict treatment activities in units adjacent to the Rim Lakes Recreation Area and the forest
system roads listed: 9514L, 9512E, 149, 148, 181, 9500A, 300X, 195, 9354, 208 89, 260C2,
171, 84, 89A, 105, 300A, 9350, 300B, 105A through 105N, 260, 300 from 300B east to the
state route.

7. No treatments before 8 a.m. every day between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

8. No treatments between 12 noon Fridays and 8 a.m. Mondays.

9. No treatments on Federal observed holidays.

10. No treatments the week of the Federal observed July 4th holiday if the Federal observed July
4 holiday falls on Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.

11. Implement road closures, one-way traffic, and area closure restrictions as deemed necessary
by forest officials for health and safety concerns during any operation.

12, Evaluate and adjust haul routes and restrictions within the Rim Lakes Recreation Area and to

the north to reflect any increase or decrease in traffic volume of forest visitors in the
foreseeable future.

13. Separate designated snowmobiles trails and project implementation traffic/haul routes.

Road Protection

1. To protect the existing road system, all hauling shall take place only during dry or frozen
conditions.

2. There will be seasonal haul restrictions on FR 300 based on snow level and saturation of soil.
Snow level on the ground should be between 12 and 36 inches. Roads should be dry or frozen
and have a minimum of 4 inches of snowpack at all times. Typical closure could be, but is not
limited to, December 20 through April 1 of any given year. If needed, an alternate route can
be used to divert around the paved section of FR 300 in order to protect the integrity of the
road surfacing. This alternate route would include the use of FR 105, 9500, and the 235
corridor. This action will need to receive prior approval from the Forest Service before any
activity could take place.

Scenic Resource Protection

Stump heights should be 6 inches or less within the immediate foreground (up to 300 feet from
National Forest System roads and trails, scenic byways, other designated visually sensitive
travelways. This also applies within developed recreation sites and adjacent to known or
designated dispersed camping sites.

Vegetation Protection

1. Broadcast burning will be conducted under conditions to preserve desired forest structures and
densities.

2. Priority for maintenance burns should be ponderosa pine forest types that have not experienced
fire in the last 10 years. Areas that have experienced fire in the last 2 years should be of

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project


Existing Guideline Language
Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource
Management Plan (2009 update)
Pages 56-58

Proposed New Guideline Language

Snags are 18 inches or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet
or larger in height, downed logs are 12 inches
in diameter and at least 8 fect long, woody
debris is 3 inches or larger on the forest floor,
canopy cover is measured with vertical crown
projection on average across the landscape.

Snags are 18 inches or larger d.b.h. and 30 feet or larger in
height, downed logs are 12 inches in diameter and at least 8 feet
long, woody debris is 3 inches or larger on the forest floor.

The order of preferred treatment for woody
debris is: 1) prescribed burning, 2) lopping and
scattering, 3) hand piling or machine grapple
piling, and 4) dozer piling.

No change

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover guidelines apply
only to mid-aged to old forest structural stages
(VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not to grass-
forb-shrub to young forest structural stages
(VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3).

Canopy Cover: Canopy cover is evaluated with vertical crown
projection within mid-aged to old forest structural stage groups
(VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6) and not within grass-forb-shrub to
young forest structural stage groups (VSS 1, VSS 2, and VSS 3)
or in interspaces, natural meadows, and grasslands, or other
areas not managed for forest conditions.

Spruce-Fir: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest
(VSS 4) should average 1/3 60 percent and 2/3
40 percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should
average 60+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6)
should average 60+ percent. Maximum opening
size is | acre with a maximum width of 125
feet. Provide 2 groups of reserve trees per acre
with 6 trees per group when opening size
exceeds 0.5. Leave at least 3 snags, 5 downed
logs, and 10-15 tons of woody debris per acre.

No change

Mixed Conifer: Canopy cover for mid-aged
forest (VSS 4) should average 1/3 60+ percent
and 2/3 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5)
should average 50+ percent, and old forest
(VSS 6) should average 60+ percent. Maximum
opening size is up to 4 acres with a maximum
width of up to 200 feet. Retain one group of
reserve trees per acre of three to five trees per
group for openings greater than | acre in size.
Leave at least three snags, five downed logs,
and 10-15 tons of woody debris per acre.

No change

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged
forest (VSS 4) should average 40+ percent,
mature forest (VSS 5) should average 40+
percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average
40+ percent. Opening size is up to 4 acres with
a maximum width of up to 200 feet. One group
of reserve trees, three to five trees per group,
will be left if the opening is greater than an acre
in size. Leave at least two snags, three downed
logs, and 5-7 tons of woody debris per acre.

Ponderosa Pine: Canopy cover for mid-aged forest (VSS 4)
should average 40+ percent, mature forest (VSS 5) should
average 40+ percent, and old forest (VSS 6) should average 40+
percent within tree groups. One group of reserve trees, three to
five trees per group, will be left in created regeneration openings
greater than an acre in size. Leave at least two snags per acre,
three downed logs per acre, and 5-7 tons of woody debris per
acre.

Woodland: manage for uneven-age conditions
to sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities

No change

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

27


National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to consider and
disclose the effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. The requirement to prepare an environmental impact statement is designed to
provide decision makers with details of the likely environmental effects of a proposed action and
to inform the public on such effects. The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project FEIS analyzes the
alternatives and displays the effects in conformance with NEPA.

National Forest Management Act

Below are specific findings required by the National Forest Management Act and accompanying
regulations that require the following specific findings:

¢ Consistency with the Forest Plan: This decision, including the non-significant amendment to
the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Plan, is consistent with the goals and objectives of

the forest plan, and complies with the management direction, and standards and guidelines for

all management areas described within the plan.
e Resource Protection: The following twelve statements address resource protection
requirements of NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219.27 (1982 rule):

1,

10.
11.

Alternative B—including mitigation measures described in Appendix C—conserves soil
and water resources and does not allow significant or permanent impairment of the
productivity of the land (FEIS 198, 200-210).

Activities will minimize the risk from serious or long-lasting hazards from flood, wind,
wildfire, erosion, or other natural physical forces.

The project is consistent with the relative resource values involved. It prevents and/or
reduces serious long-lasting hazards and damage from pest organisms, using principles of
integrated pest management.

Alternative B will protect streams, stream banks, shorelines, lakes, wetlands, and other
bodies of water in the project area.

Alternative B provides for and maintains diversity of native plants and animal
communities to meet overall multiple-use objectives.

Alternative B restores, maintains and enhances adequate wildlife habitat to maintain
populations of management indicator species, and hence existing native vertebrate
species (FEIS pages 132 to 167). Habitat will be maintained and improved to the degree
consistent with multiple-use objectives established in the forest plan.

The FEIS assesses potential physical, biological, aesthetic, cultural, engineering, and
economic impacts of Alternative B and is consistent with multiple uses planned for the
forests.

Alternative B prevents the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for
endangered or threatened species (FEIS pages 83 to 107).

There are no rights-of-way corridors needed for the project.
There is no system road construction associated with the project.

In order to avoid impacts to cultural resources (the General Cook Trail), short segments
of temporary roads, totaling 1.36 miles, will be built and then restored as part of this

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

vw


Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision on the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration project,
please contact:

Christopher James, District Ranger

Black Mesa Ranger District
Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

P.O. Box 968

Overgaard, AZ 85933

Phone: (520) 535-4481 FAX; (520) 535-5972

_———— a 7-25 - 2013
/AMES E. ZORNES CJ DATE
Forest Supervisor

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Record of Decision for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project