United States 

Department of

Agriculture

Forest 

Service

Southwestern

Region

MB-R3-01-5

September 2012

Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement for 

the Rim Lakes Forest 

Restoration Project

Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, Coconino County, 

Arizona
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 – September 2012 
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project i

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

for the 

Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Coconino County, Arizona

Lead Agency: U.S. Forest Service

Responsible Official: James E. Zornes, Forest Supervisor

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

P.O. Box 640

Springerville, AZ 85938-0640

(928) 333-4301; FAX: 333-5966

For Information, Contact: Dee Hines, District Ranger

Black Mesa Ranger District

P.O. Box 968

Overgaard, AZ 85933

(928) 535-7300; FAX; (928) 535-5972

Abstract: This environmental impact statement discloses the effects of a proposal to treat 

vegetation in a 33,500-acre project area. The proposed action (alternative B) would selectively cut 

trees on approximately 23,615 acres and then broadcast burn on those acres. On approximately 

9,340 acres, broadcast burning would occur without mechanical treatment. The proposed action 

includes an amendment to the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource 

Management Plan” (forest plan). Alternative C is the other action alternative considered in detail.

It would implement the same proposal, except limit mechanical treatment to trees less than 16 

inches in diameter, moving many treated stands toward even-aged conditions. This alternative 

also proposes an amendment to the forest plan in order to allow for this even-aged condition.

Alternative B is the preferred alternative.

Reviewers should provide the Forest Service with their comments during the review period of the 

draft environmental impact statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond 

to the comments at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the final 

environmental impact statement, thus avoiding undue delay in the decisionmaking process. 

Reviewers have an obligation to structure their participation in the National Environmental Policy 

Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to the reviewers’ position and 

contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553 (1978). 

Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not 

raised until after completion of the final environmental impact statement. City of Angoon v. 

Hodel (9th Circuit, l986) and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. 

Wis. 1980). Comments on the draft environmental impact statement should be specific and should 

address the adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 

1503.3).
ii DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Send Comments to: Dee Hines, Black Mesa Ranger District

Date Comments Must Be Received: To be eligible to participate in the predecisional objection 

process pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218, comments on this draft environmental impact statement 

must be submitted during the 45-day comment period, which begins the day after the notice of 

availability is published in the Federal Register.
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project iii

Summary

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests propose to conduct selective cutting and prescribed 

burning across approximately 33,600 acres of National Forest System lands. The project intends 

to conserve and restore the Rim Lakes Project Area to make—over time—the forest ecosystem 

more sustainable and resilient to natural disturbances such as drought and climatic variability, 

insects, disease, fire, and wind.

The purpose of the project is to restore forest health, move forests toward an uneven-aged forest 

structure with all age classes represented, and restore frequent, periodic surface fire as an 

ecological process, as well as reduce the risk of a stand-replacing fire. The project will also 

improve hydrologic function, improve wildlife habitat—in particular for northern goshawk and 

Mexican spotted owl—and improve scenic quality, as well as move the project area toward forest 

plan old growth management allocation goals.

In order to meet the purpose, this proposed action includes a site-specific, forest plan amendment 

to the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan” (hereafter 

referred to as the forest plan). This amendment clarifies guidelines to assure the proposed action 

can meet its restoration objectives, and to assure consistency with the forest plan.

The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project is authorized under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act 

(HFRA) of 2003. The HFRA contains a variety of provisions aimed at expediting the preparation 

and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal land and assisting rural 

communities. HFRA focuses on four types of land: (1) the wildland-urban interfaces of at-risk 

communities; (2) at-risk municipal watersheds; (3) lands where threatened and endangered 

species or their habitats are at risk to catastrophic fire and where fuels treatment can reduce those 

risks; and (4) where windthrow or insect epidemics threaten ecosystem components or resource 

values. For the Rim Lakes Project, lands lie in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) and contain 

critical habitat for the threatened Mexican spotted owl.

To date, analysis for this proposed action was documented in an environmental assessment that 

underwent an objection period in September 2011. After reviewing objections, the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests supervisor elected to document the analysis in an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). The forest supervisor also elected to include an amendment to the forest 

plan as part of the proposed action in order to achieve project restoration objectives and to assure 

consistency with the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management 

Plan.”

The underlying purpose and need for the project has been determined by comparing the desired 

conditions to the existing conditions within the planning area. Currently, forested lands in the 

project area have departed from the structures and processes that historically kept them in a 

healthy, resilient condition. For example, 97 percent of the forested lands reflect a high stand 

density that makes these forests susceptible to insects and disease. Forests are also at risk of 

uncharacteristically high-severity wildfires, which can lead to loss of entire stands during one fire 

event. About 67 percent of the project area has potential for either active crown fire or passive 

crown fire because of the amount of ladder fuels and the continuous and interlocking tree crowns.

As demonstrated by recent large fires in the lands adjacent to the project area—such as the 

Rodeo-Chediski in 2002—a crown fire would alter ecosystem functions, destroy much of the 

existing wildlife habitat, create sediment problems to the watersheds, and decrease the desirability 

of the area for recreation.
Summary

iv DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Desired conditions call for uneven-aged forests across the project area that exhibit a variety of 

forest densities, spatial arrangements, age/structure conditions, and interspaces between groups. 

The need for change derived from the difference between the existing condition and the desired 

condition is summarized as follows:

• Move stand densities toward desired conditions that promote forest health, large tree 

growth, and increased herbaceous understory species and composition.

• 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 goshawk habitat types toward desired conditions. For example, variable tree group 

sizes, age classes, and densities, as well as variable sized interspaces between groups.

• Move Mexican spotted owl habitat types toward the desired condition of stand density 

and forest structure consistent with the forest plan and Mexican spotted owl recovery 

plan.

• Reduce the basal area on most of the forest to reduce bark beetle hazard, and selectively 

reduce the level of dwarf mistletoe infection.

• Be consistent with the 1996 forest plan amendment, which calls for 20 percent of the area 

being designated for old-growth management.

• Amend the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan”

in order to achieve project restoration objectives and to assure consistency with the forest 

plan.

In response to the purpose and need, the forest proposes the following actions during the next 10 

years or until objectives are met.

• Selectively cut trees and broadcast burn after treatment on approximately 23,615 acres: in 

ponderosa pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns would occur after these initial 

treatments; in dry mixed conifer, no reentry maintenance burns would occur as part of 

this proposal.

• Broadcast burn without selectively cutting trees on approximately 9,339 acres: in 

ponderosa pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns would occur after the initial prescribed 

burns; in dry mixed conifer, no reentry maintenance burns would occur as part of this 

proposal. 

• Selectively cut trees with no followup broadcast burn on approximately 56 acres.

• Open approximately185 miles of existing closed roads to be used for treatment activity. 

Close roads when treatments are finished and rehabilitate as needed. 

• Construct 2.6 miles of temporary road for haul access and obliterate after use (seven short 

segments approximately one-quarter to one-third of a mile each).

• Allocate approximately 6,900 acres of forest to be managed for old-growth 

characteristics.

• 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 
Summary

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project v

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.

In addition to the proposed action (alternative B), another alternative (alternative C) was analyzed 

that limited the cutting of trees to less than 16 inches in diameter (at breast height). Otherwise the 

alternative included the same mechanical equipment and prescribed burning to accomplish the 

treatments using the methods described in the proposed action. Because this alternative would 

result in even-aged management, it would not meet forest plan direction for uneven-aged 

management; therefore, if selected it would require a forest plan amendment to allow for evenage management (forest plan as amended, page 54).

During development of the environmental assessment, comments received were examined for 

issues, or unresolved conflicts directly or indirectly caused by implementing the proposed action. 

Issues serve to highlight effects that may occur from the proposed action and alternatives. The 

Forest Service identified the following issue: Issue 1: Cutting trees and prescribed burning 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.

Scoping for development of this environmental impact statement began with publication of a 

notice of intent in the Federal Register on March 29, 2012. Although several issues were raised 

during this scoping period—in particular the human health effects of smoke from prescribed 

burning—none rose to the level of a significant issue and, therefore, no new alternatives were 

developed in detail (see page 31 for how a “no burn” alternative was considered).

The proposed Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project is subject to the HFRA predecisional 

objection process pursuant to 36 CFR Part 218 Subpart A and is not subject to notice, comment,

and appeal procedures under 36 CFR 215. The 36 CFR 218 predecisional objection process 

requires a 30-day notice and objection period for the final environmental impact statement before 

a decision can be made by the responsible official. Only those who commented during scoping or 

during the comment period for the draft environmental impact statement may file objections (36 

CFR 218.7). 

Major conclusions of this analysis include: 

1. Effects from either action alternative were similar, except alternative B more 

comprehensively meets the purpose and need of the project. With alternative B, the 

benefits would last longer than those benefits realized through alternative C.

2. Alternative B—by opening up canopy gaps—provides a marked reduction in the risk of 

crown fire when compared with either alternative A or alternative C. Although alternative 

C provides some short-term risk reduction, the benefits would require more followup 

treatments to maintain this reduction when compared with alternative B. Alternative B 

treatments are expect to last up to three times longer than those proposed in alternative C.
Summary

vi DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

3. Effects to people from smoke, truck traffic, and other potential hazards were mitigated to 

minimize public safety exposure.

4. Alternative B and alternative C would have similar benefits to vegetation where they both 

reduce stand density. However, because the 16-inch-cutting limit in alternative C would 

require retention of more mid-sized trees, a greater number of small trees would need to 

be removed to meet the density objectives. Therefore, these stands would move toward 

even-aged conditions, with fewer smaller sized trees available for future forest 

development. Alternative C would also retain higher levels of diseased forest, specifically 

from mistletoe.

Given the purpose and need of the project, the forest supervisor will review the proposed action, 

other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions: 

(1) whether to select the proposed action or an alternative; (2) the location, design, and 

scheduling of the proposed thinning, burning, and road maintenance, (3) mitigation measures and 

monitoring requirements; and, (4) the significance of the proposed forest plan amendments.

Alternative B is the preferred alternative.
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project vii

Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action.................................................................................1

Document Structure................................................................................................................................1

Background.............................................................................................................................................1

Location..................................................................................................................................................3

Purpose and Need for Action..................................................................................................................3

General Desired Conditions....................................................................................................................4

Existing Conditions Comparison............................................................................................................7

Stand Density .....................................................................................................................................7

Insect and Disease ..............................................................................................................................7

Forest Structure ..................................................................................................................................8

Old Growth.........................................................................................................................................8

Fire Hazard.........................................................................................................................................9

Proposed Action .....................................................................................................................................9

Decision Framework.............................................................................................................................10

Forest Plan Direction........................................................................................................................10

Public Involvement...............................................................................................................................11

Tribal Consultation ...............................................................................................................................12

Issues....................................................................................................................................................12

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action.........................................................15

Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................15

Forest Plan Consistency........................................................................................................................15

Alternatives Considered in Detail.........................................................................................................15

Alternative A—No Action ...............................................................................................................16

Alternative B—Proposed Action......................................................................................................16

Alternative C—Diameter limit.........................................................................................................28

Common Mitigation Measures—Alternatives B and C....................................................................29

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study.............................................................30

Alternatives that Limit Treatment to a Specific Diameter................................................................30

Alternative to Retain All Trees Germinated Prior to Regular Fire Suppression .............................30

Original Proposed Action.................................................................................................................31

No Burn Alternative .........................................................................................................................31

Monitoring............................................................................................................................................32

Comparison of Effects..........................................................................................................................32

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences...................................37

The Basic Components of an Effects Analysis.....................................................................................37

The Affected Environment...............................................................................................................37

Effects ..............................................................................................................................................37

Affected Environment for Cumulative Effects.....................................................................................39

Vegetation.............................................................................................................................................41

Affected Environment—Vegetative Cover Types............................................................................41

Environmental Consequences—Vegetation .....................................................................................45

Fuels and Fire Potential ........................................................................................................................63

Overall Analysis Summary...............................................................................................................64

Analysis Details................................................................................................................................64

Fire Regime Condition Class............................................................................................................70

Wildlife.................................................................................................................................................77

VSS Classification of Forest Structure.............................................................................................78

Federally Listed Terrestrial Species.................................................................................................83

Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Species...................................................................................107

Migratory Bird Treaty Act..............................................................................................................167

Big Game Forage to Cover Ratio ...................................................................................................171

Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments.........................................................................................171
Contents

viii DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Aquatics Species.................................................................................................................................171

General Aquatic Species Effects....................................................................................................172

Federally Listed Aquatic Species...................................................................................................175

Forest Service Sensitive Species—Aquatic....................................................................................179

Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds.............................................................192

Analysis Area .................................................................................................................................192

Roads..............................................................................................................................................194

Soils................................................................................................................................................196

Water Quality .................................................................................................................................200

Riparian/Stream Condition.............................................................................................................203

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis........................................................................................206

Noxious Weeds ..............................................................................................................................209

Recreation and Lands .........................................................................................................................211

Scenic Resources................................................................................................................................218

Cultural Resources..............................................................................................................................224

Methodology Used for Data Collection and Analysis....................................................................224

Traditional Cultural Properties.......................................................................................................227

Environmental Effects....................................................................................................................227

Contemporary American Indian Uses ............................................................................................230

Engineering and Transportation .........................................................................................................231

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity.....................................................................................236

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts............................................................................................................236

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources.................................................................237

Other Required Disclosures................................................................................................................237

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination..............................................................................239

Federal, State, and Local Agencies Consulted....................................................................................239

Tribes Consulted.................................................................................................................................239

Public Notification..............................................................................................................................239

List of Preparers..................................................................................................................................240

DEIS Distribution...............................................................................................................................241

References Cited.........................................................................................................................243

Appendix

A. Silviculture Treatment Details...................................................................................................247

Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (MSO) Pine-Oak and Mixed Conifer Proposed Treatments .............247

Goshawk Habitat Ponderosa Pine Proposed Treatments...................................................................249

B. Mitigation Measures...................................................................................................................255

Air Quality Protection ........................................................................................................................255

Aquatic Protection ..............................................................................................................................255

Cultural Resource Protection..............................................................................................................255

Protect Range Allotment Infrastructure ..............................................................................................257

Recreation Public Health/Safety.........................................................................................................258

Road Protection ..................................................................................................................................258

Scenic Resource Protection ................................................................................................................259

Vegetation Protection .........................................................................................................................259

Watershed Protection..........................................................................................................................259

General ...........................................................................................................................................259

Riparian/Stream Measures (including wetlands, springs, seeps)....................................................260

Ephemeral Drainages .....................................................................................................................262

Water/Soil Protection .....................................................................................................................264

Noxious Weeds ..............................................................................................................................265

Monitoring......................................................................................................................................266

Wildlife Habitat Protection.................................................................................................................266
Contents

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project ix

C. Specialist Report List..................................................................................................................269

Index ........................................................................................................................................271

List of Tables

Table 1. Forest plan management area context........................................................................................10

Table 2. Mexican spotted owl habitat treated by mechanical with prescribed burning ...........................20

Table 3. Mexican spotted owl treatments by mechanical without prescribed burning ............................20

Table 4. Northern goshawk habitat treatment by mechanical with prescribed burning ...........................20

Table 5. Meadow and riparian enhancement ...........................................................................................24

Table 6. Treatment summary ...................................................................................................................25

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives........................................................................................................33

Table 8. Past vegetation treatments and fire events in the Rim Lakes Project area .................................40

Table 9. Forested and nonforested acres by stratum................................................................................42

Table 10. Comparison of alternatives: project purpose and need .............................................................46

Table 11. Habitat conditions, goshawk foraging post treatment and 20 years (stratum averages) ............51

Table 12. Habitat conditions, PFA/nest, post treatment and 20 years (stratum averages).........................51

Table 13. Habitat conditions, MSO mixed conifer post treatment and 20 years (stratum averages) .........51

Table 14. Habitat conditions, MSO pine oak post treatment and 20 years (stratum averages)..................52

Table 15. Percent of total SDI by size class for MSO restricted mixed conifer habitat.............................56

Table 16. Percent of total SDI by size class for MSO restricted pine-oak habitat .....................................56

Table 17. Goshawk foraging even-aged percent post treatment and plus 20 years....................................57

Table 18. Goshawk foraging uneven-aged percent post treatment and plus 20 years................................57

Table 19. Goshawk PFA stand comparison post treatment and plus 20 years...........................................57

Table 20. Residual trees per acre (TPA) >16" d.b.h. for treatment 

stands only for alternative B following treatment (2011)..........................................................58

Table 21. Total number of residual and harvested trees for alternative B (total treated areas) in 2011.....58

Table 22. Allocated old growth displayed by alternative for the project area and district.........................59

Table 23. Alternative scores based on scoring logic (The highest 

score would meet more of the desired conditions and purpose and need.)................................64

Table 24. Percent of the Rim Lakes area demonstrating potential for types of fire by alternative ............66

Table 25. Percent of different habitat type area and old growth with fire type potential by alternative ....66

Table 26. Fire and fuels extension to the Forest 

Vegetation Simulator results by alternative post treatment .......................................................70

Table 27. Percent of area in each FRCC by alternative 1 year and 20 years post treatment......................72

Table 28. Results of SASEM Model for class 1 airsheds and smoke sensitive areas................................76

Table 29. Wildlife habitat cover types.......................................................................................................77

Table 30. Distribution of existing stand VSS acres in the Rim Lakes Project area ...................................79

Table 31. Proposed alternatives in MSO habitat........................................................................................79

Table 32. Proposed alternatives in northern goshawk habitat....................................................................80

Table 33. Proposed Alternatives in other habitat.......................................................................................80

Table 34. Summary of affects to Federally listed species..........................................................................83

Table 35. Federally listed terrestrial species dismissed from further analysis...........................................84

Table 36. Federally listed terrestrial species analyzed in detail.................................................................84

Table 37. Monitoring summaries of MSO PACs within the project area ..................................................85

Table 38. Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected habitat (1,995 acres) ....................................................86

Table 39. Mexican spotted owl (MSO) restricted habitat (9,281 acres) ....................................................86

Table 40. MSO PACs, nest core habitat, critical habitat, and habitat type in the project area...................87

Table 41. MSO restricted percent of total existing SDI, by d.b.h. class (2010).........................................87

Table 42. MSO mixed conifer existing and desired forest density and snags by stratum..........................89

Table 43. MSO oak-pine forest cover type ................................................................................................89

Table 44. Road Level and Use in MSO PACs and Protected Habitat........................................................90

Table 45. MSO critical habitat with proposed mechanical treatment type and acres ................................90
Contents

x DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 46. MSO critical habitat with proposed prescribed burning ............................................................91

Table 47. Mechanical treatment in MSO habitat .......................................................................................91

Table 48. Low severity burning in MSO PACs.........................................................................................92

Table 49. Low severity broadcast burning on MSO stratified habitat .......................................................92

Table 50. No burn MSO areas, including nest core ...................................................................................92

Table 51. Road level and use in MSO PACs.............................................................................................95

Table 52. Comparison of alternatives on MSO habitat............................................................................101

Table 53. Consistency of alternatives with Mexican spotted owl ESA requirements..............................104

Table 54. Sensitive species reviewed for effects analysis in the project area ..........................................107

Table 55. Sensitive species not analyzed.................................................................................................110

Table 56. Northern goshawk habitat—ponderosa pine forests................................................................111

Table 57. Mid-scale and project area stand structures.............................................................................113

Table 58. Mid-scale/project area BA analysis: all stand structures .........................................................114

Table 59. Existing and desired forest density and snags by goshawk habitat..........................................114

Table 60. Northern goshawk inventory plots for logs/acre, data from area larger than project area .......114

Table 61. Northern goshawk potential fire type comparison of alternatives ...........................................118

Table 62. Mid-scale: outside and inside PFA/nest (all stand structures) .................................................120

Table 63. Project area-scale: all northern goshawk habitat (all stand structures) ....................................123

Table 64. Mid-Scale: basal area outside and inside PFA/NA (all stand structures)................................124

Table 65. Project area scale: basal area all northern goshawk habitat (all stand structures)....................125

Table 66. Existing and desired forest density and snags by northern goshawk stratum ..........................126

Table 67. Northern goshawk inventory plots for logs/acre, data from area larger than project area .......126

Table 68. Sensitive species effects determination for alternatives B and C.............................................128

Table 69. MIS species, habitat components, forest trends, and acres analyzed .......................................133

Table 70. Comparison of MIS habitat forestwide and within the project area.........................................134

Table 71. Estimated herbaceous summer forage needs for elk and mule 

deer in the project area, based on 2003 big game density estimates by AGFD* .....................143

Table 72. Changes in forage-to-cover ratios by alternative throughout the project area .........................145

Table 73. Migratory bird impacts and disturbance effects.......................................................................168

Table 74. Aquatic species designated as threatened ................................................................................175

Table 75. Sensitive aquatic species in the analysis area ..........................................................................179

Table 76. Macroinvertebrate data collected in the Rim Lakes Action Area ............................................185

Table 77. Summary of soil and water effect by alternative .....................................................................192

Table 78. Watershed classifications: fifth and sixth code watersheds....................................................193

Table 79. Road mileage by watershed and project area...........................................................................194

Table 80. Roads and stream density (miles per square mile area) by watershed and project area...........194

Table 81. Soil condition guidelines for selected indicators of soil hydrologic function*........................196

Table 82. Terrestrial ecosystem unit survey (TES), proportional 

extent, characteristics, and management implications* ...........................................................197

Table 83. Example of soil visual indicators of soil disturbance and management activities* .................198

Table 84. Proper functioning condition ratings by 6th code watershed...................................................203

Table 85. Stream mileage by watershed and project area........................................................................204

Table 86. EDA analysis results................................................................................................................207

Table 87. Existing special management areas and wildlife habitat areas.................................................214

Table 88. Potential site densities based *.................................................................................................226

Table 89. Previously recorded sites and their current NRHP status ........................................................226

Table 90. Road analysis summary ...........................................................................................................232

Table 91. Haul route roads located within dispersed camping areas in the project area..........................233

Table 92. Road use summary...................................................................................................................234
Contents

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project xi

List of Figures

Figure 1. Project vicinity.............................................................................................................................2

Figure 2. Project area ..................................................................................................................................4

Figure 3. Relationship among scales...........................................................................................................6

Figure 4. Mechanical treatments in alternative B and alternative C in Mexican spotted owl habitat .......21

Figure 5. Mechanical treatments in alternative B and alternative C 

in goshawk habitat, with meadow enhancement........................................................................22

Figure 6. Old growth allocation for alternative B and alternative C .........................................................23

Figure 7. Stratification of forested and nonforested land ..........................................................................42

Figure 8. Map of fire potential alternative A.............................................................................................68

Figure 9. Map of fire potential alternative B.............................................................................................68

Figure 10. Map of fire potential for alternative C .......................................................................................69

Figure 11. FRCC changes by alternative.....................................................................................................73

Figure 12. Stand structure development......................................................................................................78

Figure 13. MSO habitat including critical habitat designation....................................................................81

Figure 14. Goshawk habitat in analysis area...............................................................................................82

Figure 15. Percent of maximum stand density index in MSO habitat by tree diameter..............................88

Figure 16. Percent of habitat restored to FRCC 1 by alternative ................................................................93

Figure 17. Percent of project area in low and moderate crown fire potential by alternative.....................118

Figure 18. Goshawk habitat and fire type compared by alternative ..........................................................119

Figure 19. VSS distribution in foraging areas (FAs) and PFAs................................................................121

Figure 20. Streamside management zones and ephemeral streams...........................................................210

Figure 21. Project area ROS classifications..............................................................................................212

Figure 22. Transportation system..............................................................................................................235

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this environmental impact statement in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant Federal and state laws and 

regulations. This environmental impact statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

environmental impacts that would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document 

is organized into four chapters: 

• Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action: The chapter includes information on the 

history of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the Agency’s 

proposal for achieving that purpose and need. This section also details how the Forest 

Service informed the public of the proposal and how the public responded. 

• Chapter 2. Alternatives, including the Proposed Action: This chapter provides a more 

detailed description of the Agency’s proposed action as well as alternative methods for 

achieving the stated purpose. These alternatives were developed based on significant 

issues raised by the public and other agencies. This discussion also includes mitigation 

measures. Finally, this section provides a summary table of the environmental 

consequences associated with each alternative. 

• Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences: This chapter 

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

alternatives. 

• Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination: This chapter provides a list of preparers and 

agencies consulted during development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Appendix: The appendix consists of multiple parts and provides additional information to 

support the analyses presented in the environmental impact statement.

• Index: The index provides page numbers by document topic.

Additional documentation, including more detailed analyses of project-area resources, may be 

found in the project planning record located at the Black Mesa Ranger District office.

Background

The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project (Rim Lakes Project) is authorized under the Healthy 

Forest Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. The HFRA contains a variety of provisions aimed at 

expediting the preparation and implementation of hazardous fuels reduction projects on Federal 

land and assisting rural communities. HFRA focuses on four types of land: (1) the wildlandurban interfaces of at-risk communities; (2) at-risk municipal watersheds; (3) lands where 

threatened and endangered species or their habitats are at risk to catastrophic fire, and where fuels 

treatment can reduce those risks; and (4) where windthrow or insect epidemics threaten 

ecosystem components or resource values. For the Rim Lakes Project, lands lie in the wildlandurban interface (WUI) and contain important habitat for the Mexican spotted owl, a species listed 

as threatened under the Endangered Species Act.

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

After developing the proposal and conducting environmental analysis in collaboration with the 

public, the environmental assessment for this project underwent an objection process in 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

2 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

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. A notice of 

intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register March 29, 2012. The forest 

supervisor also elected to include a forest plan amendment, as described in detail below (page 

25), as part of the proposed action.

Figure 1. Project vicinity
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 3

Location

The project area is the Rim Lakes Ecosystem Management Area (EMA) and encompasses 

approximately 33,600 acres on the Black Mesa Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests1 (figure 1). 

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 500KV power line near the Dude Fire on the west and along the 

Mogollon Rim to Forest Lakes on the east (figure 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 waterbased 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 are proposed within the IRA and no roads would 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 are proposed in the 

corridor.

Purpose and Need for Action

The underlying purpose and need for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project has been 

determined by comparing the desired conditions to the existing conditions. Desired conditions 

relevant to this project relate to forest health and ecosystem function and resiliency, as defined in 

the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan.

The need for change derives from the difference between the existing condition and the desired 

condition. It is summarized as follows:

• Move stand densities toward desired conditions that exhibit forest health, promote large 

tree development, and promote herbacious understory species richness.

• 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.

 1 The Apache National Forest and the Sitgreaves National Forest remain two separate forests but are managed together 

as one commonly referred to as the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

4 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

• Be consistent 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.

• Amend the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan”

(forest plan) in order to achieve project restoration objectives and to assure consistency 

with the forest plan. See amendment details on page 25.

Figure 2. Project area

General Desired Conditions

The following is a description of the general desired conditions for the project area. With forest 

vegetation, desired conditions are often described in terms of composition (species mix), structure 

(size, density, and vertical or horizontal arrangement), and function (interaction with other 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 5

physical, chemical, and biological elements of the forest environment). Composition, structure, 

and function bear directly on forest values, whether timber production, wildlife habitat, 

recreational opportunity, aesthetics, livestock grazing, soil and watershed condition, or fire 

regime.

The desired condition would be an uneven-aged forest structure that would reflect a distribution 

of age classes, with a conifer species composition that would favor shade intolerant forest species.

These species—which are most resistant to fire effects—include ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and 

white pine. Shade tolerant conifer species such as white fir would occur, but not be dominant.

Other species such as aspen, oak, and other hardwood species would be well represented and 

would regenerate successfully across the landscape, where local forest biophysical conditions are 

appropriate for development of these species. Forests would be generally vigorous with endemic

or characteristic levels of native insect and disease. southwestern white pine would be present 

throughout the mixed conifer forest type, retaining existing genetic diversity, and regenerating in 

suitable locations. 

The desired condition includes open grass–forb–shrub interspaces totaling 20 percent of the area 

of each stand. This condition also includes canopy gaps for regeneration of small trees (less than 

5 inches in diameter) totaling up to another 20 percent of the area of each stand. 

A variety of forest density, spatial arrangement, and age/structure conditions would exist across 

the landscape, similar to historic conditions. In conifer forests, a distribution of age classes would 

comprise a sustainable balance of structural stages (see page 8), meet general forest plan 

guidelines, and be consistent with the proposed forest plan amendment for this project. In MSO 

protected and restricted/threshold, and goshawk nesting areas, this openness would not be as 

pronounced.

Figure 3 depicts an example of the relationship among three scales of consideration. The project

area scale illustrates multiple stands, as well as natural meadows and grasslands. The middle and 

small scales illustrate open grass–forb–shrub interspaces and uneven-aged stand conditions 

consisting of single and grouped trees of different vegetation structural stages, young to old, 

represented by different shades and sizes. Note that because figure 3 is a hypothetical example, 

specific prescriptions written for site-specific implementation of this concept would not result in 

identical arrangements.

These canopy gaps and interspaces mimic historic spatial patterns and provide a number of 

benefits:

• allow regeneration of shade intolerant tree species, 

• promote grass/forb and shrub growth, 

• improve hydrologic function,

• encourage development of rooting zones for tree groups, and 

• facilitate reintroduction and maintenance of frequent surface fire as an ecological process.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

6 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Forest canopy gaps and interspaces would be dynamic. The intent of the interspaces is for them to 

remain open over time, recognizing that natural vegetation development would allow some of 

them to develop into new tree groups/patches. Also over time, new young tree groups may be 

created because of natural disturbances, such as insect mortality and fire.

Figure 3. Relationship among scales

In this desired condition, managed uneven-aged stands would be less than 45 percent of 

maximum stand density index. In areas outside of MSO protected and restricted threshold 

habitats, the average basal area2 would be less than 80 square per acre, so that bark beetle hazard 

would be low. Ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest types would exhibit uneven-aged 

characteristics (multistoried), except for stands focused on providing goshawk nest and MSO 

protected and restricted/threshold habitats.

 2 Basal area (BA) – the cross-sectional area of a single tree stem, including bark, measured at breast height in square 

feet (SAF 1998).
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 7

Existing Conditions Comparison

The following discussion compares the existing condition to the desired condition.

Stand Density 

Stand density is the dominant factor affecting the health and vigor of the forest. Stand density is 

measured through stand density index (SDI)3 or basal area (BA). In terms of forest health, high 

stand density means the onset of density-related mortality. Currently, 97 percent of the area is 

considered high density. The lower stand densities are concentrated in areas of recent timber sales 

on the west and south side of the project area, within power line corridors, and within the RodeoChediski Fire on the east side of the project area.

Insect and Disease 

Bark beetle hazard ranges from low to high over much of the analysis area. In general, ponderosa

pine stands that have an average diameter greater than 12 inches are hazard-rated based upon BA: 

BA greater than 120 square feet per acre is considered at high hazard to bark beetle attack; a BA 

of 80–120 square feet per acre is considered moderate hazard; and BA less than 80 square feet per 

acre is considered low hazard4

.

Dwarf mistletoe infection in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir is common throughout the project 

area. Dwarf mistletoe species slow growth and cause mortality of conifers. Within the project 

area, southwestern dwarf mistletoe was observed in ponderosa pine on approximately 72 percent

of stands, with about half of these stands lightly infected, and the other half of infected stands 

moderately infected or heavily infected. A few stands have more than 80 percent of the trees 

infected, where even the smallest diameter size classes are severely infected, which severely 

impedes stand structure development. Douglas-fir dwarf mistletoe is less common, observed in 35 

percent of the mixed conifer stands. Most mixed conifer stands are uninfected with Douglas-fir 

dwarf mistletoe (65 percent) or are lightly infected. Only 16 percent of forested stands have 

moderate or higher infection levels.

The desired condition would be to have infection levels of dwarf mistletoe that do not impede 

achieving and sustaining desired uneven-aged forest conditions. To achieve this condition, desired 

dwarf mistletoe infection levels in a stand would not exceed 20 percent infection of the host 

species (trees per acre basis), or 25 percent of the area infected for any given tree species. Further, 

the desired condition for dwarf mistletoe infections would be irregularly distributed among tree 

groups, such that effects are limited to the forest group and patch scale.

White pine blister rust (an exotic disease) has recently been detected in eastern Arizona on both 

the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and Fort Apache Indian Reservation. White pine blister 

rust poses a threat to the sustainability of southwestern white pine, and causes high levels of 

mortality throughout its range. Some genetic resistance to this disease has been identified on 

selected individual white pines on the Lincoln National Forest. For this reason, it is critical that 

 3 SDI is a measure of stand density in relationship to the number of trees in a stand expressed as a percentage of the 

biological maximum density, which is a species-specific measure.

4 McMillin, Joel, “Stand hazard rating for bark beetles attacking southwestern ponderosa pine,” Unpublished paper, 

provided by the Forest Service Southwestern Region Entomologist, October 20, 2004.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

8 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

the full genetic diversity of southwestern white pine be maintained throughout its range. The best 

known practice for accomplishing this is to favor healthy southwestern white pines so populations 

are retained and allowed to regenerate wherever possible.

Forest Structure 

Mexican Spotted Owl Forest Habitat: MSO forest habitats within the project area currently 

provide for the desired distribution of tree sizes specified in the forest plan, except for tree groups 

in the 24 inches and larger d.b.h. class, which are currently slightly below desired representation.

Based upon growth projections, the desired representation for this class would be achieved within 

the next decade. Inside MSO restricted/threshold habitat, the risks remain higher of loss to 

insect/disease or fire because the current value of the habitat outweighs this risk. However, this 

risk is mitigated somewhat by applying uneven-aged management strategy outside protected and 

restricted/threshold habitat, which would reduce risks to large trees posed by insects/disease and 

fire. These large structural stage tree groups (larger than 24 inches in diameter) are already below 

the desired area representation and, if lost, they would be the most difficult habitat component to 

replace.

Goshawk Forest Habitat: Because of their homogenous nature, the existing even-aged stands 

within the Rim Lakes Project area are not desired for goshawk forest habitat, except as nesting 

stands. The existing forest structure does not reflect a balance of vegetation structural stage 

(VSS)5 classes. Most stands lack or have limited amounts of habitat components such as forest 

canopy gaps and interspaces (grass–forb–shrub). Young forests (VSS 3) and mid-aged forests 

(VSS 4) are overrepresented. Grass/shrub, seedling/sapling (VSS 1 and 2) are underrepresented, 

as are mature forests (VSS 5) and old forests (VSS 6), when compared to the desired distribution 

of age/structure in uneven-aged condition. Overall, uneven-aged stand conditions currently 

represent 46 percent of all goshawk habitat in the project area, with the remainder being even 

aged (54 percent). Of the even-aged stands, one third is mid-aged to mature (VSS 4+), and two 

thirds is immature (VSS 1–3).

Since group VSS is determined by the predominant density (by basal area) within the group, the 

numbers referred to above do not represent the many smaller trees—1 to 5 inches in diameter—

that are being overtopped by larger trees. These smaller trees are often not free to develop 

because of the shading from the closed canopy of larger trees in the VSS 3 and 4 classes.

Similarly, many of the larger trees greater than 18 inches in diameter are competing with the 

densely stocked mid-aged trees for water and nutrients. This decreases the vigor and longevity of 

these large trees.

Old Growth

The forest plan defines old growth as a condition of the forest having structural attributes based 

on the number of large trees per acre, basal area, canopy cover percent, dead standing trees, and 

down logs. The two vegetation groups identified for developing old growth in the project area are 

 5 VSS abbreviates the term vegetation structural stages, which classify stages of stand development. Thus, VSS 1 

represents open areas with tree regeneration and little canopy structure but would be managed over time to develop 

toward mid-aged and mature forest structure. VSS 6 represents the late mature and/or old structural stage with abundant 

large trees and structure.
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 9

interior ponderosa pine and the mixed species group consisting of Douglas-fir, white fir, and 

southwestern white pine.

Approximately 2,279 acres, or 7 percent of the forested project area, have been identified and 

allocated through previous analyses to be managed to meet old growth criteria. Areas currently 

allocated do not necessarily meet old growth standards in the forest plan but are managed to move 

toward those conditions to meet old growth structural attributes over time.

Fire Hazard

Two factors that contribute to stand-replacing crown fires are surface fuels and canopy fuel 

distribution. Surface fuels are the accumulation of fuel on the soil surface. Canopy fuels are 

measured by using canopy bulk density and canopy base heights. Currently, when compared with 

forest plan standards, surface fuels in the Rim Lakes area, especially in the form of logs, are 

deficit. Stand canopy fuels are overly abundant and too continuous in all vegetation types. Of the 

project area, 67 percent is subject to crown fire behavior. This poses a high safety risk to 

surrounding communities and increases the likelihood of the area experiencing stand-replacing 

crown fire.

The area also has little opportunity for sunlight penetration to the forest floor which in part has 

reduced the herbaceous cover. Desired conditions would increase cover, diversity, and production 

of herbaceous species in the understory. These herbaceous plants are important to soil 

productivity, wildlife, and the maintenance of fire as an important and natural ecosystem 

disturbance.

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) is a metric that quantifies how departed a system is from 

historical conditions in relation to fire and the role fire historically played in that system. The 

entire project area (100 percent) is FRCC 3, which means the project area has been significantly 

altered from the historical range. The desired condition is FRCC 1.

Proposed Action

In response to the purpose and need, the Black Mesa Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, proposes the following actions:

• Selectively cut trees to create canopy gaps for regeneration and interspaces, which are to 

be managed as non-forest areas. Intermediate thinning and broadcast burn after treatment 

on approximately 23,615 acres: in ponderosa pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns 

would occur. In dry mixed conifer, no reentry maintenance burns would occur as part of 

this proposal.

• Broadcast burn without selectively cutting trees on approximately 9,339 acres: in 

ponderosa pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns would occur. In dry mixed conifer, no 

reentry maintenance burns would occur as part of this proposal.

• Selectively cut trees only with no broadcast burn on approximately 56 acres.

• Open approximately185 miles of existing closed roads to be used for treatment activity. 

Close roads when treatments are finished and rehabilitate as needed. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

10 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

• Construct 2.6 miles of temporary road for haul access and obliterate after use (seven short 

segments approximately one-quarter to one-third mile each).

• Allocate approximately 6,900 acres of forest for old growth characteristics especially 

large tree health and vigor. Figure 6 shows total old growth allocated for this project, as 

well as previously allocated old growth.

• Amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest 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 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 (see 

page 25 for details).

Decision Framework

Given the purpose and need of the project, the forest supervisor will review the proposed action, 

other alternatives, and the environmental consequences in order to make the following decisions: 

(1) whether to select the proposed action or an alternative; (2) the location, design, and 

scheduling of the proposed thinning, burning, and road maintenance, (3) mitigation measures and 

monitoring requirements; and, (4) the significance of the proposed forest plan amendments. 

Forest Plan Direction

The analysis area includes four management areas as described in the forest plan. Forested Land 

(MA-01) makes up 98 percent of the project area, with Riparian (MA-03), Water (MA-11), 

Chevelon Canyon (MA-16), and private lands comprising smaller portions of the analysis area 

(table 1).

Table 1. Forest plan management area context

Forest Plan Management 

Areas

Forest Plan

Management 

Area Acres 

(Forestwide)

Project Area 

Management 

Acres

Percent of 

Forest Plan 

Management 

Area in the

Project Area

Percent of 

Management 

Areas in the 

Project Area

Forested Lands (MA-01) 836,288 32,956 3.9 98

Riparian (MA-03) 6,870 24 0.4 <1

Water (MA-11) 3,962 286 7.2 <1

Chevelon Canyon (MA-16) 11,534 241 2.1 <1

Private Lands, Gravel Pits NA 41 NA <1

Total 33,548 100

* Not included in active treatment (thinning or burning) units.

The management emphasis for MA-01 is to emphasize a combination of multiple uses including 

sustained yield of timber and firewood production, wildlife habitat, livestock grazing, watershed 

condition, and dispersed recreation. 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 11

Management emphasis for MA-03 recognizes “the importance and distinctive values of riparian 

areas when implementing management activities” by: (1) giving preferential consideration to 

riparian area dependent resources as defined in the forest plan in cases of unsolvable conflicts; (2) 

managing to maintain or improve riparian areas to satisfactory riparian condition; and (3) 

implementing other resource uses and activities to the extent that they support or do not adversely 

affect riparian dependent resources. Management emphasis of MA-03 is directed at areas with 

riparian dependent resources in the priority of: (1) threatened and endangered species; (2) cold 

water fisheries; (3) warm water fisheries; and (4) all other riparian areas.”

Management Area 11 emphasizes the production of fish and wildlife, including waterfowl. Forest 

plan direction is to manage these areas for dispersed recreation use.

Management Area 16 is to emphasize semiprimitive nonmotorized recreation opportunities 

(except at Chevelon Crossing), strive to maintain the current opportunities for solitude, protect 

the high scenic values, and maintain the current wildlife habitat values.

Chapter 4 of the forest plan contains detailed descriptions of forestwide resource direction and 

direction specific to each management area. How the alternatives are consistent with the forest 

plan is displayed in chapter 2, “Alternatives.” Key forest plan direction is contained in each 

specialist report.

All mechanical treatments are proposed in MA-01. Some prescribed burning is proposed in MA16.

Public Involvement

The notice of intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2012. The NOI 

asked for public comment on the proposal, especially the new element to the proposed action, the 

forest plan amendment. Letters were sent to 187 people and organizations who had expressed 

interest in the project previously. In addition, as part of the public involvement process, the 

Agency conducted an open house to familiarize the interested public with the revised proposal.

This open house was held in Show Low, on April 11, 2012, where three interested people 

attended.

During the spring 2012 comment period, 10 comment letters were received, including a letter of 

support from the Arizona Department of Game and Fish. Most supported the goals of the project 

but raised concerns about impacts, in particular to human health from smoke.

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. 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; the new title will be used throughout this document.

In December 2007, letters providing information and seeking public comment were mailed to 

approximately 100 individuals and groups that included Federal and State agencies, municipal 

offices, businesses, interest groups, and individuals. Thirteen responses to this initial mailing 

were received. Announcements about the project were printed in the Mogollon Connection 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

12 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

(January 16, 2008), The Pioneer (January 16, 2008) and in the White Mountain Independent 

(January 18, 2008) and were available on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Web site 

newsroom.

As required by HFRA, an announcement was published 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 that should be addressed in the analysis. 

Six people attended the meeting. Comments in response to this meeting were favorable. On July 

8, 2008, and October 23, 2008, field trips were held that included individuals from the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, White Mountain Stewardship Project’s Multi-Party Monitoring 

Board (MPMB), Natural Resources Working Group (NRWG), and the Center for Biological 

Diversity (CBD). Although the project was mostly well received, concerns for cutting trees larger 

than 16 inches arose and were given to the analysis team to address (see the “Issues” section 

below).

In April 2011, a public meeting with the White Mountain Stewardship Project’s MPMB and the 

NRWG was held in Show Low, Arizona, to present the project and answer questions. The 

project’s environmental assessment was presented to collaborators and the public in September 

2011 as part of the HFRA objection period. An objective was filed by the Center for Biological 

Diversity, which resulted in reconsideration of the planning process for the project.

On April 11, 2012, another public meeting was held in Show Low during the scoping period for 

this EIS. Members of a wide range of collaborative efforts—including the 4FRI collaborative—

were invited to attend, but only three members of the local community participated.

On June 13, 2012, a presentation was made to the NRWG on the Rim Lakes Project, timelines, 

and current status. Collaboration with the 4FRI collaborative group most recently included two 

field trips to discuss the alternatives and view sample marking prescriptions on July 23 and 

August 2, 2012.

Tribal Consultation

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. Three responses were received. No tribes identified 

any concerns with the project or specific traditional cultural properties that would be affected by 

the proposed activities. 

In 2012, the tribal governments were contacted and updated about the progress of the project.

Issues

The Forest Service separated the issues into two groups: significant and nonsignificant issues. 

Significant issues were defined as those directly or indirectly caused by implementing the 

proposed action. Nonsignificant issues were identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the 

proposed action; (2) already decided by law, regulation, forest plan, or other higher level 

decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 13

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations 

explain this delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues 

which are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 

1506.3)....” A list of nonsignificant issues and reasons regarding their categorization as 

nonsignificant may be found in the project record.

The Forest Service identified the following as significant issues during scoping. Scoping in 2012 

did not change the significant issues:

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 posttreatment large 

tree densities below target densities. This may negatively affect old growth 

quality and quantity and wildlife habitat quality, quantity, and populations.

The indicators used to evaluate this issue are: 

• Total number of trees 16 inches and greater (pre- and post-treatment);

• pre- and post-treatment three-level analysis of habitat structure for northern 

goshawk, and old growth; and 

• vegetation structural stage (VSS) for northern goshawk.

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 15

Chapter 2. Alternatives, 

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Rim Lakes Forest 

Restoration Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered and maps of the 

action alternatives. This section also presents the alternatives in comparative form, displaying the 

differences among alternatives and providing a clear basis for choice. Some of the information 

used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative (e.g. the 16-inch 

diameter limit is a design feature of alternative C) and some of the information is based upon the 

environmental, social, and economic effects of implementing each alternative (e.g. the different 

levels of achieving the project’s purpose and need). 

Alternatives for the project were developed according to the provisions of the Healthy Forest 

Restoration Act, which states that “the Secretary shall study, develop, and describe: (A) the 

proposed action; (B) the alternative of no action; and (C) an additional action alternative, if the 

additional alternative: (1) is proposed during scoping or the collaborative process under

subsection f and (2) meets the purpose and need of the project, in accordance with the regulations 

promulgated by the Council of Environmental Quality.”

The Forest Service interdisciplinary team (IDT) used information from scoping, including the key 

issue identified for the project (chapter 1), in conjunction with the field-related resource 

information, to formulate the alternative to the proposed action. Both action alternatives represent 

a site-specific proposal developed through intensive interdisciplinary evaluation of current and 

desired conditions, based on field verification. 

As a result of public comment in 2008 and additional analysis, the proposed action was modified 

as allowed by 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii), which states that “the description of the proposal and 

alternative(s) may include a brief description of modifications and incremental design features 

developed through the analysis process to develop the range of alternatives considered.” See 

Project Record 84, pages 16-17 for the list of modifications. 

Forest Plan Consistency

Forestwide and management area standards and guidelines have been incorporated into the design 

of alternatives B and C. Alternative B includes a forest plan site-specific amendment. This 

amendment is necessary in order to assure the project’s restoration objectives can be met and to 

assure consistency with the forest plan.

Alternative C includes a forest plan site-specific amendment. This amendment is necessary to 

allow for this alternative’s even-aged management result.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service analyzed three alternatives, including the no action. 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

16 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative A—No Action

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—Proposed Action

Alternative Summary

In response to the purpose and need, the Black Mesa Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests, proposes the following:

• Selectively cut trees and broadcast burn after treatment on approximately 23,615 acres: 

in ponderosa pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns would occur. In dry mixed conifer, no 

reentry maintenance burns would occur as part of this proposal.

• Broadcast burn without selectively cutting trees on approximately 9,339 acres: in 

ponderosa pine and pine-oak, maintenance burns would occur. In dry mixed conifer, no 

reentry maintenance burns would occur as part of this proposal.

• Selectively cut trees only with no broadcast burn on approximately 56 acres.

• Open approximately185 miles of existing closed roads to be used for treatment activity. 

Close roads when treatments are finished and rehabilitate as needed. 

• Construct 2.6 miles of temporary road for haul access and obliterate after use (seven short 

segments approximately one-quarter to one-third mile each).

• Allocate approximately 6,900 acres of forest for old growth characteristics especially 

large tree health and vigor. Figure 6 shows total old growth allocated for this project, as 

well as previously allocated old growth.

• Amend the Apache-Sitgreaves forest 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 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 closuure 

is evaluated at the tree group scale within vegetation structural stages (VSS) 4, 5, and 6

(see next section for details).

See details below and see appendix A for details on how various habitat types for Mexican 

spotted owl and northern goshawk would be treated. 

Mechanical Treatments

Mechanical treatments refer to a variety of possible tools used to meet objectives. These include, 

but are not limited to: the use of chain saws or feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash, skidders 

to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile slash, and specialized equipment to cut, chop, 

break, lop or in some way treat the fuels to meet objectives.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 17

The work would be accomplished in many ways including the use of Forest Service personnel 

and contractors. Some of the trees that are cut may be sold in personal use and commercial wood 

product sales. This would help to offset the total cost for treatments by reducing the cost of 

cutting trees and treating slash. 

The following terms are useful to understand the proposed treatment methods:

• Group Selection: a cutting procedure that creates a new age class6 by removing trees in 

groups or patches to allow seedlings to become established in the new opening (Helms,

1998).

• Irregular-density Thinning: similar actions as those to implement group selection, but 

the openings in forest canopy are intended for long-term openness, not to regenerate 

trees.

• Intermediate Treatment: also referred to here as intermediate thinning. The thinning or 

cutting of trees to improve the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of 

remaining trees (Helms, 1998). Proposed intermediate thinning treatments include “low 

thinning” which removes the smallest sized trees of the age class, and “free thinning” 

which selects from all size trees and age classes.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire refers to a controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their natural or 

modified state, under specified environmental conditions that allow the fire to be confined to a 

predetermined area, and produce the fire behavior and fire characteristics required to attain 

planned fire treatment and resource management objectives. Broadcast, maintenance, and pile 

burning are all types of prescribed fires.

Broadcast Burning

As it applies to this project, broadcast burning is a prescribed fire within a predetermined area 

(burn block) and with predetermined burning parameters (prescription) designed to meet the 

objectives stated in the proposed action. Broadcast burns would be located in areas where fuel 

loadings (dead fuels and/or live fuels) are unnaturally high due to exclusion of natural fire and/or 

an accumulation of activity slash from past treatments.

In most cases, prescribed burning would occur following mechanical treatments. One objective of 

prescribed burning would be to reduce dead fuel loadings to an average of 5–10 tons per acre in 

the pine vegetation type and 10–15 tons per acre in the mixed conifer vegetation type. Target 

fuels would be all size classes normally considered in management of dead fuels (including 1-

hour, 10-hour, 100-hour, and 1000-hour 7

). Live fuels would not be targeted, but some reduction 

is expected and could occur (see “Fire Effects” discussion).

 6 Age class – a distinct aggregation or group of trees originating from a single natural event or activity.

7 A frequently used method to classify fuels is by how quickly they respond to changes in moisture content. One-hour 

fuels—such as dead grasses and needle-cast from trees—respond most quickly and could change during one day from 

damp to dry. Larger wood—1000-hour fuels such as logs—respond slowly and take days or weeks to dry out during 

dry periods, or dampen during wet periods.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

18 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Low to moderate severity effects may occur across 80 percent of the area treated with fire. As 

described in the fire modeling, high severity effects are a possible result of actions across up to 20 

percent of the area. Fire or burn severity is defined as a qualitative assessment of the heat pulse 

directed toward the ground during a fire. Burn severity relates to soil heating, large fuel and duff 

consumption, consumption of the litter and organic layer beneath trees and shrubs, and the 

mortality of buried plant parts.

Fire severity would be the product of a low to moderate intensity ground fire with flame lengths 

that average less than 2 feet and rarely exceed 4 feet. In most areas, more than one treatment may 

be required to achieve the objectives. Additional treatments may occur at an interval of 3 to 5 

years until the objectives are met and conditions can be maintained through regular maintenance 

burns (see “Maintenance Burns” below).

Treated areas that become “restored meadows” may be treated again as maintenance burns. This 

would be done on a regular basis (2–5 years depending of funding, weather, and grass 

accumulations) to maintain their meadow characteristics.

Meadows

All treatments using fire in areas classified as a “meadow vegetation type” or “restored to a 

meadow vegetation type” would be treated as maintenance burns.

Maintenance Burning

As it applies to this project, maintenance burning is a prescribed fire within a predetermined area 

and with predetermined burning parameters designed to meet the objectives stated in the 

proposed action. Maintenance burns would be located in areas where fuel loadings (dead fuels 

and live fuels) are close to their natural/historic state (generally less than 10 tons per acre). The 

objective would be to maintain dead fuel loadings and live vegetation density, composition, and 

structure within their natural range.

The objective would be to reduce dead fuel loadings to an average of 5–10 tons per acre in the 

pine vegetation type and 10–15 tons per acre in the mixed conifer vegetation type. Target fuels 

would be needle cast and small (finger sized) dead fuels, and much of the understory vegetation 

up to 6 feet in height for live fuels.

The burns would be managed to produce a low intensity ground fire with average flame lengths 

that rarely exceed 18 inches. Additional entries could consist of maintenance burns on a schedule 

of every 2 to 10 years.

Activity slash is created from mechanical treatment activities. It may be removed from the site to 

landings or be cut and scattered to within 3 feet of the ground and may be treated later as part of a 

broadcast burn. The objective would be to ignite 90 to 100 percent of the slash piles, expecting 80 

percent or more consumption. Unconsumed material would consist of an occasional charred log 

or small, unburned piles.

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Treatments

Through the Mexican spotted owl recovery plan, as adopted in the forest plan, MSO habitats are 

divided into protected and restricted categories. Restricted is divided among threshold, target 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 19

threshold, and “other.” Each strata serves an important role in the conservation of the species (see 

page 84).

MSO Protected Habitat: Intermediate thinning8 would be used in stands with diameter limits of 

9 inches d.b.h.. Thinning would promote health and vigor of the larger trees and reduce the fire 

hazard. Smaller trees would be cut maintaining the largest, healthiest trees. Where areas are 

dominated by trees greater than 12 inches in diameter, treatments would remove trees less than 9 

inches d.b.h.. Where areas are dominated by young aged trees (5–12 inches in diameter), 

prescriptions would retain 60–80 square feet of basal area (BA) 9

. Where trees are dominated by 

grass/forbs and seed/saplings (in other words, where trees are less than 5 inches in diameter), 

prescriptions would retain trees at the rate of 200 trees per acre. Residual basal area would vary 

by stand. Where possible, early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglasfir, aspen) should be favored for retention and regeneration.

MSO Restricted Habitat (Threshold): All treatments in these stands would maintain 150–170 

BA where present. The remaining area would receive an intermediate treatment removing the 

smaller trees to reduce fire hazard. No hardwood species would be removed. No trees 24 inches 

d.b.h. or larger would be removed. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and regeneration.

MSO Restricted Habitat (Target Threshold): Intermediate thinning would be used removing 

the smaller trees and leaving the larger, healthier trees, increasing health and vigor of the 

remaining larger dominant and codominant trees and reducing fire hazard. These stands would be 

thinned to reach a target BA of 150–170. No trees 24 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed.

No hardwood species would be removed. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and regeneration.

MSO Restricted Habitat (Other): Group selection would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, 

white pine, and Douglas-fir in openings 0.25–4 acres in size over 20 percent of the area within 

excess VSS classes and/or diseased patches. Where necessary, prescriptions would retain 

additional seed trees of desirable species and characteristics. The remaining matrix area would 

receive intermediate thinning, cutting smaller trees to leave the larger, healthier trees, increasing 

health and vigor of the remaining larger dominant10 and codominant11 trees and reduce fire 

hazard. Southwest-facing slopes would be thinned to 60–80 BA and north-facing slopes 80–100 

BA. No hardwood species would be removed. Stands with no large trees would be thinned from 

below with an intermediate thinning to promote health and vigor of the larger trees and reduce 

fire hazard. Smaller trees would be cut maintaining the largest, healthiest trees. Groups of trees 

smaller than 12 inches d.b.h. would be thinned to a lower density of 40–60 BA while trees in the 

larger size classes would be thinned to 60–80 BA. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, 

 8 Intermediate Treatment – also referred to here as intermediate thinning. The thinning or cutting of trees to improve the 

composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of remaining trees (SAF 1998).

9 Basal area (BA) – the cross-sectional area of a single tree stem, including bark, measured at breast height in square 

feet (SAF 1998).

10 Dominant – trees that receive full light from above the canopy and partially from the sides. Crowns extend above the 

general level of the canopy (USDA 2008).

11 Codominant – Tree crowns receive full light from above, but comparitively little from the sides (USDA 2008)
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

20 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and regeneration. Table 2, 

table 3, and figure 4 show the treatments in Mexican spotted owl habitat.

Table 2. Mexican spotted owl habitat treated by mechanical with prescribed burning

Habitat Type Acres

MSO Protected – Even-aged Intermediate Thinning < 9" 309

MSO Threshold – Intermediate Thinning < 24" 112

MSO Target Threshold – Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning < 24" 654

MSO Restricted – Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning < 24" 5,512

Total 6,587

Table 3. Mexican spotted owl treatments by mechanical without prescribed burning

Habitat Type Acres

MSO Protected – Intermediate Thinning < 9" 50

MSO Restricted – Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning < 24" 6

Total 56

Table 4. Northern goshawk habitat treatment by mechanical with prescribed burning 

Habitat Type Acres

Foraging - Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning 16,216

PFA/Nest - Group Selection/Intermediate Thinning 619

Total 16,835

Northern Goshawk

Table 4 and figure 5 show treatments in northern goshawk habitat.

Goshawk Foraging Areas (FAs) and Post-Fledgling Family Areas (PFAs) Habitat Stands:

Group selection would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, white pine, and Douglas-fir in 

openings of 0.1–4 acres in size over 20 percent of the area within excess VSS classes and/or 

diseased patches. When openings exceed 1 acre in size, 5–10 desirable seed trees per acre would 

be retained, with 3–5 seed trees at least 15 inches d.b.h. and larger. Tree groups would be 

maintained by VSS class, ranging from 0.25 to 1 acre in size and generally in groups of 4–20 

trees (on a 0.1-acre basis). Prescriptions would strive to align percentages according to desired 

VSS class distribution described in the forest plan. Residual stand density would vary, but would

average 50–70 square feet of basal area per acre in foraging areas, and would average 70–80 

square feet in PFA.

Where stand structures are predominantly even aged, thin the stand matrix in an irregular-density 

fashion, striving to create groups and clumps of residual trees. Desirable dominant and 

codominant white pine and ponderosa pine would be left as single trees or groups throughout the 

area. Details are located in the silvicultural report (Richardson et al., 2012).
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 21

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 4. Mechanical treatments in alternative B and alternative C in Mexican spotted owl habitat
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

22 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Figure 5. Mechanical treatments in alternative B and alternative C in goshawk habitat, with meadow enhancement
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 23

Figure 6. Old growth allocation for alternative B and alternative C
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

24 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Meadow and Riparian Enhancement

All conifers would be removed and cleared where they have encroached into existing meadows 

and riparian areas favoring hardwood species. Trees that provide streambank stability would be 

maintained regardless of size. Slash would be removed from the drainage and hand piled or 

lopped to the ground. Three existing and potential snags would be left around meadows for 

wildlife. Alternative C would remove conifers up to 16 inches d.b.h..

Table 5. Meadow and riparian enhancement

Habitat Acres

Grassland 176

Wetland 17

Total 193

Table 5 and figure 5 show goshawk and meadow treatments.

Other Treatment Objectives

The following objectives would be considered in applying treatments to the stands in the project 

area.

Aspen and Oak Exclosures: All encroaching conifers would be removed from areas previously 

fenced to exclude elk. Fences would continue to be maintained to exclude elk from aspen and oak 

regeneration. Alternative C would remove conifers up to 16 inches d.b.h..

Dwarf Mistletoe Infection in Ponderosa Pine Stands: In goshawk foraging areas and MSO 

restricted habitat (other)—where severe dwarf mistletoe infection centers are located—focus on 

removal of infected trees to establish new regeneration groups (VSS 1) or to favor existing 

uninfected regeneration. Where regeneration groups are not to be established, focus on reduction 

of severely infected trees (DMR = 3+) within the leave tree groups.

Old Growth Management: Stands designated for management of old growth would be treated 

to move toward old growth management objectives found in the forest plan. Specifically, 

treatments that help develop large trees where few exist, while maintaining the health and vigor 

of existing large trees, especially those greater than 18 inches diameter.

Aspen Management: In goshawk foraging areas and PFA areas, as well as MSO restricted 

(other) habitat, small inclusions of aspen remnants within portions of ponderosa pine would be 

regenerated by removing all conifers in the immediate area, 33 to 66 feet from the clone, with 

some removal of aspen or site disturbing activity such as ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large 

aspen clone. The preferred method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to the clone, 

retaining all healthy aspens in the clone. Where aspen is present in mixed conifer, it may be 

promoted through group selection described above with removal of all conifers 33 to 66 feet from 

the aspen clone. Aspen clones would be evaluated and fenced as needed. Trees would be retained 

according to the diameter limit for specific stands.

White Pine Management: Where white pine is found, it should be favored in order to provide 

the best genetic diversity to increase disease resistance across the landscape.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 25

Table 6. Treatment summary

Habitat Treatments Alternative B and Alternative C Acres

MSO forest habitat 6,643

Northern goshawk 16,835

Meadow/riparian 193

Total mechanical with prescribed burning or mechanical only 23,671

Broadcast burning only all habitat types. Areas proposed for broadcast burning only include 

goshawk habitat, MSO habitat, gravel pits, grassland, and wetland. 9,339

Total acres treated 33,010

No treatments proposed: Areas where no treatment is proposed under alternatives B and C 

include MSO habitat, private land, reservoirs, and grassland. 538

Total project area acres (goshawk PFAs and MSO PACs overlap onto nonforested areas so 

acres may vary from total nonforested acreage) 33,548

Road Maintenance 

No new permanent road construction is planned. The existing road system would be used and 

maintained with minor reconstruction and maintenance, commensurate with use. Roads that are 

presently closed may be opened to access treatment areas and to accommodate project activities.

Temporary roads would be constructed in order to avoid impacts to recreation use of system 

roads. After project completion, temporary roads would be returned to closed status.

Alternative B—Forest Plan Amendment

As described in the purpose and need for this project, a forest plan amendment is proposed in 

order to achieve project restoration objectives and assure consistency with the forest plan.

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

• A stand 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.

• 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” would be amended for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project as follows (Guidelines):
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

26 DEIS 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

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 midscale 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 area, 

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 overstory 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.

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 seedlingsapling (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 unevenaged stand as canopy gaps (VSS 1 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 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 27

Existing Guideline Language

Apache-Sitgreaves Land and Resource 

Management Plan (2009 update)

Pages 56-58

Proposed New Guideline Language

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.

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, 

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 1 acre with a maximum width of 125 

feet. Provide two groups of reserve trees per 

acre with six 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) 

No change.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

28 DEIS 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

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 then 1 acre in size. 

Leave at least three snags, five downed logs, 

and 10–15 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. 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 then 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 

(overstory and understory), age classes, and 

species composition well distributed across the 

landscape. Provide for reserve trees, snags, and 

down woody debris. 

No change.

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 postfledgling 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 stages 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.

Alternative C—Diameter limit

Alternative C Summary

Alternative C responds to issue 1. Actions are identical to alternative B in location and treatment 

method, except that this alternative includes a limit size so that only trees tress than 16 inches
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 29

d.b.h. would be included in the cutting and removal. Otherwise, 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 page

54 to clarify that even-aged management would be the emphasis of this alternative.

Alternative C Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative C does not meet the following forest plan direction, therefore, if selected it would 

require a forest plan amendment (emphasis in the existing plan has been added).

Existing A-S Forest Plan Page 54 Amendment Language

Establish, and delineate on a map, a post-fledgling 

family area (PFA) that includes six nesting areas per 

pair of nesting goshawks for known nest sites, old 

nest sites, areas where historical data indicates 

goshawks have nested in the past, and where 

goshawks have been repeatedly sighted over a 2-year 

or greater time period but no nest sites have been 

located. Manage for uneven-age stand conditions 

for live trees [emphasis added] and retain live 

reserve trees, snags, downed logs, and woody debris 

levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir forest cover types. Manage 

for old age trees such that as much old forest 

structure as possible is sustained over time across the 

landscape. Sustain a mosaic of vegetation densities 

(overstory and understory), age classes, and species 

composition across the landscape. Provide foods and 

cover for goshawk prey.

Establish and delineate on a map, a post-fledgling family 

area (PFA) that includes six nesting areas per pair of 

nesting goshawks for known next sites, old nest sites, 

areas where historical data indicates goshawks have 

nested in the past, and where goshawks have been 

repeatedly sighted over a 2-year or greater time period 

but no nest sites have been located. Manage for unevenage stand conditions for live trees and retain live reserve 

trees, snags, downed logs, and woody debris levels 

throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer,

and spruce-fir forest cover types. Due to cutting 

treatment limitations in alternative C, portions of the 

project area will be managed for even-aged stand 

conditions. [emphasis added] Manage for old age trees 

such that as much old forest structure as possible is 

sustained over time across the landscape. Sustain a 

mosaic of vegetation densities (overstory and 

understory), age classes, and species composition across 

the landscape. Provide foods and cover for goshawk 

prey.

Common Mitigation Measures—Alternatives B and C

All applicable forest plan standards and guidelines will be incorporated into the project design. A 

list of mitigation measures and best management practices is found in appendix B, based on the

specialist report. The purpose of these measures is to reduce adverse impacts.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

30 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternatives Considered but 

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate a 

reasonable range of alternatives. For alternatives that were not considered in detail, agencies must 

briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating them (40 CFR 1502.14). The range of alternatives 

considered by the responsible official includes alternatives to the proposed action that are 

analyzed in the document, as well as other alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed 

study.

Public comments provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and 

need. These alternatives were reviewed during the analysis as described in this section.

Alternatives that Limit Treatment to a Specific Diameter 

During the 2008 scoping period for this project, concerns were raised about removing larger trees 

were made to have alternatives that limit treatments to cutting trees less than 12 inches d.b.h., less 

than 14 inches d.b.h., and less than 16 inches d.b.h.. These types of restrictive treatments would 

concentrate on mechanically thinning the understory and moving treated stands to a more evenaged condition. Forest plan direction is to manage for uneven-aged stand conditions.

As has been demonstrated in past projects (see PR 81, pages 50–60), even-aged treatments that 

concentrate on any one size class would only partially meet the purpose and need of improving 

forest health or reducing the risk of uncharacteristic fire, with limited longevity. Movement 

toward the desired conditions for forest heath, vegetation structure, fuels, and wildlife habitat 

would be limited and short term. For this reason, the proposals for the 12-inch- and 14-inchcutting limits were considered but eliminated from further analysis. 

The proposal to limit cutting to trees less than 16 inches d.b.h. was analyzed in detail as 

alternative C. This alternative was analyzed in detail to display the differences between tree size 

cutting limit constraints on uneven-aged management (alternative C) and uneven-aged

management without tree size cutting limit constraints (alternative B). Alternative C responds to 

the issue regarding large tree retention. Differences in alternatives representing the three different 

d.b.h. thresholds suggested are a matter of degree.

Therefore, the other diameter limit alternatives were not analyzed in detail.

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 as a genetic legacy of prefire suppression/fire-adapted trees was considered.

The forest plan does not require retention of trees that germinated prior to the regular suppression 

of fire. The best available science indicates that the genetic legacy of prefire suppression/fireadapted trees is contained in trees in the mid-aged to mature trees (70–100 years+) that are 

dominant across the current landscape (VSS 3, 4, and 5), as well as the VSS 6 groups that 

currently exist. Dominant tree groups of all age classes would be retained and favored throughout 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 31

the Rim Lakes Project area to meet the forest plan VSS objectives and, therefore, genetic traits 

would be retained and managed for sustainability over time.

The greatest threat to loss of locally adapted genetic traits is removal of stands and forest 

landscapes by uncharacteristic wildfire. In the case of a stand-replacing wildfire, artificial 

regeneration, such as planting, is often required. Planting seldom restores the breadth of genetic 

diversity present in the predisturbance natural stands. 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 eliminated from detailed study.

Original Proposed Action

According to 36 CFR 220.7(b)(2)(iii) and FSH 1909.15 (ch. 14, 3), 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.

No Burn Alternative

During scoping for the environmental impact statement, a concern was raised about the effects of 

prescribed burning in two aspects. First is the concern about the effects of smoke to human 

health, and second is the concern with the existence of radionuclides in the forest litter and 

vegetation, which would be released in smoke during burning. This radionuclide concern is based 

on the postulated downwind accumulation of these elements after the above ground nuclear bomb 

testing that occurred in Nevada.

In order to respond to both of these concerns, an alternative was considered but not analyzed in 

detail that would conduct only mechanical treatments. This alternative would exclude burning in 

order to avoid smoke-related effects.

This alternative was not considered in detail because without putting fire as a process back into 

the ecosystem, the purpose and need of the project could not be met with existing technology. 

Although mechanical treatments alone can begin the process of forest restoration, only 

reintroducing fire as a process can achieve restoration of forest ecosystem functions and 

processes.

In addition, no evidence has been presented to substantiate the claim that levels of radionuclides 

exist in the project area that could pose an additional threat. Intensive monitoring in Los Alamos, 

New Mexico, during the Las Conchas Fire in 2011 suggests that no radionuclides were present in 

smoke created by that fire, which occurred at much higher intensity than a planned prescribed 

fire. This location is similarly downwind of Nevada test sites, and has been studied for both 

locally produced contamination, as well as “background” radionuclides attributed to aboveground 

tests.

Therefore, the best available evidence suggests there is no additional hazard above and beyond 

that posed by smoke, which admittedly contains many materials that can be harmful to people 

when exposed. Because of this known hazard, smoke is regulated by the State of Arizona to 

minimize impacts to human health.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

32 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

This alternative was not analyzed in detail because following Arizona guidelines for burning, as 

well as other mitigation measures listed in appendix B, serves to minimize the potential effects of 

smoke.

Monitoring

Chapter 5 of the forest plan includes the monitoring and evaluation activities to be conducted as 

part of forest plan implementation. There are three categories of forest plan monitoring: 

implementation monitoring, effectiveness monitoring, and validation monitoring. Effectiveness 

and validation monitoring are not typically done as part of project implementation. 

Implementation monitoring will be performed as required by the forest plan.

Comparison of Effects

Table 7 contains a comparison summary of key measures related to the purpose and need and 

environmental effects of the alternatives considered in detail. See chapter 3 for detailed 

discussion of the measures and description of effects.
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 33

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives 

Desired Condition Current Condition Alternative B Alternative C

Species 

Composition

Shade intolerant species 

dominate. southwestern white 

pine, aspen, oak, and other 

hardwood species are well 

represented and increasing.

Dominant species composition 

shifting toward shade tolerant, fire 

intolerant species (southwestern 

white pine, aspen, oak, and other 

hardwood species decreasing).

Shade intolerant species favored 

on 100% of the treated area 

(excluding MSO protected).

Shade intolerant species 

favored on 30% of the treated 

area (excluding MSO 

protected).

Density

(stand average 

including 

regeneration 

gaps/openings)

Ponderosa pine: BA range 45–55

Mixed conifer: BA range 55–75

Ponderosa pine: BA range 11–360 

Ponderosa pine: BA average 91

Mixed conifer: BA range 30–235

Mixed conifer: BA average 99

Ponderosa pine average:

BA @1 yr = 45

Ponderosa pine average:

BA @20 yr = 65

Mixed conifer average:

BA @1 yr = 59

Mixed conifer average:

BA @20 yr =78

Ponderosa pine average:

BA @1 yr = 51

Ponderosa pine average:

BA @20 yr = 79

Mixed conifer average:

BA @1 yr = 67

Mixed conifer average:

BA @20 yr = 89

Age Class 

Distribution

Uneven-aged stands 100 percent

of forest areas.

Balance of young, middle, and

old aged.

Uneven-aged stands 55% of 

forested area.

Even-aged stands are 45% of 

forested area.

Uneven-aged stands maintained 

(55%).

Regeneration gaps/openings 

created to develop a balance of 

young, middle, and old aged in a 

mosaic.

Even-aged stands moved toward

uneven-aged conditions (45%).

Uneven-aged stands (55%) 

moved toward an even-aged 

structure (reduced balance of 

ages).

Mature even-aged stands 

maintained as even-aged 

conditions (15%).

Immature even-aged stands 

maintained/or progressed 

toward balanced uneven-aged 

conditions (30%).

Trees > 16 inches 

d.b.h.

Longevity and

Cost

NA 287,000 trees >16 inches d.b.h. (in 

stands proposed for cutting 

treatment only).

89% of trees >16 inches d.b.h.

would remain (256,000)

11% of trees >16 inches d.b.h.

removed to achieve canopy gaps 

with a longevity of 30+ years.

Cost slightly less than alternative 

C (open market).

100% of trees >16 inches d.b.h.

would remain (287,000)

Development of canopy gaps 

developed to a lesser degree 

with a longevity of 10–15 

years.

Cost of treatments slightly 

more than alternative B.

Spatial Variable canopy density. Typically closed canopy with few Variable canopy density, groups Variable canopy density, with 

little definition between groups, 
34

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives 

Desired Condition Current Condition Alternative B Alternative C

Arrangement Groups/clump with regeneration

gaps/openings average 30–40% 

overall.

regeneration gaps/openings. and clumps.

Regeneration gaps/openings 

average 20–40% overall.

clumps, and patches.

Regeneration gaps/openings 

average less than 10% overall.

Old Growth Forest 

Allocation/

Management

Allocate at least 20% of each 

forest type to be managed for old 

growth forest criteria according 

to the forest plan.

Project area current allocation:

 Mixed species = 8.5%

 Ponderosa pine = 6.7%

District current allocation:

 Mixed species = 15%

 Ponderosa pine = 11%

Project area allocation:

 Mixed species = 43%

 Ponderosa pine = 26.5%

District allocation:

 Mixed species = 35%

 Ponderosa pine = 12%

Project area allocation:

 Mixed species = 43%

 Ponderosa pine = 26.5%

District allocation:

 Mixed species = 35%

 Ponderosa pine = 12%

Herbaceous/Shrub 

Understory

Herbaceous/ shrub understory 

provides greater biological 

diversity due to effects from 

canopy gaps, spatial distribution 

of tree groups, and reduced 

canopy cover.

Scarce herbaceous/shrub 

understory and reduced biological 

diversity due to effects from dense 

trees and canopy cover

Greater herbaceous/shrub 

understory provides greater 

biological diversity than 

alternative C due to effects from 

canopy gaps, spatial distribution 

of tree groups and reduced 

canopy cover in treated areas.

Herbaceous response decline 

after 30 years as canopy gaps fill 

in.

Less herbaceous/shrub 

understory provides less 

biological diversity than 

alternative B due to effects 

from less distinct canopy gaps 

spatial distribution of tree 

groups and reduced canopy 

cover in treated areas.

Herbaceous response decline 

after 10–15 years as canopy 

closes.

Sustainability and 

Resilience (Forest 

Health)

Create resilience to disturbance, 

insect disease, uncharacteristic 

fire, climate variability, resulting 

from reductions in forest density, 

heterogeneity of forest structure,

and understory vegetation.

Sustainable over time.

High severity forest vegetation 

mortality unlikely to occur 

following wildfire.

Bark beetle induced mortality is 

occurring at the large forest 

patch and stand scale across the

project area, well above the 

Limited resilience to disturbance, 

insect, disease, uncharacteristic 

fire, climate variability (dense 

forest conditions).

Not sustainable over time.

High severity forest vegetation 

mortality likely to occur following 

wildfire.

Bark beetle induced mortality 

occurs at the tree group and small 

forest patch scale across the project 

area, at levels similar to historic 

conditions.

Improved resilience to 

disturbances insect, disease, 

uncharacteristic fire, and climate 

variability (better than 

alternative C).

Sustainability decreases beyond 

30 years.

High severity forest vegetation 

mortality unlikely to occur 

following wildfire for 30+ years 

following treatment.

Bark beetle risk is significantly 

reduced in all treated stands 

(except MSO protected and

Improved resilience over first 

10–15 years, decreasing over 

time as canopy gaps close.

Sustainability decreases beyond 

10–15 years.

High severity forest vegetation 

mortality likely to occur as 

canopy gaps close after 10–15

years.

Bark beetle risk is significantly 

reduced in most treated stands 

(except MSO protected and

threshold habitats). Bark beetle 

risk is slightly or not reduced in 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 35

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives 

Desired Condition Current Condition Alternative B Alternative C

historic condition level.

Dwarf mistletoe induced 

mortality occurs at the tree group 

and small forest patch scale 

across the project area. 

Distribution is discontinuous, 

facilitating regeneration 

development and forest growth 

over much of the area similar to 

historic conditions.

Dwarf mistletoe is severely 

impacting and facilitating mortality 

at the large patch and stand scale 

across the project area (continuous 

high severity distribution across 

ponderosa pine approximately 25–

30% of the area). Current 

distribution jeopardizes the ability 

to manage for uneven-aged stand 

structures and the development of 

forest regeneration.

threshold habitats).

Dwarf mistletoe severity is 

reduced in each treated stand. 

Post treatment, dwarf mistletoe 

occurs at the tree group and 

small forest patch scale across 

the project area. Distribution is 

less continuous, better 

facilitating regeneration 

development and forest growth.

some treated stands.

Dwarf mistletoe severity and 

distribution is reduced in each 

treated stand, but not to the 

extent of alternative B. There

would be more continuity of 

diseased forest patches due to 

less canopy gaps overall. Some 

stands and patches would still 

have significant dwarf 

mistletoe impacts to forest 

regeneration and growth 

following treatment. Unevenaged management in these 

patches is unlikely to be 

successful due to disease 

impacts on regeneration and 

development.

MSO Habitat Risk MSO habitat at reduced risk due 

to 100% of non-MSO 

constrained area in FRCC 1.

MSO habitat at risk due to 100% of 

area being in FRCC 3.

MSO habitat at reduced risk due 

to 54% of area in FRCC 1 (46% 

in FRCC 2 and 3).

MSO habitat at risk due to 14% 

of area in FRCC 1 (86% in 

FRCC 2 and 3).

FRCC FRCC 1 = 100% of area.

High degree of consistency with 

reference conditions and the 

natural disturbance regime.

Low risk of losing key 

ecosystem components.

FRCC 3 = 100% of area.

Substantially departed from 

reference conditions and the 

natural disturbance regime.

High risk of losing key ecosystem 

components.

FRCC 1 = 54% of area after 20 

yr

FRCC 2 and 3 = 46% of area 

after 20 yr

Lower risk of losing key 

ecosystem components than 

alternative C.

FRCC 1 = 14% of area after 20 

yr

FRCC 2 and 3 = 86% of area 

after 20 yr

Higher risk of losing key 

ecosystem components than 

alternative B.

Fire Behavior 

Potential

Reduced potential for high 

severity, stand-replacing fires.

Surface fire >75%

Passive crown fire is occasional 

at the group or clump scale.

Active crown fire at smaller 

High potential for high severity, 

stand-replacing fires.

Surface fire = 32%

Passive crown fire = 44%

Active crown fire = 23%

Reduced potential for high 

severity stand-replacing fires for 

30+ years.

Surface fire = 66%

Passive crown fire = 16%

Active crown fire = 17%

Reduced potential for high 

severity, stand-replacing fires 

for 10–15 years.

Surface fire = 51%

Passive crown fire = 30%

Active crown fire = 18%
36

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 7. Comparison of alternatives 

Desired Condition Current Condition Alternative B Alternative C

scale under extreme conditions.

Fire Management 

Potential

Increased opportunity to manage 

prescribed fire or wildfire to 

meet resource objectives under a 

wider range of fire conditions.

Limited opportunity to manage 

prescribed fire or wildfire to meet 

resource objectives under a limited 

range of fire conditions.

Increased opportunity to manage 

prescribed or wildfire to meet 

resource objectives under a 

wider range of fire conditions 

than current.

Opportunities to manage fire to 

meet resource objectives decline 

as canopies close in 30+ years.

Increased opportunity to use 

prescribed or wildfire to meet 

resource objectives under a 

wider range of fire conditions 

than current.

Opportunities to manage fire to 

meet resource objectives 

decline as canopies close in 10–

15 years.

Hydrologic 

Function

Improved hydrologic function 

due to reduced density and 

canopy gaps.

Hydrologic function decreased due 

to dense forest conditions.

Improved hydrologic function 

due to reduced density and

increased canopy gaps. Greater 

effective capture of 

precipitation, and soil moisture 

increase than alternative C.

Short-term improvement of 

hydrologic function (10–15 

years) decreasing as canopy 

closes and density increases.

Less effective capture of 

precipitation and soil moisture 

increase than alternative B.

Visuals Increased visual diversity and 

variation due to reduced forest 

density with canopy gaps.

Limited visual diversity and 

variations due to high density 

forest with closed canopy.

Increased visual diversity and 

variation due to reduced forest 

density with canopy gaps (better 

than alternative C).

Limited visual diversity and 

variation decreasing as canopy 

gaps close 10–15 years (less 

than alternative B).

Treatment 

Longevity/Cost

No change. No change. 30 plus year benefits.

$13 per acre per year.

10 plus years benefit.

$40 per acre per year.
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 37

Chapter 3. Affected Environment 

and Environmental Consequences

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

affected project area, and the potential changes to those environments due to implementation of 

the alternatives. It also presents the scientific and analytical basis for the comparison of 

alternatives (40 CFR 1502.16). This chapter describes the tradeoffs among the alternatives for the 

public and the forest supervisor, showing as concisely as possible the relative change among the 

alternatives. This chapter supports table 7 found at the end of chapter 2 (page 33).

The CEQ regulations intend that agencies reduce excessive paperwork by preparing analytic 

rather than encyclopedic documents (40 CFR 1500.4(b)) and incorporate material by reference to 

reduce bulk without impeding agency and public review of the action (40 CFR 1502.21). This 

environmental impact statement attempts to follow that direction, limiting discussions to 

important effects and incorporating the complete specialists’ reports by reference. 

Appendix C contains a list of the specialists reports that contain extensive lists of literature cited 

which will not be repeated in this environmental impact statement. Relevant documents are in the 

project record located at the Black Mesa Ranger District office.

The Basic Components of an Effects Analysis

This section explains the basic components of an effects analysis conducted and documented 

under the National Environmental Policy Act for those who are not familiar with the process.

The Affected Environment

An effects analysis starts by describing the affected environment. As the name implies, this 

section describes those parts of the environment or project area that would change as a result of 

the proposed action. The Council on Environmental Quality describes it this way:

“The environmental impact statement shall succinctly describe the environment 

of the area(s) to be affected or created by the alternatives under 

consideration. The descriptions shall be no longer than is necessary to 

understand the effects of the alternatives.” (40 CFR 1502.15).

The Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests propose to restore a portion of the Black Mesa Ranger 

District to a more resilient condition. Therefore, the affected environment relates to the social, 

physical, and biological environment that may be affected by these restoration activities.

Resources that would not be affected—either for better or worse—do not need to be included in 

order to properly analyze the effects of the actions. Resources of the affected environment include 

wildlife habitat and recreational use. Conditions such as the weather would not change no matter 

what is proposed and so will not be discussed as part of the affected environment.

Effects

An effect is the result of an action. A rock thrown in a pond makes ripples. Throwing the rock is 

the action, and the ripples are the effects of that action. The environmental consequences are all 

the effects considered together.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

38 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The Council on Environmental Quality lists different kinds of effects that need to be analyzed 

under the National Environmental Policy Act:

• Direct effects, which are caused by the action and occur at the same time and place.

• Indirect effects, which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in 

distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.

• Cumulative effects, which are the sum of the incremental impacts from the action 

combined with other actions. These are described in the next section.

Environmental effects can be both beneficial and detrimental (40 CFR 1508.8). For example, for 

this restoration project, beneficial effects are those for wildlife species whose habitat is improved, 

while negative effects are those that reduce the effectiveness of habitat for other species.

The regulations do not require agencies to separate the direct and indirect effects, so in this 

document, these are described together. Cumulative effects have their own sections when 

appropriate.

Cumulative Effects

The Council on Environmental Quality defines a cumulative effect as follows:

“ ‘Cumulative impact’ is the impact on the environment which results from the 

incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (Federal or nonFederal) or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result 

from individually minor but collectively significant actions taking place over a 

period of time.” (40 CFR 1508.7).

To be cumulative, effects must overlap in space and time. Cumulative impacts are important 

because they could cause a tipping point, either beneficial or negative. To analyze cumulative 

effects, the EIS describes the effects from this proposal and adds them to the effects from past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. 

Past and Present Actions

The interdisciplinary team considered the effects of past actions as described in table 8. The 

Council on Environmental Quality recognizes “agencies can conduct an adequate cumulative 

effects analysis by focusing on the current aggregate effects of past actions without delving into 

the historical details of individual past actions” (Council on Environmental Quality 2005). Listing 

the past actions can show trends. 

Reasonably Foreseeable 

Courts have interpreted a “reasonably foreseeable future action” as a human action that has been 

proposed and is in the planning stages (e.g., Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii, 454 US 

139, 70 E.Ed.2d 289 (1981)). For example, a subdivision would not be reasonably foreseeable 

until the owner submitted plans to the county. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 39

To analyze the cumulative effects of reasonably foreseeable future actions, each resource 

specialist looked at the list of projects and identified the ones expected to cause effects on their 

resource at the same time and in the same place as effects from the proposed action or 

alternatives. Some specialists analyzed additional actions that pertained only to their resource.

Except as noted in specific sections of this chapter, the spatial bounds, for the direct and indirect 

effects fall within the National Forest System lands within the proclaimed boundary of the Black 

Mesa Ranger District, Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. An example of this exception would 

be the possible watershed effects that could occur beyond these boundaries Air quality considers 

effects to a wider area as well. For all resources, the temporal bound for the direct and indirect 

effects is the next 2 decades.

Affected Environment for Cumulative Effects

This information was used by all the specialists for the cumulative effects analysis.

The current condition of the project area was shaped by natural processes and past human 

activities. The first recorded major activity by European settlers was the introduction of livestock 

(cattle, sheep, and horses) to the Mogollon Rim region during the 1880s. Unregulated grazing 

greatly impacted grass–forb–shrub forest understories, in many cases so severely that naturally 

occurring frequent-fire activity ceased. In some locations, no fire has occurred since the 1880–

1890s time period. This has resulted in regeneration and development of high forest tree densities 

and downed woody fuels that can lead to uncharacteristic fire behavior.

The first timber harvest entries in the project area occurred in the 1940s. These actions focused on 

removal of large dying trees and high grade lumber. From the 1950s to 1970s, management 

focused on sanitation/salvage of dying, diseased, or damaged trees. Minimal amounts of forest 

density management occurred during this period. In the 1960s, the practice of cutting snags to 

reduce fire hazard also reduced the number of snags currently standing but may have increased 

the number of logs present in some areas. Starting around 1980, forest management focused on 

even-aged timber sales, i.e., cutting all the trees and developing stands of the same age and size.

Treatments were conducted on selected stands and large blocks throughout the project area 

(approximately 44 percent of the area). 

Individual stand treatments focused on overstory removal of mature trees where a younger age 

class was present. Where mature trees dominated, regeneration treatments focused on removal of 

most overstory trees and retention of scattered low density seed trees. Where sapling or mid-aged 

trees dominated, treatments focused on thinning to manage stand density. Much of the thinning 

treatments yielded pulpwood products for paper, and the removal and regeneration treatments 

yielded sawtimber products primarily for lumber. 

Past timber sales in and near the project area, such as Carr Lake, Deer Lake, Palomino, and 

others, all implemented prior to the 1996 forest plan amendment for owl and goshawk, targeted 

the harvest of medium and large diameter trees. In some cases, all trees over 12 inches in 

diameter were removed. This even-aged forest management focus continued until the mid-1990s, 

leaving the legacy of current forest structural conditions across the landscape. All of the areas 

where regeneration treatments were conducted have adequately regenerated. Many stands are 

currently single-aged or two-aged, with homogenous forest canopy structures and high density. 

During the recent past (mid-1990s to present), selected small areas were thinned to reduce fire 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

40 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

hazard adjacent to public areas, such as residential areas and campgrounds. These thinning 

treatments focused on removal of the smallest trees, producing results similar to the mid-aged 

stand thinning treatments conducted during the 1980s period. 

Several large-scale fires have occurred around and within the project area. The 2002 RodeoChediski Fire overlaps a portion on the east side of the project area. Reforestation efforts occurred 

within and adjacent to the project area following the Dude Fire in 1990 resulting in small 

plantations within dense forested areas.

Table 8 contains a list of vegetation treatments and fire events that have influenced the project 

area since 2000. Ongoing activities include grazing and recreation. The Long Tom Allotment 

accounts for approximately 34 percent of the project area. It is grazed by sheep for approximately 

6 months of the year. Sheep grazing is monitored for utilization, and pastures rested and rotated 

for recovery. The Limestone Allotment accounts for approximately 3 percent of the project area,

but has not been grazed by cattle for the past 15 years and grazing is not anticipated within the 

near future. In terms of recreation, activities in the project area include dispersed and developed 

camping, hunting, and hiking. 

Foreseeable future actions within the project area include thinning trees within power line

corridors as ongoing maintenance. Forest Road 300 has been scheduled for upgrades that would 

allow it to become a state highway. Analysis is scheduled in 2013, with construction beginning in 

2014 following a decision.

Table 8. Past vegetation treatments and fire events in the Rim Lakes Project area

Project Year Acres Activity

Power line clearing 2001 122 Mastication of all trees greater than 5 feet tall within power 

line right-of-way.

Fulton precommercial 

thinning

2002 25 Thinning up to 6 inches to improve growth. Material 

chipped.

Rodeo-Chediski Fire 

erosion seeding

2003 105 Watershed and erosion completed with aerial seeding and 

straw in places.

Bark beetle reduction 

thinning

2004 34 Reduced density of trees up to 6 inches by cutting and 

chipping.

300 Road daylighting 2005 78 Thinning and chipping up to 7 inches, 66 feet from roadway.

Some burning of piles next to road. Removal of hazard trees.

Bark beetle reduction 

thinning

2005 191 Reduced density of trees up to 6 inches by cutting and 

chipping.

Legacy Salvage Sale 2006 276 Salvage removal of dead trees within the Rodeo-Chediski 

Fire. Branches and limbs left onsite.

Rim Top Broadcast Burn 2006 681 Broadcast burning to reduce ground fuels and improve 

grasses and forbs.

Forest Lakes WUI 2007 836 Reduced density of trees up to 16 inches by cutting and 

removing. Material piled and burned.

OW Salvage Sale 2007 92 Salvage removal of dead trees within the Rodeo-Chediski 

Fire. Branches and limbs left onsite.

Power line clearing 2006-

2007

122 Mastication of all trees greater than 5 feet tall within power 

line right-of-way.

Promontory pile burning 2007 127 Burning of piled material created by dozer lines.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 41

Vegetation

This section summarizes the key effects and assumptions from the silviculure specialist report

(Richardson et al., 2012) located in the project record.

Affected Environment—Vegetative Cover Types

Forest stands are often classified by their forest type and by habitat type or plant associations.

This analysis will analyze forest cover types found in the forest plan for Mexican spotted owl and 

northern goshawk habitat (USDA 1987, as amended). All forested habitat was stratified to meet 

analysis requirements in the forest plan for Mexican spotted owl (MSO) and northern goshawk as 

displayed in figure 7. This analysis is located in the “Wildlife” section of this document (page 

77). Table 9 displays the vegetation and other land use cover types within the project area.

Nonforest Vegetative Cover Types

Dry and wet meadows are present in the analysis area. Riparian inclusions occur along drainages 

and within stands identified as ponderosa pine, pine-oak, or mixed conifer cover type. Bear 

Canyon Lake, Woods Canyon Lake, and Willow Springs Lake fall within the project area.

Forest Plant Community Types

Habitat types are an aggregation of units of land capable of producing similar plant communities 

at its natural developmental end point, or climax (Helms, 1998). Each habitat type is usually 

named for the most shade-tolerant species regenerating successfully, and usually considered the 

climax in the absence of disturbances such as fire. The majority of the project area is a ponderosa 

pine habitat type with the remaining stands identified as Douglas-fir or white fir habitat types

(referred to generally as “mixed conifer” types). Deciduous species of Gambel oak, Rocky 

Mountain maple, big tooth maple, box elder, and New Mexican locust can be found scattered 

throughout the project area as inclusions in the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest types, but 

most young sprouts and seedlings are destroyed by browsing of elk, deer, and other ungulates

such as cattle.

Woods Canyon bark 

beetle prevention

2007 360 Thinning trees greater than 5 inches in diameter to reduce 

basal area and lower beetle susceptibility within the 

campground.

Woods Canyon bark 

beetle prevention

2008 360 Burning of piles from campground thinning.

Forest Lakes WUI 

broadcast burning

2009 900 Broadcast burning to reduce ground fuels and improve 

grasses and forbs.

Woods Canyon bark 

beetle prevention

2009 306 Thinning and handpiling trees up to 5 inches within the 

Woods Canyon Campground.

Woods Canyon bark 

beetle prevention

2011 306 Pile burning of material from precommercial thinning.

Power line clearing 2011 240 Removal of all trees greater than 5 feet tall within power line

right-of-way.

Hwy. 260 hazard tree 

removal

2011 25 Removal of dying trees along State Highway 260.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

42 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Figure 7. Stratification of forested and nonforested land

Table 9. Forested and nonforested acres by stratum

Stratum Cover Type Acres

Forested

Ponderosa pine 22,258

Mixed conifer 8,127

Pine-oak 2,571

Total Forested 32,956

Nonforested

Wetland 24

Reservoir 286

Gravel pit 17

Private land 24

Grassland 241

Total nonforested 593

Total 33,548
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 43

Ponderosa Pine and Pine-oak

In the project area, ponderosa pine commonly grows in pure stands and currently is found in 

even-aged12 and uneven-aged13 structural conditions across the project area. These stands provide 

habitat for species such as northern goshawk. A portion of the stands have a large enough 

component of Gambel oak to be considered pine-oak habitat for Mexican spotted owl (MSO) as 

described in the forest plan and MSO recovery plan. Ponderosa pine also occurs as an early 

successional or early seral14 species in mixed conifer stands, where over time it gives way to 

more shade-tolerant species such Douglas-fir and white fir. Limited remnant patches of aspen can 

be found throughout the project areas within the pine stands.

Mixed Conifer

Mixed conifer stands found within the project area hold a variety of tree species, including 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white fir, southwestern white pine, and patches of aspen. The 

majority of mixed conifer found in the project area is dominated by ponderosa pine and Douglasfir, and is considered to be a dry mixed conifer forest type, which historically saw frequent fire. 

Portions of the mixed conifer type are in mid-succession or climax condition with an understory 

of white fir. The cessation of frequent fire has resulted in increasing regeneration of shadetolerant white fir. Over time, species composition would shift from fire-resistant, shade-intolerant 

species to nonfire-resistant, shade-tolerant species dominance. Some stands within the project 

area have transitioned to dominance of shade-tolerant species, such as Douglas-fir. Ponderosa 

pine and southwestern white pine are regenerating where old logging roads and scattered 

openings occur in the stands. Some wet mixed conifer forest type can be found within canyons 

and along some of the major drainages and lakes. Wet mixed conifer vegetation types are found 

where historically fire occurred infrequently.

Aspen

Aspen exists over approximately one-third of the assessment area in small isolated patches. It is a 

early seral phase of the wet mixed conifer forest cover type development, but only occurs as 

scattered patches within the dry mixed conifer forest cover type. In the project area these patches 

typically consist of a few overstory trees with a sapling component of 3-inch to 8-inch diameter 

trees. Currently there are no aspen stands within the project area. Elk are particularly damaging to 

aspen, browsing on aspen suckers, rubbing antlers on mid-sized trees, and eating bark from larger 

trees. Several aspen patches or clones show signs of decline marked by mortality and dieback of 

crowns, similar to what has been observed across Arizona over the past several years. Aspen are 

regenerating successfully where wildlife is excluded by fencing. Mature aspen in the project area 

are dying due to defoliation by various insects and disease agents, or age-related senescence 

(Fairweather 2008).

 12 Even-aged – pertaining to a stand composed of a single age class in which the tree ages are within + 20 percent 

variability based upon the mature stand age (Helms 1998).

13 Uneven-aged – pertaining to a stand with trees of three or more distinct age classes (Helms 1998).

14 “Seral stage” is a term used in biology to describe the series of relatively transitory plant communities that develop 

during ecological succession from bare ground (early seral) to the climax stage (late seral). Early seral species of plants 

are those that come into a system soon after disturbance. Late seral species are those that come in later in the 

succession, are more tolerant of shade, and represent the final stages of succession (climax). Ponderosa pine is an 

example of an early seral species because it reenters an ecosystem soon after disturbance but eventually—without 

disturbance—would be shaded out by species such as white fir that are more shade tolerant. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

44 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Historic Range of Variability

Extensive research—particularly by Dr. Wallace Covington and colleagues of Northern Arizona 

University—has demonstrated that current ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest are greatly 

altered in terms of forest structure, density, and ecological function. Most forest conditions are at 

much higher risk of high intensity and severity fire than they were prior to European settlement 

(Covington 1993, Moore et al., 1999).

A century ago the pine forests had widely-spaced large trees with a more open, herbaceous forest 

floor (Cooper 1960). Typical historic tree group/patch size ranged from 0.1 to 0.75 acre in size, (2 

to 40 or more trees) (White 1985). These conditions were maintained by fairly frequent lowintensity ground fires that did not kill the large trees (Fiedler et al., 1996). These fires occurred 

every 2 to 12 years and maintained an open canopy structure (Moir et al., 1997). The herbaceous 

understory fueled frequent fires started by lightning, and thinned and/or eliminated thickets of 

small trees keeping the forest open and park-like (Allen et al., 2002). This historic range of 

variability condition was estimated to have an average of 23–56 trees per acre on the Fort Valley 

Experimental Forest near Flagstaff, Arizona (Covington 1993). 

Dr. Margaret Moore reported that on permanent plots located throughout southwestern ponderosa 

pine forests, remeasurements conducted from 1997 to 1999 show that average trees per acre have 

increased by up to 33-fold since the plots were established in 1909–1913 (Moore et al., 2004). On 

the Long Valley Experimental Forest, which is very similar to the project area (sedimentary soils 

on the Mogollon Rim, central Arizona), the sampled trees per acre in 1938 ranged up to 99 trees 

per acre, with an estimated 75 trees per acre being present prior to the cessation of frequent fire 

(circa 1880–1900). 

In his 1911 report, Woolsey (USFS Assistant District Forester, District (Region) 3) described 

historic conditions for ponderosa pine forests in the Southwest. Reporting on the general 

character of ponderosa pine forests, Woolsey noted:

The typical western yellow (ponderosa) pine forest of the Southwest is a pure 

park-like stand made up of scattered groups of from 2 to 20 trees, usually 

connected by scattering individuals. Openings are frequent and vary in size. 

Because of the open character of the stand and the fire-resisting bark, often 3 

inches thick, the actual loss in yellow (ponderosa) pine by fire is less than with 

other more gregarious species. A crown fire in mature timber is almost unheard 

of, and in a ground fire in the virgin forest young saplings often escape complete 

destruction, though with a fair wind and on a steep slope destruction of seedlings 

and saplings is often complete...In June 1910, a fire occurred on the Gila, Datil 

and Apache National Forests which burned over about 60 square miles. The area 

burned was steep and rocky, with an unusual quantity of dry forage. An 

investigation showed that injury to the yellow (ponderosa) pine was confined 

very largely to the reproduction. On the area as a whole, from 40 to 50 percent of 

the seedlings were killed.” (Woolsey 1911)

Historic mixed conifer forests were typically uneven aged in structure, and tree spatial patterns 

varied from open and clumped to moderately sized homogeneous patches. Density ranged from 

openings with very low density to patches with moderate density. The warmer/drier mixed conifer 

forest types experienced more frequent fire and were typically uneven aged, growing in a patchy 

structure, contained many fewer trees per acre than existing stands and experienced relatively 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 45

frequent low to moderate intensity fire, similar to ponderosa pine forests. The cooler/wetter 

mixed conifer forest types historically experienced less frequent, moderate intensity fire, resulting 

in larger patches of homogeneous tree ages and higher patch density overall (Smith 2006). Due to 

the frequent disturbance regime, historic species composition in the warmer/drier mixed conifer 

forests was dominated by fire resistant, shade-intolerant conifer species such as ponderosa pine, 

southwestern white pine, and Douglas-fir. Historically shade-tolerant species were absent or 

present as a minor stand component on the drier sites such as ridgetops and southwest-facing 

slopes, with more abundant but still subdominant representation on cooler, wetter, north-facing 

slopes.

While it is not considered necessary—or even desirable in some cases—to mimic these historic 

conditions throughout pine and mixed conifer forests today, this condition represents a state of 

being that is in harmony with the natural disturbance regime. This disturbance pattern of frequent, 

low-intensity fires shaped this ecosystem and so restoring it to that pattern offers a means of 

returning the forests to their more natural resilience.

Social, political, and economic factors are much different today than a century ago and there are 

valid considerations for leaving areas of higher tree density to meet management needs. But 

restoration of some portion of the landscape to conditions reminiscent of pre-European settlement 

times would provide greater ecosystem stability and sustainability. 

Desired conditions for this project are described in detail in the silviculture report and 

summarized in chapter 1 (page 4).

Environmental Consequences—Vegetation 

Summary

Table 10 compares the project purpose and need vegetation management objectives/effects 

between the two action alternatives.

Alternative A: By taking no action, no vegetation management activities would occur under 

alternative A. No opportunities for timber or other biomass products to be produced, and no costs 

would be incurred for thinning or burning treatments under alternative A. Stands that would be 

left untreated would continue to become denser and decrease in vigor and health over time, and 

increases in insect, disease, and density-related mortality is probable. Grass/forb and shrub 

presence would decrease, and growth would continue to decline. No canopy gaps would be 

created for seedling regeneration, or to restore forest openings. Growth of trees would be slower 

than the treated stands.

Alternative B: Alternative B makes rapid progress in moving stand structures and other forest 

conditions toward desired conditions, compared to no change in current conditions (alternative 

A), and much more effectively than alternative C.

Fire hazard would be less than alternative A and alternative C by creating gaps in the canopy and 

forest openings.

The forest plan amendment proposed as part of this alternative would assure that the vegetation 

treatments are consistent with forest plan direction. Effects of this amendment to vegetation are 

the same as those described in this section. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

46 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative C: Alternative C would result in many posttreatment stands with lower stand 

densities than alternative A, but with higher density than alternative B; therefore, these stands 

would retain a lower resistance to bark beetles, and lower forest resiliency to environmental 

stressors such as climate variability and change. There would be fewer openings in the canopy 

than in alternative B, limiting the development of forest openings to less than 10 percent of the 

area, reducing development of VSS 1 and VSS 2 classes, which would remain deficit compared to 

alternative B. Based upon past examples where this alternative was implemented in other 

locations on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, implementation of this alternative in 

existing uneven-aged stands would result in homogenization of forest structure such that stands 

would become single or two-aged after treatment, and existing even-aged stands would be 

maintained in even-aged condition.

Fire hazard would be less than alternative A, but greater than alternative B due to fewer gaps in 

the canopy and forest openings. Selection for the removal groups may be difficult and the best 

trees may not always be chosen for retention as seed trees; this may even result in the retention of 

genetically inferior trees, while smaller genetically superior trees are removed to meet objectives 

for stand density and fire reduction.

The effects to vegetation of the amendment for alternative C are the same as those described in 

the “Effects” section for this alternative. 

Table 10. Comparison of alternatives: project purpose and need

Alternative B Alternative C

Achieve target stand density in most treated stands. Achieve target stand density in most treated stands.

Reduce bark beetle hazard in most treated stands. Reduce bark beetle hazard in most treated stands.

Reduce and manage dwarf mistletoe severity and extent 

in some stands.

Partially reduce and manage dwarf mistletoe severity 

and extent in some stands. Limited ability to deal with 

situations when larger trees have mistletoe and must be 

left, while healthy understory is removed to meet 

density objectives.

Achieve desired stand structure and species composition 

in most stands. 

Across about 70 percent of the treated stands, unevenaged structure could not be achieved with the diameter 

limit. Stands would move toward even-aged condition, 

away from desired conditions. On about 30 percent of 

the treated stands—where immature even-aged stands 

(VSS 1, 2, 3) dominate—this alternative would achieve 

desired stand structure and species composition. This 

includes goshawk habitat as well as MSO restricted

habitats). In these areas constraints seldom limit 

attainment of age/size/density objectives, although they 

may have minor effects on meeting forest 

health/species objectives. Few trees larger than 16"

d.b.h. exist in these stands and those that occur, would 

be retained to add necessary structural diversity and as 

seed trees to facilitate regeneration treatments to recruit 

a new age class cohort.

Achieve basal area requirements for Mexican spotted 

owl in PACs, threshold, and target threshold habitats.

Achieve basal area requirements for Mexican spotted 

owl in PACs, threshold, and target threshold habitats.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 47

Alternative B Alternative C

Restore historic forest spatial patterns; forest canopy 

gaps and openings on 20–40 percent of each stand area 

(excluding MSO protected and restricted/threshold, and 

goshawk nesting areas). These canopy gaps and forest 

openings mimic historic spatial patterns and provide for 

regeneration of shade intolerant tree species, 

development of grass/forbs and shrubs, rooting zones 

for tree group development, and facilitate reintroduction 

and maintenance of frequent surface fire as an 

ecological process.

Will not restore historic forest spatial patterns; forest 

canopy gaps and openings as described for alternative 

B.

Maintain existing uneven-aged stands (currently 

represent 55 percent of the forested area), and progress 

toward a balance of VSS classes by creation of 

sufficient regeneration canopy gap openings.

Uneven-aged stands would move toward even-aged 

stand conditions, resulting in less than 55 percent of the 

area in an uneven-aged forest condition.

Convert existing even-aged stands (currently represent 

45 percent of the forested area) to uneven-aged structure 

by creation of sufficient regeneration canopy gap 

openings.

Constraints limit creation of sufficient regeneration 

group openings to develop an uneven-aged structure. 

Even-aged forest stands would continue to represent 45 

percent of the area.

Achieve target stand density, while providing for 

maintenance and development of a balance of VSS.

Constraints force a tradeoff between forest structure 

and density. Uneven-aged forest structure is reduced or 

lost to meet density objectives. Treated stands move 

toward even-aged structure.

Manage mixed conifer stands to favor/regenerate forest 

species composition commensurate with the desired 

conditions.

Constraints limit opportunities to manage for desired 

species composition (tree regeneration and overall 

stand species mix).

Achieve basal area requirements for Mexican spotted 

owl in PACs, threshold, and target threshold habitats.

Achieve basal area requirements for Mexican spotted 

owl in PACs, threshold, and target threshold habitats.

Achieve target stand density, while providing for 

maintenance and development of a balance of VSS.

Mature even-aged stands (VSS 4) would remain at 

about 15 percent of forested area. Constraints limit 

creation of sufficient regeneration group openings to 

initiate conversion of even-aged stands to all-aged 

structure 

Fully address and manage forest health issues such as 

stand density, dwarf mistletoe, forest genetics, and 

favoring development/regeneration of southwestern 

white pine.

Partially address and manage forest health issues such 

as dwarf mistletoe, forest genetics, and favoring 

development/regeneration of southwestern white pine.

Vegetation Effects Details

Forest Health

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no forest vegetation treatment activities would occur. Stand densities 

would not be reduced. During the next 20 years, growth modeling simulation shows that stand 

densities would increase to levels ranging from an average of 46–62 percent of maximum stand 

density. These density levels are at the threshold or well within the zone of density-related 

mortality.

Bark beetle hazard is moderate over much of the analysis area, and would increase as stands 

become denser. Alternative A has the highest bark beetle hazard (Richardson et al., 2012) and 

would result in higher probable tree mortality than alternatives B or C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

48 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Dwarf mistletoe in ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir would continue to intensify within the areas of 

current infections, and the size of the current infection centers would slowly spread over time. 

Dwarf mistletoe severely impacts regeneration, and infected sapling-sized trees seldom survive to 

develop to maturity. Over time (2–4 decades) this would severely limit sustainability of unevenaged stands where current infection levels exceed 25 percent of host trees (40 percent of the 

analysis area). Trees with severe dwarf mistletoe infection levels exhibit low vigor overall, and 

these trees are more susceptible to bark beetle and density-induced mortality.

Alternative B

Alternative B moves the treated areas toward healthier forest conditions by restoring vigorous 

growth conditions and reducing losses due to tree mortality, high-severity wildfire, and insects 

and diseases. Alternative B would be most effective at increasing forest health and vigor, thereby 

improving forest resiliency and sustainability to stresses such as insects, disease, and climatic 

variability. Based upon all forest stands (treated and untreated), 80 percent of northern goshawk 

habitat forest types (by area) and 75 percent of MSO restricted habitat forest types (by area) are 

projected to meet desired maximum density conditions post treatment (Richardson et al., 2012).

In MSO protected habitat forest areas (where thinning is restricted to cutting trees up to a 

maximum 9 inches d.b.h.), a reduction of excess density in understory trees would occur, but 

overall forest canopy cover and continuity would remain unchanged. Beneficial effects to forest 

health and vigor would be minimal as a result of these treatments, but minor improvements in the 

ability to implement and control prescribed fire treatments would be realized.

This alternative is the most effective treatment for reducing bark beetle hazard. However, the 

differences with alternative C are slight on a stratum-level basis. Some individual stands would 

experience a large reduction in beetle hazard relative to alternative C, based upon the existing 

conditions and the local effects resultant from the alternative C constraints (Richardson et al., 

2012). 

Decreasing stand densities would release dominant15 and codominant16 trees allowing them to 

become more vigorous, more resistant to insect and diseases (McMillin 2004), and grow at a 

faster rate into larger tree size classes. After treatment, it is projected that approximately 72 

percent of the analysis area would be in the low hazard category (Richardson et al., 2012).

Therefore, 28 percent of the analysis area beetle hazard remains high, where stands would not 

receive treatments to reduce forest canopy density (no treatment, broadcast burning only 

treatment, or limited treatment—MSO protected and threshold habitats). In these areas, stand 

density would not be reduced enough to affect bark beetle hazard.

Alternative B would provide opportunities to manage dwarf mistletoe severity, incidence, and 

distribution in order to move toward desired endemic forest disease levels within the project area. 

Treatments would alternately focus on removal of infected trees in locations where new 

regeneration groups (VSS 1) would be established or favored, and where forest openings would 

be developed/restored (20–40 percent of the area). Elsewhere within the stands, treatment would 

 15 Dominant – trees that receive full light from above the canopy and partially from the sides. Crowns extend above the 

general level of the canopy (USDA 1987).

16 Codominant – Tree crowns receive full light from above, but comparatively little from the sides (USDA 1987).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 49

focus on reduction of the percentage of severely infected trees. Severe dwarf mistletoe infection 

centers are typically circular in shape, but seldom exceed 4 acres in size within the project area. 

Because the forest plan amendment allows for greater than a 200-foot-opening width, this 

alternative should allow for creation of replacement regeneration openings sufficient to manage 

dwarf mistletoe toward desired conditions. The restoration of canopy gaps and forest openings 

would greatly reduce continuity of mistletoe occurrence, spread, and mortality, such that the hostpathogen biological dynamics function similar to historic conditions. 

Generally, the focus would be on managing dwarf mistletoe locations, severity, and spread 

potential such that it is present at endemic levels that do not jeopardize short- and long-term 

attainment of desired forest vigor, structure, and species composition. In mixed conifer stands, 

nonhost species would be favored over severely diseased trees, as local forest conditions permit. 

On forest lands managed for northern goshawk habitat, where diseased single trees greater than 

24 inches d.b.h. exist, they would be removed to favor other trees or promote regeneration.

No trees greater than 24 inches d.b.h. would be removed on lands designated as MSO restricted 

or protected habitat. 

Based upon forest plan amendment (see page 25), occasional VSS 6 groups would be treated 

where they are severely infected with dwarf mistletoe, in order to allow for forest development 

and growth and/or regeneration.

Alternative B also provides flexibility to manage for maintenance or improvement of forest 

genetics within the project area. In many locations within the project area historic high-grade 

cutting has resulted in mature seed trees with “poor formed” (stunted) characteristics, relative to 

the original genetic diversity that existed prior to cutting. These genetically-stunted trees typically 

do not develop into VSS 6 forest structural stages or large individual trees, even at advanced ages. 

Therefore, most of these trees remain small in size relative to age, and neither these trees nor their 

progeny develop desirable mature forest habitat characteristics. In some locations, it would be 

advantageous to remove these individual “poor formed” trees to favor seed trees with more 

desirable and “normal formed” traits. On a case-by-case basis, alternative B permits the favoring 

of seed trees with desirable growth traits over those remnant examples of the poorest formed 

individuals from the original forest stands.

Alternative B is more effective than alternatives A or C in providing forest resiliency to climatic 

variability and other environmental stressors. This alternative moves stands toward an unevenaged condition which is more desired for forest health and improving resilience. Tree growth 

would increase through thinning and would sequester more carbon than other alternatives. This 

alternative provides opportunities for renewable products such as lumber and biomass energy.

Alternative C

Alternative C moves the treated areas toward healthier forest conditions by restoring more 

vigorous growth conditions, and reducing losses due to tree mortality, wildfires, insects, and 

diseases relative to alternative A. 

Alternative C would be less effective than alternative B for increasing forest health and vigor, and 

forest resiliency to stresses such as insects, disease, and climatic variability. Stand densities would 

be reduced in all of the harvest units, but the ability to reduce densities to desired conditions 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

50 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

would be limited by the 16-inch-diameter cutting constraint, and some stands or areas would not 

achieve desired density objectives (Richardson et al., 2012). Based upon all forest stands (treated 

and untreated), 80 percent of northern goshawk habitat forest types (by area) and 75 percent of 

MSO restricted habitat forest types (by area) are projected to meet desired maximum density 

conditions post treatment (Richardson et al., 2012). Overall stratum-level differences in stand 

density are slight relative to alternative B. 

However, the forest vegetation spatial patterns would be different under this alternative than 

under alternative B. The posttreatment tree distribution would be more uniform under alternative 

C, leading to more rapid canopy closure (5–15 years) of the forest as it develops post treatment. 

Research has shown that diameter constraints maintain more tree canopy and result in more rapid 

in-growth of the canopy following treatments (Abella et al., 2006). The constraints of this 

alternative reduce opportunities to restore historic forest spatial patterns (forest canopy gaps and 

openings on 20–40 percent of each stand area (excluding MSO protected and restricted/threshold, 

and goshawk nesting areas). 

As with alternative B, in MSO protected habitat forest areas (where thinning is restricted to 

cutting trees up to a maximum 9 inches d.b.h.), a reduction of excess density in understory trees 

would occur, but overall forest canopy cover and continuity would remain unchanged. Beneficial 

effects to forest health and vigor would be minimal as a result of these treatments, but minor 

improvements in the ability to implement and control prescribed fire treatments would be 

realized.

Alternative C is slightly less effective at a small scale than alternative B for reducing bark beetle 

hazard. Overall hazard reduction is the same. After treatment, it is projected that approximately 

72 percent of the analysis area would be in the low hazard category (Richardson et al., 2012). On 

28 percent of the analysis area, beetle hazard remains high due to stands which would not receive 

treatments to reduce forest canopy density (no treatment or broadcast burning only treatment). In 

these areas, stand density would not be reduced enough to affect bark beetle hazard.

Dwarf mistletoe management treatments proposed under this alternative are the same as described 

for alternative B, with the added 16-inch diameter constraint and with retention of all VSS 6, 

regardless of their health. As a result of these constraints, alternative C is less effective than 

alternative B for management of dwarf mistletoe. Alternative C would provide some 

opportunities to manage dwarf mistletoe severity, incidence, and distribution, but management 

opportunities would be more limited than alternative B. Treatments would alternately focus on 

removal of infected trees (less than 16 inches d.b.h.) in locations where new regeneration canopy 

gaps (VSS 1–2) would be established or favored, and reduction of the percentage of severely 

infected trees (less than 16 inches d.b.h.) elsewhere within the stands. 

These constraints greatly reduce the ability to create regeneration canopy gaps and forest 

openings (Richardson et al., 2012), thereby maintaining high continuity of mistletoe occurrence, 

spread, and effects in most currently infected stands. This continuity greatly limits opportunities 

to manage for characteristic dwarf mistletoe distribution patterns and effects, and would maintain 

current uncharacteristic conditions, albeit at a less severe level than alternative A. The focus 

would be on managing dwarf mistletoe locations, severity, and spread potential to the extent 

possible under the tree size cutting constraint. In many cases the constraint of this alternative 

would result in favoring diseased trees/species over noninfected trees/species in order to balance 

the tradeoff of stand density objectives over forest health objectives. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 51

Mistletoe often increases in the understory trees when thinning occurs and dwarf mistletoe is not 

removed from the overstory trees. Thinning from below would leave mistletoe in the larger trees 

allowing them to infect regeneration which would establish after treatment. This alternative 

would limit the ability to manage for desired uneven-aged forest conditions, and over time (2–4 

decades) would limit sustainability of uneven-aged stands where current infection levels exceed 

25 percent of host trees (currently 40 percent of the analysis area). It would also severely limit the 

ability to convert existing diseased even-aged stands to uneven-aged stands. Trees with severe 

dwarf mistletoe infection levels exhibit low vigor overall, and these trees are more susceptible to 

bark beetle and density induced mortality.

Table 11. Habitat conditions, goshawk foraging post treatment and 20 years (stratum 

averages)

Measure Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

Basal Area 92 120 45 65 51 79

Beetle Hazard Moderate Moderate Low Low Low Low

SDI 196 249 77 111 87 168

Percent of Max SDI 44 55 17 25 19 37

Snags per Acre 0.8 1.5 0.8 1.4 0.8 1.5

Table 12. Habitat conditions, PFA/nest, post treatment and 20 years (stratum averages)

Measure Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

Basal Area 80 106 62 81 70 91

Beetle Hazard Low Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate

SDI 158 207 109 136 122 152

Percent of Max SDI 35 46 24 30 27 34

Snags per Acre 0.7 1.3 0.7 1.1 0.7 1.2

Table 13. Habitat conditions, MSO mixed conifer post treatment and 20 years (stratum 

averages)

Measure Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

Basal Area 112 137 59 78 67 89

Beetle Hazard Moderate High Low Low Low Moderate

SDI 244 292 102 135 117 152

Percent of Max SDI 51 62 22 28 25 32

Snags per Acre 2.4 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.4 1.8
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

52 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 14. Habitat conditions, MSO pine oak post treatment and 20 years (stratum 

averages)

Compared with alternative B, alternative C provides much less opportunity to manage for

maintenance or improvement of forest genetics within the project area. In areas where group 

selection is utilized, selection for the removal groups may be difficult because of the 16-inch 

d.b.h. limit and the best trees may not always be chosen for retention as seed trees. This may even 

result in genetically inferior trees being retained (Uneven-aged Management: Opportunities, 

Constrainsts and Methodologies, 1995). Where phenotypically undesirable trees are greater than 

16 inches d.b.h., these trees would remain to provide the regeneration seed source for the future.

Vegetative Structure

Alternative A

The primary forest vegetation management direction found in the forest plan (USDA 1987, as 

amended) is to develop or maintain sustainable uneven-aged forest structure. Under alternative A, 

no conifer regeneration treatments would occur. Even-aged stands would remain even-aged in 

structure, and no new age classes would be created and/or managed. Uneven-aged stand 

structures would not be maintained over time, due to lack of regeneration of new age classes. 

Restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns with canopy gaps and forest openings would not 

occur, and canopy continuity would remain high throughout the project area. Mixed conifer forest 

stands would continue to be dominated by shade-tolerant species, or would continue to convert to 

dominance of these species over time. No forest habitat or allocated old growth stands would be 

treated to improve health and vigor of the stand, or to manage forest structure toward desired 

conditions. Natural meadows and openings would not be maintained. Quaking aspen and Gambel 

oak patches would not be released or favored to develop. Opportunities to actively favor and 

regenerate southwestern white pine would not occur as systematically under this alternative.

Alternative B

Desired forest structure conditions are uneven-aged forests with a balance of structural stages 

(age classes), arranged in a clumped, open forest condition (excepting MSO protected and 

restricted-threshold habitats, and goshawk nest habitats). 

A primary objective is the restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns with canopy gaps and 

forest openings totaling 20–40 percent of stand areas to facilitate uneven-aged forest stand 

dynamics and other ecological functions.

• One element of the proposed treatments is the initiation of conditions conducive to 

regenerate or develop VSS 1 and 2 classes (establish or release existing 

Measure Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

Basal Area 100 127 57 84 64 90

Beetle Hazard Moderate High Low Moderate Low Moderate

SDI 214 269 100 158 113 164

Percent of Max SDI 47 60 22 35 25 36

Snags per Acre 1.3 1.9 1.3 1.8 1.3 2.0
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 53

seedlings/saplings), totaling approximately 20 percent of the open area. Opening size 

would range from between 0.25 and 4 acres in size with most averaging 0.33–0.75 acre.

Details are found in the silviculture report (Richardson et al., 2012).

• The remainder of the openness created by treatment would be interspaces (up to another 

20 percent) to provide for other ecological functions.

Under alternative B, existing even-aged stands would be managed to develop a new age class, 

and would become two-aged stands within 1 decade post treatment. Existing uneven-aged stand 

structures would be maintained as uneven-aged stands, and managed over time to develop a 

balance of age classes in a mosaic of tightly interspersed structural groups. Stands would be 

evaluated to determine excess or deficit vegetation structural stages, where VSS is roughly 

equivalent to age class. Groups/individual trees would be removed or favored to move toward the 

desired balance. Restoration of sustainable forest mosaic patterns would occur, and the resulting 

forest canopy would be discontinuous and clumped throughout much of the project area, based 

upon desired conditions.

As noted in the silviculture report, similar treatment strategies (Richardson et al., 2012) achieved 

the following objectives:

1. Regeneration group openings of sufficient size were established on sufficient areas to 

develop and maintain uneven-aged forest conditions; 

2. Grouped tree spatial patterns were maintained and created; 

3. Stand canopy continuity was broken (provide habitat diversity and greatly reduce crown 

fire potential); and

4. Progress toward a balance of VSS classes was promoted (balanced representation was 

maintained/promoted, but overall balanced VSS was not achievable during the initial 

treatment). 

While each stand within the project area varies by forest structure and other conditions, it is 

expected that many of the same posttreatment outcomes can be achieved in existing uneven-aged 

stands through implementation of the like treatment prescriptions proposed for alternative B. 

Within the project area, many of the stands are existing even-aged forest structures. Application 

of the alternative B proposed selection cutting treatments would fully achieve results number 1, 2, 

and 3 above, and partially achieve result number 4 (a full representation/balance of VSS classes is 

not possible because the initial treatment would only begin the process of conversion from an 

even-aged to uneven-aged condition).

Mixed conifer forest stands would be managed to favor dominance by shade-intolerant species 

over much of the project area (except for MSO protected forest habitat and restricted habitat 

managed for threshold habitat values). Allocated old growth stands and other areas would be 

treated to improve health and vigor of the stand, and to manage forest structure toward desired 

conditions. Natural meadows and openings would be maintained by removing conifers which 

have encroached upon these areas, post-European settlement. Quaking aspen and Gambel oak 

patches would be released or favored to develop. Understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs would 

respond to these opened canopy conditions, and increase in abundance and vigor. Management 

would focus on favoring and regeneration of southwestern white pine in locations where it 

currently exists.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

54 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Some effects of these treatments would be increased tree growth and favoring of the dominant 

trees within groups. Groups or stands currently classified as VSS 3 would be classed as VSS 4 

and 5 post treatment (resultant from favoring dominant trees for retention). Increasing the 

percentage of acres in the VSS 4 class allows for a greater number of residual trees for 

development into future VSS 5 and 6. These effects would occur in both the existing even and 

uneven-aged structured stands. 

Enhanced vegetative ground cover would also improve forest soil nutrient cycling and stability 

(Dahms et al.,1997). Forest regeneration is expected to occur within 5 years of the broadcast 

burning treatment. Within 10 years these openings would become VSS 1 and 2 tree groups. Due 

to the moderately sized regeneration canopy gaps that would be created (average 0.33–0.75 acre), 

the site conditions would favor regeneration of shade intolerant species in ponderosa pine and 

mixed conifer stands. Broadcast burning is expected to reduce densities of the new regeneration 

but not eliminate it, due to the size of the canopy-free openings which would moderate fire 

effects.

Selected natural meadow locations would be maintained/restored to grassland or wet meadow by 

removal of all conifer trees (except VSS 6 tree groups and yellow pine individuals).

Alternative C

This alternative would not achieve the desired forest structure conditions, which should be 

uneven-aged forests with a balance of structural stages (age classes), arranged in a clumped, open 

forest condition (excepting MSO protected and restricted-threshold habitats, and goshawk nest 

habitats). This alternative would typically not achieve the objective of restoration of sustainable 

forest mosaic patterns with canopy gaps and forest openings. This alternative would limit 

regeneration or development of VSS 1 and 2 classes. It would typically not meet the target 

regeneration gap size for foraging areas. Canopy gaps smaller than 0.33 acre would not 

effectively facilitate regeneration and future development of tree groups of sufficient size 

necessary to produce and sustain desired wildlife habitat conditions. 

Treatments on much of the project area would likely not achieve these objectives, because it is 

often difficult to create and place sufficiently sized openings when silvicultural prescriptions are 

constrained by a tree size limit (Abella et al., 2006). It is very likely that alternative C would 

result in much fewer canopy gaps/openings of sufficient size to achieve objectives than 

alternative B on 70 percent of the project area (55 percent uneven-aged forest, 15 percent mature 

even-aged forest, goshawk + MSO restricted other habitats). Initial treatment objectives would 

likely be achieved on the remaining 30 percent of the area (immature even-aged stands).

Failure to achieve regeneration/development openings over 20 percent of the area results in the 

inability to implement the uneven-aged management strategy required by forest plan direction.

Sustainability of uneven-aged forest characteristics cannot be achieved without effective creation 

of proportional regeneration areas. Over time, these conditions would result in domination of the 

site by the overstory trees, effectively creating or maintaining a functional even-aged, closed 

forest condition. Additionally, failure to develop and restore forest openings would limit 

attainment of other ecological objectives, such as improving biological diversity and reinitiation 

of frequent surface fire.

Relevant examples were examined to determine expected outcome effects of alternative C.

(Richardson et al., 2012). These areas were selected as representative of forest stands and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 55

probable treatment. Pretreatment and posttreatment aerial photography was analyzed to calculate 

the canopy openings created under the constraints of this treatment. This analysis shows that 

regeneration/release openings (greater than 0.33 acre) were created on between 1 and 8 percent of 

the treated area. None of the openings created were greater than 0.33 acre in size. (Richardson et 

al., 2012).

Creation of regeneration group openings over 20 percent of the area was not achievable on either 

example treatment area, due to the constraints of the maximum tree size cutting limitation. 

Neither the regeneration canopy gap objectives, nor the other forest opening objectives were 

achieved (desired objective is 20–40 percent in openings overall).

This alternative would result in the greatest increase in the VSS 5 class but moves stands toward 

even-aged stand conditions because so many small and mid-sized trees would be removed in 

order to lower the tree density to meet some fuels reduction objectives. Because a 16-inch d.b.h.

limit would result in retention of the larger trees, more small trees would need to be removed to 

meet desired residual density levels, and those that remain would need to compete for resources 

with these larger trees. 

A deficit of small trees (VSS 1 and 2 ) would occur due to the intensive thinning of small tree 

structural stages necessary in order to meet stand density objectives rather than achieve forest 

structure objectives. Results were reviewed from actual projects implemented with similar 

prescriptions in similar stands. These results indicate that when the diameter limit was 

implemented, achieving structure objectives was difficult (Richardson et al., 2012).

The deficit in small trees created by this treatment would be further exacerbated by the lack of 

opportunities to create regeneration development canopy gaps, as previously discussed. Also, 

remaining VSS 1 and 2 size/age classes would stagnate and would not develop over time, because 

of the shading effects of uniform forest overstory without gaps. This creates a functional evenaged stand, despite the limited presence of some age class diversity.

Alternative C would limit opportunities to manage for desirable species composition in the mixed 

conifer forest type. In many cases, the 16-inch diameter constraint would require that less 

desirable shade-tolerant species be retained in place of highly desirable species such as 

southwestern white pine in order to balance the tradeoff of stand density objectives over species 

composition objectives.

Creation of openings for aspen and oak regeneration would be more limited or not occur due to 

the project constraints. Therefore, these species would continue to decline in abundance and 

vigor. The stands that are being treated for meadow enhancement would have a decrease in tree 

cover but less so than alternative B. Regeneration is expected to occur within 5 years of the 

broadcast burning treatment, but since the openings are smaller (average less than 0.33 acre) than 

under alternative B, regeneration of shade-intolerant species in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

stands would be less vigorous and limited in distribution. In mixed conifer stands, regeneration 

would be dominated by shade-tolerant species such as white fir. Broadcast burning is expected to 

greatly reduce densities of the new regeneration and where regeneration openings are small, may 

eliminate it.

Selected natural meadow locations would be partially maintained or restored to grassland or wet 

meadow by removal of all conifer trees less than 16 inches d.b.h.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

56 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative C is less effective than alternative B in providing forest resiliency to climatic 

variability and other environmental stressors, but greater than alternative A. This alternative limits 

management of stands toward uneven-aged conditions (on much of the area), thereby limiting 

improvement of forest health and tree resilience. Tree growth would increase through thinning 

and would sequester slightly more carbon than alternatives A and B. This alternative provides 

opportunities for renewable products such as lumber and biomass energy.

Habitat Comparison

A comparative analysis of the alternatives for MSO habitat is found in tables 15 and 16. Based 

upon FVS modeling, both alternatives B and C meet forest plan direction for forest structure in 

MSO forest habitat (mixed conifer and pine-oak forest types) immediately post treatment. 

Immediate posttreatment shifts in VSS classes represent statistical average shifts in tree size, due 

to low thinning within tree groups. In 20 years (Plus 20), both alternatives depart from the desired 

condition.

Table 15. Percent of total SDI by size class for MSO restricted mixed conifer habitat

d.b.h.

Class

Desired 

Condition Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

12–18" 10%+ 31% 31% 33% 33% 37% 37

18–24" 10%+ 12% 15% 14% 19% 16% 22

24"+ 10%+ 8% 9% 10% 12% 11% 14

Table 16. Percent of total SDI by size class for MSO restricted pine-oak habitat 

d.b.h.

Class

Desired 

Condition Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

12–18" 15%+ 34% 35% 32% 30% 36% 33

18–24" 15%+ 14% 17% 15% 20% 17% 23

24"+ 15%+ 10% 9% 10% 12% 12% 14

As noted previously for goshawk habitat, in most uneven-aged and mid-even-aged stands it 

would be difficult to create openings with a 16-inch-diameter limit constraint. Estimates were 

made for alternative C that openings would be created for 10 percent of the area. Based upon 

analysis of projects with the same treatment prescription; suitable regeneration openings ranged 

from less than 1 percent to 8 percent of the area.

Ten percent of VSS 1 and 2 represents canopy gaps created to regenerate and favor existing 

seedlings (VSS 1 - 10 percent); and to favor existing saplings (VSS 2 - 10 percent) where 

release17 is feasible. Existing saplings are not accounted in distribution because inventory plot 

classification is based on overstory trees.

 17 Removing shade “releases” the understory for growth when these understory trees are in a condition to take 

advantage of this change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 57

Table 17. Goshawk foraging even-aged percent post treatment and plus 20 years

VSS Class Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

VSS 1 0 1 10 7 5 3

VSS 2 0 0 10 13 5 7

VSS 3 72 31 54 6 61 7

VSS 4 28 65 26 59 29 67

VSS 5 0 3 0 14 0 16

VSS 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Table 18. Goshawk foraging uneven-aged percent post treatment and plus 20 years

VSS Class Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

VSS 1 4 9 10 7 5 3

VSS 2 0 0 13 16 9 11

VSS 3 51 40 41 3 46 4

VSS 4 30 30 24 18 26 21

VSS 5 15 17 12 35 14 44

VSS 6 0 4 0 21 0 17

Table 19. Goshawk PFA stand comparison post treatment and plus 20 years

VSS Class Alt. A Alt. A +20 Alt. B Alt. B +20 Alt. C Alt. C +20

VSS 1 0 0 10 7 5 3

VSS 2 0 0 10 13 5 7

VSS 3 0 0 0 0 0 0

VSS 4 80 80 60 60 70 60

VSS 5 20 20 20 40 20 40

VSS 6 0 0 0 0 0 0

Large Tree Retention

Tables 20 and 21 display the approximate number of existing trees per acre greater than or equal 

to 16 inches d.b.h., and the total number of residual trees following implementation of alternative 

B.

Alternative A

All trees larger than 16 inches d.b.h. would be retained. See table 20 for a display of existing trees 

greater than 16 inches d.b.h.. Stand density would continue to increase reducing the growth and 

health of the larger trees. All trees would grow at a slower rate over time than alternatives B and 

C due to increased stand densities as shown in tables 20 and 21.

Alternative B

Alternative B proposes retaining approximately 89 percent of the trees 16 inches d.b.h. and 

greater. Removal of a portion of trees 16 inches d.b.h. and larger moves the treated stands toward
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

58 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

the desired conditions for VSS 1 and 2 over 20 percent of the treatment area, improves the health 

and growth of the remaining large trees, and decreases fire hazard by creating canopy gaps and

forest openings. Moving toward the desired conditions would result in the removal of 

approximately 11 percent of trees 16 inches d.b.h. and larger. Selection for the removal groups 

would retain the most vigorous and genetically superior trees as seed trees, allowing unhealthy 

and genetically inferior trees to be removed to manage for desired stand density, mistletoe 

infection, and forest spatial arrangement. The remaining trees 16 inches d.b.h. and larger would 

be the more resilient, therefore, in-growth of smaller trees into the larger size classes would occur 

rapidly. Tables 20 and 21 display the approximate number of existing trees per acre and the total 

number of residual trees following treatment. Untreated stands would be the same as alternative 

A.

Alternative C

This alternative would limit cutting to trees less than 16 inches d.b.h., therefore, the posttreatment 

distribution of large trees would remain the same as the existing condition (tables 20 and 21). 

Table 20. Residual trees per acre (TPA) >16" d.b.h. for treatment stands only for 

alternative B following treatment (2011)

Strata Treatment 

Acres

Existing TPA 

>16" d.b.h.

Alts. A & C

TPA Harvested 

>16" d.b.h.

Alt. B

Residual TPA 

>16" d.b.h.

Alt. B

Nothern goshawk Forage,

Even-aged 9,512 7.2 0.7 6.4

Nothern goshawk Forage,

Uneven-aged 6,703 17.3 1.9 15.4

Nothern goshawk PFA/Nest 619 14.0 1.4 12.6

MSO Mixed Conifer 4,868 14.5 1.7 12.8

MSO Pine-oak 1,415 14.3 1.4 12.9

 TPA = trees per acre

Table 21. Total number of residual and harvested trees for alternative B (total treated 

areas) in 2011

Strata

Total Existing 

Trees >16"

d.b.h.

Alts. A & C

Total Trees 

Harvested > 

16" d.b.h.

Alt. B

Total Residual 

Trees >16" 

d.b.h.

Alt. B

Percent 

Harvested

>16" d.b.h.

Alt. B

Nothern goshawk Forage,

Even-aged 68,106 6,849 61,257 10

Nothern goshawk Forage,

Uneven-aged 115,895 13,004 102,891 11

Nothern goshawk PFA/Nest 8,678 867 7,812 10

MSO Mixed Conifer 70,391 8,227 62,164 12

MSO Pine/oak 20,249 2,023 18,225 10

Total 287,095 31,366 255,730 11
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 59

Old Growth

Alternative A 

This alternative would not meet the forest plan percentages for allocated old growth within the

project area as no additional stands would be allocated for old growth management (table 22).

Stands previously allocated for old growth management which were severely burned by the 

Rodeo-Chediski Fire and stands identified under past timber sale decisions would continue to be 

managed as allocated old growth even though a portion of them lack a large tree component, and 

tree size development would be limited by existing high stand density. Stands would not receive 

thinning or burning to reduce the fire hazard or improve health and individual tree growth. Stand 

density would continue to increase reducing the growth and health of the larger trees. Stands with 

potential to develop toward quality old growth characteristics may or may not achieve these 

objectives without receiving restorative management treatments.

Alternatives B and C

Alternative B would meet the forest plan percentages for old growth allocation within the project 

area, and would move the total district acres toward meeting the percentages for mixed species 

and for ponderosa pine as shown in table 22. This alternative proposes allocating 9,394 acres with 

an existing large tree component and thinning to improve forest health, increase tree size growth, 

and reduce fire hazard. Stands proposed for thinning would develop toward old growth 

characteristics described in the forest plan over time (Richardson et al., 2012). Stands identified 

as MSO protected habitat, target threshold, threshold, and goshawk habitat on slopes 40 percent 

and greater, were allocated for old growth development within the project area. Alternative C 

would allocate the same amount of area for old growth management as alternative B.

Table 22 displays a comparative summary of the alternatives relative to existing and proposed old 

growth forest structure allocation. 

Table 22. Allocated old growth displayed by alternative for the project area and district

Old Growth 

Forest Cover 

Type

Total 

Acres

Alt. A

Old Growth 

Allocated 

Acres

Alt. A

Old Growth 

Percent 

Allocated

Alt. B & C

Proposed 

Acres 

Allocated 

for Old 

Growth

Alt. B & C

Percent 

Allocated

Percent 

Desired 

Allocation

Mixed species 3,842 329 8.5 1,667 43 >20

Ponderosa pine 29,114 1,948 6.7 7,727 26.5 >20

Old Growth 

Forest Cover 

Type

Black 

Mesa 

District 

Total 

Acres

Alt. A

District

Old Growth 

Allocated 

Acres

Alt. A 

District Old 

Growth 

Percent 

Allocated 

Alt. B & C 

District 

Proposed 

Acres

Alt. B & C 

District

Percent 

Allocated

Desired 

Allocation

per Cover 

Type 

Mixed species 18,161 2,774 15 6,287 35 >20

Ponderosa pine 304,961 32,167 11 37,946 12 >20
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

60 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Forest Understory Vegetation

Alternative A

Understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs would continue to decline in abundance and vigor. 

Important wildlife browse plants such as fire dependent Ceanothus species may become rare or 

absent within the project area as time progresses. Forest density would continue to increase, and 

the few existing canopy gaps would continue to close, resulting in a continued decline of 

herbaceous understory productivity (Clary 1975). Exotic species are not expected to increase.

Alternative B

Alternative B would have the highest herbaceous/shrub understory response and greatest 

understory plant diversity. Native grasses, forbs, and shrubs would improve in number and vigor 

with reduced forest canopy in stands which fall below 35 percent maximum SDI. Openings in the 

canopy would produce approximately 800–1,000 pounds of forage on approximately 20–40 

percent of the mechanically treated area. In the remaining 60–80 percent of the treated areas, 

forage may range from 200 to 400 pounds per acre (Clary 1975). Production in the thinned forest 

areas would peak approximately 6 years after treatment (Clary 1975) but production in the forest 

gaps would be longer in duration, and far higher than alternative C due to the larger number of 

openings and gaps in the canopy. Exotic species are expected to increase slightly over alternatives 

A and C (Abella and Covington 2004), but not significantly due to the weed mitigation measures 

employed during project implementation (e.g., equipment washing, etc.). Shrub response would 

be more variable than herbaceous vegetation and depends upon the ecological site location. Some 

biophysical sites would support very little shrubs before and after treatment, while other 

ecological sites would respond with vigorous shrub development following treatments, 

particularly within openings. Some fire-dependent shrubs such as Ceanothus species would 

respond vigorously post burning.

Alternative C

Alternative C would result in less understory plant diversity than alternative B but greater than 

alternative A, due to limited creation of canopy gaps and forest openings. This alternative leaves 

more trees in the upper canopy, resulting in a slightly lower production of herbaceous and shrub 

understory than alternative B (Abella 2006). Openings in the canopy would produce 

approximately 800–1,000 pounds of forage on approximately 10 percent of the mechanically 

treated ground. In the remaining 90 percent of the treated area, forage may range from 200 to 400 

pounds per acre (Clary 1975). Production would peak approximately 6 years after treatment 

(Clary 1975). Understory production would be of short duration as the canopy would close in 

within 10–15 years. Exotic species are expected to respond the same as alternative B (Abella and 

Covington 2004). Shrub response would be similar to alternative B within the forest matrix but 

less than alternative B overall, due to fewer openings and canopy gaps.

Treatment Longevity

Alternative A

No change.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 61

Alternative B

Based upon proposed irregular spacing and creation of regeneration group openings, the mosaic 

patterns and open, uneven-aged forest character would persist for 30+ years following the initial 

treatment. The VSS 3 tree groups would develop interlocking crowns and closed forest canopy 

within the first 1 to 2 decades following treatment (based upon residual density ranges and 

average growth rates, Ronco et al., 1985), and the VSS 4, 5, and 6 tree groups would remain 

closed canopy following treatment (based on treatment objectives). However, the VSS 1–2 

regeneration would not fully occupy the created canopy gaps or develop to a height approaching 

two-thirds of the general forest canopy until tree age 40–60 years, maintaining the canopy gaps 

during this period. Also the forest openings would be maintained for a like period (indefinitely if 

low-severity fire occurs at frequent intervals). Therefore, the desired forest structure biological 

diversity and crown fire hazard reduction effects would be evident for at least 30 years following 

the proposed treatment. 

Current treatment costs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs range from $250 to $800 per acre to 

accomplish similar forest vegetation management objectives. The overall average current costs 

for similar treatments on this forest are approximately $400 per acre. Assuming that treatment 

benefits (increased biological diversity, reduced crown fire potential) would be derived from this 

alternative for approximately 30 plus years, the cost over time is approximately $13 or less per 

acre per year.

Alternative C

Due to the small size of created openings and the current spacing of trees greater than 16 inches 

d.b.h. most treated areas within the project area would quickly develop interlocking or nearly 

interlocking crowns within a relatively short timespan following this treatment (less than10 

years), based on resulting density and average growth rates (Ronco et al., 1985). Continuous 

interlocking crown conditions inhibit regeneration, growth, and vigor, reduce biological diversity, 

and greatly increase crown fire potential. Additional treatments would need to be considered 

within 10 years to reduce fire hazard as a result of the interlocking canopy of trees. These 

treatments would need to include the removal of trees 16 inches d.b.h. and larger which 

contribute to the interlocking canopy.

Current treatment costs on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests range from $250 to $800 per 

acre to accomplish similar forest vegetation management objectives. The average current costs for 

similar treatments on this forest are approximately $400 per acre. Assuming that treatment 

benefits (reduced crown fire potential) would be derived from this alternative for approximately 

10 years, the cost over time is approximately $40 per acre per year (nearly 4 times that of 

alternative B).

Climate Change

All background information on climate change is from Malmsheimer et al. (2008) unless 

otherwise noted. Climate shapes our forests and forests shape our climate. The Rim Lakes Forest 

Restoration Project is proposed on a local scale and is not intended to have cumulative effects that 

are measurable on a global scale in regards to climate change; however, management of the 

project has a small-scale effect on mitigating climate change when combined with other 

management actions regionally. Ninety-eight percent of the project area is currently considered 

overstocked and at risk for stand-replacing fires which are the greatest cause of carbon release or 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

62 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

greenhouse gases (GHG). Both alternatives B and C reduce the fire hazard within the project area 

associated with stand-replacing fires.

None of the alternatives affect climate change to any measurable level. Alternative A has the 

highest potential to release carbon in a relatively large quantity over a short period of time, due to 

increased risk of stand-replacing wildfire occurrence. Resistance to bark beetle mortality would 

continue to decline. Carbon would still continue to be stored but at a slower rate than alternatives 

B and C. Alternative B is more effective than alternatives A and C in providing forest resiliency to 

climate change and other environmental stressors. Alternative B moves stands toward an unevenaged stand condition which is more desired for forest health and improving resilience. Tree 

growth would increase through thinning and would sequester more carbon than other alternatives.

Alternative B alternative provides opportunities for renewable products such as lumber and 

biomass energy.

Alternative C is less effective than alternative B in providing forest resiliency to climate change 

and other environmental stressors, but greater than alternative A. This alternative does not move 

stands toward an uneven-aged stand condition that can be sustained which is more desired for 

forest health and improving tree resilience. Tree growth would increase through thinning and 

would sequester slightly more carbon than alternatives A and B. This alternative provides 

opportunities for renewable products such as lumber and biomass energy.

Cumulative Effects for Vegetation

Past, present (ongoing), and reasonably foreseeable future activities evaluated in more detail 

within the Rim Lakes Project areas are displayed in the silviculture report, appendix A 

(Richardson 2011). See also the cumulative effects discussion at the beginning of the 

“Vegetation” section. The project boundary is the boundary for cumulative effects for this project.

Past Actions

The past activities that have influenced vegetation described in the “Affected Environment”

section are described on table 8. Activities include timber sales, precommercial thinning, salvage 

sales, and broadcast burning occurring within the boundary of the Rim Lakes Project area and 

were used in the vegetation cumulative effects. Existing stand densities display the cumulative 

effects of past vegetation modifying treatments as well as wildfires (even though wildfires are not 

actions in the NEPA sense, they did have a major effect on the current condition of the area and 

are accounted for in the existing condition). Past activities and wildfires that modified vegetation 

contributed to that VSS distribution and stand density percentages.

Ongoing Present Actions

There are no other ongoing vegetation management actions in the project area other than highway 

and power line maintenance. Any tree removal is limited to imminent hazards from dead, dying,

and defective trees (such as in campgrounds or along roads), but amounts are not large enough to 

change the overall structure and composition of the area impacted so there are no measureable 

cumulative effects. The Long Tom Allotment accounts for approximately 34 percent of the project 

area. It is grazed by sheep for approximately 6 months of the year. Sheep grazing is monitored for 

utilization and pastures rested and rotated for recovery. The Limestone Allotment accounts for 

approximately 3 percent of the project area but has not been grazed by cattle for the past 15 years,

and grazing is not anticipated within near future. Since this project has no direct/indirect effects to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 63

grazing, grazing was considered and determined to have no cumulative effect on forest health and 

structure. 

Future Actions

Other ongoing and potential future actions within the project area include further removal of trees 

for power line maintenance within the corridors. Forest Road 300 has been scheduled for upgrade 

to a state highway, which would result in some tree removal during construction, currently 

expected in 2014.

The effects of alternative A, B, or C when combined with foreseeable treatments would not 

provide measurable cumulative effects. The mastication of trees within the power line corridor is 

very limited in size (less than .06 percent of the analysis area) and the power lines are continually 

maintained as openings by both the Salt River Project and Arizona Public Service. Removal of 

trees along Forest Road 300 for upgrade to a state highway is not considered to have measurable 

cumulative effects.

The 4-Forest Restoration Initiative (4-FRI) is developing a proposed action for a large-scale 

restoration project on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests. Implementation of forest 

restoration activities including thinning of trees and prescribed fire treatments within 724,000 

acres on the Kaibab and Coconino National Forests would not overlap with the ApacheSitgreaves, so there are no cumulative effects in terms of vegetation. 

Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

As described in this section, the amendment proposed as part of alternative B would have

beneficial effects to the long-term condition of the vegetation in the project area.

Effects of alternative C, which allows for the even-aged emphasis, are also described in this 

section. In summary, this amendment would result in a less resilient forest that is more prone to 

insect and disease as well as uncharacteristic fire. Stands would be less open, providing less 

herbaceous ground cover for a shorter period of time. Benefits to vegetation of thinning in 

alternative C would be shorter lived.

Fuels and Fire Potential

This section presents a summary of key effects and conclusions from the fuels specialists report 

(Nicolet, 2011) which is located in the project record.

The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project area is located at the top of the Mogollon Rim in 

central Arizona. The Mogollon Rim in general is highly susceptible to lightning and fire. Fire 

detection data indicate that during the months of June and July (highest risk for severe fire 

weather) the Rim Lakes area has averaged 23 fires a year with 45 percent of those from lightning 

and the remaining from human causes over the past 40 years (FIRESTAT18). This would indicate 

that fire is a prominent disturbance agent and would have influence on this ecosystem in the 

future.

 18 The Fire Statistics System (FIRESTAT) is a U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Forest Service (FS) 

application used to electronically enter, update, and delete required information on the individual fire report (form FS5100-29).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

64 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The Mogollon Rim has experienced many fires over the past several decades including several 

that burned with high severity and caused significant change and damage to the rim ecosystem.

Two notable examples are: the Dude Fire of June 1990, which burned 24,000 acres west of the 

Rim Lakes area, and the Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002, which burned 460,000 acres to the east of 

the Rim Lakes Project area. The fire history along, below, and above the Mogollon Rim has 

created an island of forested vegetation that begins below the Mogollon Rim (south) and 

continues through and to the north of the Rim Lakes area. It is expected that the Rim Lakes area 

would burn with similar high severity as its surroundings if no management treatments occur in 

the area.

Overall Analysis Summary

As described in the fuels specialist report (Nicolet, 2011), criteria used for this analysis include 

forest characteristics that contribute to uncharacteristically severe wildfire effects, such as area 

that has high potential for active or passive crown fire, crown bulk density, surface fuel loading,

and fire regime condition class (FRCC). The rating is shown in table 23 with the highest number 

meeting desired conditions better than a low number. The fuels specialist report explains in detail 

the ranking system.

As shown, both action alternatives rank higher than no action, especially in how they change 

potential for passive crown fire across the project area, how they reduce crown bulk density, and 

how they change the FRCC. Alternative B is ranked higher than alternative C in how it reduces 

passive crown fire potential and changes the FRCC for a longer period.

Table 23. Alternative scores based on scoring logic (The highest score would 

meet more of the desired conditions and purpose and need.)

Rating Criteria Alt. A - No 

Action

Alt. B -

Uneven

Alt. C - 16" 

Limited

Active Crown Fire (percent) 77 83 82

Passive Crown Fire (percent) 56 84 70

Crown 

Bulk 

Density

PIPO (<.05k/.m3) 20 40 40

PIPO-Oak (<.05kg/m3) 40 40 40

Dry Mixed Conifer (<.08kg/m3) 0 40 40

Surface 

Fuel 

Loading

PIPO – Oak (5–10 tons/acre) 0 40 40

PIPO (7–14 tons/acre) 20 40 40

Dry Mixed Conifer (8–16 tons/acre) 40 40 40

FRCC 1 Year Post Treatment (percent) 0 70.5 42

FRCC 20 Years Post Treatment (percent) 0 67.5 27

Rating Score 253 545 461

Analysis Details

Crown Fire Potential

Canopy fuel distribution and the risk of stand replacing crown fire can be measured by looking at 

average canopy bulk density (CBD) and canopy base height (CBH) across a stand. Canopy bulk 

density is defined as the mass of available canopy fuel per unit volume (Scott and Reinhardt 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 65

2001). For any given tree species, widely-spaced trees have a lower CBD which makes it more 

difficult to sustain a stand replacing crown fire. Tightly spaced trees with interlocking crowns

would have higher CBD and, therefore, would have more potential to sustain and propagate a 

stand-replacing fire. Furthermore, stands with high CBD can also sustain a crown fire that 

initiated outside of the stand and become independent of surface fire intensity. Canopy base 

height is the lowest height above the ground at which there is sufficient amount of canopy fuel to 

propagate fire vertically into the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The lower the canopy base 

height, the easier it is for a given surface fire to initiate a crown fire (Van Wagner 1977). Canopy 

base height coupled with canopy bulk density allow managers to understand how likely a crown 

fire is to initiate and sustain itself across a stand.

The existing conditions in the Rim Lakes area are canopy bulk densities ranging from 0.03kg.m3

to 0.1kg/m3 and canopy base height lower than 10 feet in most areas. In ponderosa pine forest 

types, desired conditions would be to have canopy bulk densities below 0.05kg/m3 and average 

stand canopy base heights above 18 feet. In dry mixed conifer types, desired conditions would be 

to have crown bulk density of .08kg/m3 and canopy base height above 10 feet. Because these 

measures are stand averages, groups of trees could have higher densities if surrounded by areas of 

lower densities, which would break up the continuity of canopy fuels and, therefore, the potential 

for crown fire.

The desired condition for crown bulk density and canopy base height would reduce the percent of 

the Rim Lakes landscape with potential to burn as passive and active crown fire. Passive crown 

fire refers to fire that does not carry continuously through the crown fuels, but burns crown fuels 

intermittently, such as when individual trees or groups of trees torch. Active crown fire carries 

continuously through the canopy of trees. Current conditions show 23 percent of the area having 

the potential to burn as an active crown fire and another 44 percent of the area with potential for 

passive crown fire. The desired conditions for forest structure and canopy openings would also 

allow for discontinuous canopy fuels. 

Effects of Alternatives on Crown Fire Potential

The effect of canopy openings and distribution of tree groups and clumps on potential fire 

behavior can be seen by looking at maps of potential fire type for the area. Figures 8, 9, and 10, 

and tables 24 and 25 display the changes in fire behavior type and distribution by alternative.

Alternative A represents current conditions for this landscape. Alternative A demonstrates much 

of the north and central portions of the Rim Lakes area exhibiting active crown fire and passive 

crown fire (23 percent active, 44 percent passive). Alternative B shows a marked reduction in 

passive crown fire (16 percent), which would indicate much less resistance to control and less 

spotting potential. It can also be seen that areas with active crown fire are interspersed with 

surface fire. Alternative C also exhibits a reduction in active crown fire (18 percent). There is a 

reduction in passive crown fire (30 percent), but it is not as big of a reduction as alternative B. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

66 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 24. Percent of the Rim Lakes area demonstrating 

potential for types of fire by alternative

Potential Fire Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C

No Fire 1 1 1

Surface Fire 32 66 51

Passive Crown Fire 44 16 30

Active Crown Fire 23 17 18

Both action alternatives move the Rim Lakes area toward desired conditions. Alternative A, the 

no action alternative, maintains and regresses the ecosystem toward unsustainable characteristics.

Canopies would continue to close and provide continuous fuel across the landscape. This can be 

concluded when comparing the amount of passive and active crown fire potential in alternative A 

compared to alternatives B and C (table 25). Alternative A would maintain 67 percent of the area 

with potential for high severity fire effects, while alternatives B and C reduce this potential to 33 

percent and 48 percent respectively. This canopy fuel accumulation has negative effects on 

understory vegetation and would continue to suppress the production of forbs, grasses, and 

shrubs. Over time it can be expected that most forests would have little to no understory without 

sunlight penetrating the canopy.

Table 25. Percent of different habitat type area and old growth with fire 

type potential by alternative

Habitat Type Potential Fire Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C

Goshawk 

PFA/Nest

Surface Fire 50 72 61

Passive Crown Fire 36 18 28

Active Crown Fire 14 10 11

Goshawk 

Foraging

Surface Fire 35 65 50

Passive Crown Fire 39 15 29

Active Crown Fire 26 20 21

MSO Protected

Surface Fire 25 66 66

Passive Crown Fire 60 27 27

Active Crown Fire 15 7 7

MSO Restricted

Surface Fire 26 73 50

Passive Crown Fire 54 16 35

Active Crown Fire 20 14 15

MSO 

Threshold/Target 

Threshold

Surface Fire 28 87 72

Passive Crown Fire 63 8 23

Active Crown Fire 9 5 5

Alternatives B and C would increase surface fine fuels in the form of understory vegetation.

Much of the species diversity in ponderosa pine forests is contained in understory vegetation 

(Moore et al., 1999). Understory vegetation can be greater than 10 times higher in restored 

openings than under a sparse but continuous ponderosa pine cover (Clary 1975). This understory 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 67

vegetation is important in supporting fire spread similar to that under which Southwestern forests 

have evolved. This carrier of fire is needed in order to maintain forests over time with fire.

Surface vegetation would also affect fire behavior. More surface fuels would increase surface fire 

rates of spread. Reducing stand density can increase surface fire behavior. 

Modifying canopy fuels as prescribed in this method may lead to increased surface fire intensity 

and spread rate under the same environmental conditions, even if surface fuels are the same 

before and after canopy treatment. Reducing crown bulk density to preclude crown fire leads to 

increases in the wind adjustment factor (the proportion of a 20-foot windspeed that reaches midflame height). Also, a more open canopy may lead to lower fine dead fuel moisture content. 

These factors increase surface fire intensity and spread rate. Therefore, canopy fuel treatments 

reduce the potential for crown fire at the expense of slightly increased surface fire spread rate and 

intensity. However, critical levels of fire behavior (limit of manual or mechanical control) are less 

likely to be reached in stands treated to withstand crown fires, as all crown fires are 

uncontrollable. Though surface intensity may be increased after treatment, a fire that remains on 

the surface beneath a timber stand is generally controllable (Scott 2003).

When comparing the two action alternatives, a major difference becomes the ability to cut any 

size tree versus being limited to only cutting trees less than 16 inches in diameter. Several factors 

are important to consider when looking at management of the Rim Lakes area with and without 

diameter cutting limits.

The following are just a few forest ecosystem components of importance in the analysis for Rim 

Lakes: canopy openings, understory vegetation, and fire behavior. In general, canopy openings 

were greatly reduced during the 1900s by postsettlement trees (Moore and Huffman 2004).

Canopy openings provide for wildlife habitat, understory diversity (Kerns et al., 2003, Moore et 

al., 1999), and discontinuous canopy fuels, which in turn affect fire behavior. In this sense, all 

three of these ecosystem components are interconnected.

The ability to create canopy opening becomes very important to restoring the function and 

resiliency of the ecosystem. Having a 16-inch diameter constraint limits capabilities to create 

these gaps.

In looking at the FlamMap19 analysis results, the major difference between alternatives B and C is 

the amount of passive crown fire. Alternative C exhibits more areas with potential passive crown 

fire due to the inability to affect canopy fuels without removing some trees larger than the 16-inch 

diameter limit. This would in turn affect how the area can be managed when faced with naturally

occurring wildfires. Fires that exhibit torching (passive crown fire) are more likely to produce 

lofted embers to start more fires, and generally burn hotter than a fire burning only surface fuels.

These types of fire would cause higher severity and more ecosystem damage.

 19 FlamMap is a fire behavior mapping and analysis program that computes potential fire behavior characteristics over 

an entire landscape for given weather and fuel moisture conditions (see fuels report, appendix A, for more information).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

68 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Figure 8. Map of fire potential alternative A

Figure 9. Map of fire potential alternative B
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 69

Figure 10. Map of fire potential for alternative C

In conclusion, the Rim Lakes area would benefit from both action alternatives from a potential 

fire severity perspective. The overall ecosystem health in the form of restoring the vegetation 

types to resilient and historic conditions would also benefit from both action alternatives although 

alternative B provides the most opportunity to meet desired conditions.

This analysis used the Fire and Fuels Extension (FFE) to the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS)

links models of fire behavior, fire effects, fuels loading and snag dynamics to tree growth metric.

In this analysis, basic outputs for surface fuel loading, crown base height, and crown bulk density 

were recorded using default parameters from the Central Rockies variant to FVS. Data used in 

FVS and FFE were from field sampled stand exams conducted in the Rim Lakes area.

All results from FFE are stand averages and, therefore, can give a general idea of what stand 

conditions look like but cannot address the spatial distribution of specific metrics. The desired 

conditions are for stand averages and, therefore, allow for some areas within a stand to be outside 

of the desired condition range but be surrounded with conditions closer to overall desired 

conditions. For example, crown bulk density is desirable below .08kg/m3 as an average over a 

mixed conifer stand. This could mean that many patches within the stand have much higher CBD 

but have interspaces between these dense clumps of trees where CBD is much lower than .08 and,

therefore, the average for the stand is within acceptable limits. Where CBD is high, it is important 

to also have higher CBH (crown base height). Surface fuel loading is easily managed with fire 

and felling techniques to increase or decrease woody debris in different size classes. Overall the 

Rim Lakes area is deficient in larger woody debris and, therefore, prescriptions in both action 

alternatives include strategies to increase downed logs.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

70 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 26. Fire and fuels extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator results by alternative post 

treatment

FVS/FFE Calculation Results

Forest 

Types Criteria Desired Conditions Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C

Pine-Oak 

Surface Fuel loading (tons per acre) 5–10 2–3 5–10 5–10

Canopy Base Height (ft) > 18 15 29 29

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) < 0.05 0.05 0.02 0.02

Ponderosa 

pine 

Surface Fuel loading (tons per acre) 7–14 3 7–14 7–14

Canopy Base Height (ft) >18 12 28 28

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) < 0.05 0.04 0.02 0.02

Dry Mixed 

Conifer

Surface Fuel loading (tons per acre) 8–16 6 8–16 8–16

Canopy Base Height (ft) > 10 7 23 21

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) < 0.08 0.09 .03 0.04

Fire Regime Condition Class

Fire regime condition class (FRCC) was measured using stand data, Landfire remotely sensed 

data, and as described in the FRCC interagency guidebook (Hann et al., 2004). FRCC is a metric 

that quantifies how departed a system is from historical conditions in relation to fire and the role 

fire historically played in that system (Hann and Bunnell 2001, Hardy et al., 2001, and see 

Nicolet 2011 for more details on FRCC). The Rim Lakes Project area exhibits two distinct 

vegetation types in relation to FRCC: ponderosa pine vegetation (includes pine-oak types) and 

dry mixed conifer vegetation. Ponderosa pine type ecosystems are composed primarily of 

ponderosa pine with some Douglas-fir, southwestern white pine, oak, and juniper depending on 

the stands development. Mixed conifer stands are derived of ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, white 

fir, and southwestern white pine, with Douglas-fir dominating in late stages of succession.

According to the western United States Biophysical Settings Key (Comer et al., 2003), ponderosa 

pine and dry mixed conifer forests in the Southwest have a dominant fire regime I and a mean fire 

interval of 2 to 10 years in ponderosa pine, and 5 to 25 years in dry mixed conifer. A fire regime I 

has a frequent fire interval with low to mixed severity. Fires typically maintained open areas and 

replaced or opened up areas that exhibited a more closed canopy. With the absence of fire, both 

the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands have accumulated unnatural amounts of fuel 

primarily in the form of dense trees that would cause a natural fire to exhibit more extreme fire 

behavior. Both the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer have missed multiple natural mean fire 

intervals. With the combination of missed burn intervals, the encroachment of mixed conifer, and 

the accumulation of old suppressed understory, these areas are currently best represented as a 

condition class 3, or FRCC 3.

In both vegetation types defined by Comer et al. (2003) the ability to create canopy openings, 

redistribute dominance to fire resistant tree species, and allow for diversity in age classes are 

essential in moving stands toward a naturally-functioning fire regime and, therefore, FRCC 1.

Furthermore, forests in a fire regime 1 are maintained in that state by understory vegetation.

Much of the forest structure in FRCC 1 would have open canopies which result in healthy and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 71

vigorous understory plants that serve as fuel to carry surface fire through stands. Stands in FRCC 

1 would demonstrate little potential for active crown fire and would experience relatively little 

overstory mortality post wildfire.

Areas where some canopy openings can be created and some sunlight can penetrate and 

invigorate understory forbs and grasses would have decreased threat of crown fire and would 

have a reestablished understory that could support surface fire. If these areas do not contain a 

well-balanced mix of strata with reproducing fire resilient species, they are still considered 

departed but not as departed as stands with closed canopies. These areas are classified as FRCC 2.

Continuous areas in an even-aged condition with closed canopy are considered very departed 

from historical conditions. These areas would not be able to support understory vegetation and 

have potential for continuous crown fire, therefore, are classified as FRCC 3.

See table 27 and figure 11 for FRCC results. 

Alternative A

The combination of abundant and continuous canopy fuels, the lack of understory vegetation, and 

high severity fire potential maintains the area in a FRCC 3 into the foreseeable future.

Alternative B

Alternative B begins to restore the area toward the desired condition of FRCC 1.

Using data from the silviculture report (Richardson et al., 2012) and looking at FFE and FVS 

stand data outputs, it was determined that 80 percent of the goshawk foraging and MSO restricted 

habitat areas treated with uneven-aged management under alternative B would move to FRCC 1,

where they could be maintained as such with one fire entry for at least the next 20 years. The 

other 20 percent of foraging and restricted habitat would only be able to progress to FRCC 2 due 

to stands still exhibiting even-aged characteristics.

In 20 years, 10 percent of these even-aged stands would continue to mature as single-aged stands 

and demonstrate canopy closures in some areas and, thus, would regress to FRCC 3 without 

further mechanical treatment.

Alternative C

Although this alternative, like alternative B, begins to restore the area toward the desired FRCC 1, 

only 20 percent of the foraging and restricted habitat treated with a 16-inch cutting limit would 

move and be maintained in FRCC 1. Furthermore, stands that initially moved toward FRCC 2 but 

remain in an even-aged state would return to FRCC 3 in 20 years due to the canopy closing and 

the stand still exhibiting even-aged characteristics. As a result of cutting much of the trees below 

16 inches d.b.h. to provide for some fire protection, another 20 percent of the uneven-aged stands 

that initially could move to FRCC 2 would also progress backwards to FRCC 3 in 20 years due to 

canopy closure and lost age class diversity.

Burning prescriptions in the Rim Lakes area—which is prone to high severity fire effects—would 

not be able to progress and maintain stands in FRCC 1 without some mechanical treatment. Sixty 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

72 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

percent of the burn only areas would progress to FRCC 2 due to fuel consumption, however, over 

the next 20 years, 30 percent of those areas would regress to FRCC 3.

Alternative Comparison by Habitat Types

Part of the Rim Lakes area falls under Mexican spotted owl management guidelines. These 

guidelines require that no tree above 24 inches in diameter be cut in restricted habitat and no tree 

above 9 inches in diameter be cut in protected habitat. MSO restricted habitat that is considered to 

be threshold further requires stands to remain at 150–170 basal area. 

Under these guidelines, protected habitat would have less to no canopy openings. High density 

requirements in threshold would reduce the ability to reduce canopy fuel continuity or for 

understory vegetation to respond to treatment. Areas in protected and threshold habitat would

remain as FRCC 3 or move to FRCC 2 in situations where some canopy can be affected without 

losing the desired BA. Restricted habitat that is not threshold can be restored to an FRCC 1 where 

the species composition, structure, and function of these stands would be in concert with a surface 

fire regime.

Under alternative B or C, the protected and threshold habitat would remain as FRCC 3. In 

alternative B, the greatest amount of change would occur in MSO restricted habitat, but this 

would not occur in alternative C, where treatments would be subject to a 16-inch diameter limit.

This limit would constrict the ability of the prescriptions to open canopy gaps and remove much 

of the uncharacteristic species. Therefore, in restricted habitat alternative C would move 

approximately 20 percent of the area to FRCC 1. Areas with trees of fire-intolerant species that 

have encroached the understory of the stands and are larger than 16 inches in diameter would 

remain as FRCC 3, while those where some smaller diameter fire-intolerant species could be 

removed and have small effects on canopy fuel discontinuity would move to an FRCC 2.

Table 27. Percent of area in each FRCC by alternative 1 year and 20 years post treatment

Dominant 

Vegetation 

Type

Habitat 

Type

FRCC

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

1 

Year 

Post

20 

Years 

Post

1 

Year 

Post

20 

Years 

Post 

1 

Year 

Post 

20 

Years 

Post 

1 

Year 

Post 

20 

Years 

Post 

Dry Mixed 

Conifer 

Vegetation 

Type 

MSO 

Protected 

1 100 100

2 42 26 42 26

3 100 100 58 74 58 74

MSO 

Restricted 

1 100 100 67 67 17 17

2 27 22 60 37

3 100 100 7 11 23 46

MSO 

Threshold 

1 100 100

2 66 42 60 39

3 100 100 34 58 40 61

MSO 

Target 

Threshold 

1 100 100

2 63 42 60 40

3 100 100 37 58 40 60
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 73

Dominant 

Vegetation 

Type

Habitat 

Type

FRCC

Desired 

Condition Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C 

1 

Year 

Post

20 

Years 

Post

1 

Year 

Post

20 

Years 

Post 

1 

Year 

Post 

20 

Years 

Post 

1 

Year 

Post 

20 

Years 

Post 

Pine-Oak 

Vegetation 

Type 

MSO 

Target 

Threshold 

1 100 100 46 46 12 12

2 37 28 60 38

3 100 100 17 26 28 50

MSO 

Restricted 

1 100 100 46 46 12 12

2 37 28 60 39

3 100 100 17 26 28 50

Ponderosa 

Pine 

Vegetation 

Type

MSO 

Protected 

Habitat 

w/in PAC

1 100 100

2 57 39 57 39

3 100 100 43 61 43 61

Northern 

Goshawk 

PFA/Nest

1 100 100 50 50 12 12

2 35 27 60 30

3 100 100 15 23 28 58

Northern 

Goshawk 

Foraging

1 100 100 63 63 16 16

2 28 23 60 20

3 100 100 9 14 24 64

2 9 34 9 34

3 100 100 3 8 3 8

Figure 11. FRCC changes by alternative
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

74 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Figure 11 displays summary changes in FRCC distribution for the entire Rim Lakes area for each 

alternative 1 year post fire and 20 years post fire. Alternative A (no action) would maintain 100

percent of the area in FRCC 3 over the next 20 years (20+). Alternative B 1 year post treatment 

would see 54 percent of the area in FRCC 1 and would maintain those areas in FRCC 1 over 20 

years. Alternative C would move 14 percent of the area into FRCC 1 which could then be 

maintained for 20 years. Alternative C would also move toward FRCC 2, but much of that would 

revert to FRCC 3 after 20 years.

Air Quality

Six Class 1 airsheds are within an 80-mile radius of the project area. Seven communities were 

identified as smoke sensitive areas near the Rim Lakes Project area and were combined into four 

main areas. No current nonattainment areas exist within an 80-mile radius. Careful consideration 

of atmospheric conditions and winds can mitigate the impacts on the three Class 1 airsheds with 

impacts. Smoke impacts to the communities of Heber/Overgaard and Forest Lakes are almost 

inevitable, therefore, consideration for smoke duration would be included in individual burn 

plans.

The Mogollon Rim area is heavily used as a recreation area for many people. This area represents 

clear and clean air for many visitors and is important to the continued health of surrounding 

communities both economically and physically. Smoke in general is a nuisance and can be 

adverse to health, but is also part of the natural disturbance associated with these types of 

ecosystems. Two criterion pollutants, carbon monoxide and particulate matter, are produced in 

wood smoke and are regulated by the Clean Air Act. The Arizona State Smoke Management Rule 

implements the Clean Air Act and contains regulations that all state and Federal natural resource 

agencies must follow before a prescribed burn is ignited.

Effects of Alternatives B and C

Both prescribed fire and wildfire would create smoke; however, the amount and timing of these 

smoke events can be mitigated with management of prescribed fire. Any prescribed burning

would be conducted only with approved site specific burn plans with standard smoke 

management mitigation and approvals.

Burning would be conducted in favorable atmospheric conditions so as to minimize effects from 

smoke to nearby communities, Class 1 airsheds, and recreationists. All burning would be 

conducted according to the Arizona State Smoke Management Rule to mitigate smoke impacts.

These regulations ensure that effects from all burning within the area are mitigated and that Clean 

Air Act requirements are met. The three scenarios used in the SASEM analysis of smoke impacts 

can be used as a benchmark of the types of conditions and fuel loading burns should be conducted 

in (table 28). Results from the three scenarios show that Class 1 airsheds south of the project area

would not be impacted by burning in the project area under the prevailing south-southwest winds.

In general, south-southwest winds are preferable so as to avoid impacting Class 1 airsheds, as are 

days with good transport winds and ventilation categories.

The communities of Forest Lakes and Heber/Overgaard would have the most smoke impacts due 

to their proximity to the project area and that they lie in line with prevailing winds. Therefore,

measures to mitigate long durations of smoke would be implemented. Prescribed fires are 

initiated under conditions that allow managers control and favorable effects. Prescribed fires
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 75

would be conducted when conditions are such that overstory tree mortality would be low, which 

leaves much of the live tree carbon pool intact. This results in less biomass being combusted than 

if the area were to burn under higher severity wildfire, therefore, less carbon emissions are 

expected in controlled situations (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010).

Smoke impacts from wildfires are less easily mitigated. Wildfires primarily occur during summer 

months when the Rim Lakes area is most used by recreationists and, therefore, would most likely 

have more of an impact on recreation values. The amount of biomass consumed during a wildfire 

is also not easily mitigated; the more biomass is consumed by fire, the more smoke would be 

produced. When comparing alternatives, alternatives B and C propose prescribed burning which

would have an impact on surrounding communities but in a controllable manner. The outcome of 

these alternatives would also reduce the amount of biomass available to fire during wildfire which 

would reduce the impact of smoke from such a wildfire. Alternative A does not propose any 

prescribed burning; however, it would continue to maintain large amounts of biomass available 

for consumption in the event of a wildfire which would have direct and most likely uncontrollable 

impacts on recreation, the six class 1 airsheds within 80 miles of the project area, and surrounding 

communities.

Table 28 describes the results from the SASEM analysis for smoke impacts. Three scenarios were 

developed to capture smoke impacts from prescribed burning. Scenario 1: Initial broadcast 

burning emulates burning mechanical treatment slash post thinning. Scenario 2: Pile burning 

represents smoke effects from burning piles. Scenario 3: Maintenance broadcast burning was 

developed to capture the possible burning occurring after initial burns are completed and used to 

maintain the ecosystem using fire. Both action alternatives were analyzed using the same inputs 

as these would not show enough difference to analyze separately. No prescribed burning is 

proposed in the no action alternative, therefore, it was not analyzed using SASEM. For purposes 

of this analysis, the Kosh visual range estimate was used. This estimate of visibility is based on 

the concentration of plume PM2.5 emissions. Values of Kosh visibility are in miles of clear 

visibility. 

Cumulative Effects 

Past projects and fire events shaping the existing condition are located in table 8. Over the past 25 

years, management surrounding the Rim Lakes area has included prescribed burning, pile 

burning, mechanical thinning, and various harvests as well as grazing and wildlife focused 

projects.

Within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests boundary, three current projects are adjacent or in 

close proximity to the Rim Lakes Project area. The Nagel Forest Health Project area is north of 

Rim Lakes, and the Little Springs Project areas are located east of Rim Lakes.

All these areas are being treated for wildland-urban interface protection from wildfire.

Furthermore, private land owners have made efforts and would foreseeably continue to make 

efforts in the area to treat for fuels reduction and restoration. 

To the south and southwest of Rim Lakes, the Tonto National Forest is implementing the 

Chamberlain and Christopher Hunter Projects. These include mechanical thinning followed by 

prescribed burning in phases over the next several years below the Mogollon Rim. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

76 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 28. Results of SASEM Model for class 1 airsheds and smoke sensitive areas

Air 

Quality 

Type

Location

Distance 

from Rim 

Lakes 

Project 

Area

Direction 

from Rim 

Lakes 

Project 

Area

Scenario 

1: Initial 

Broadcast

Scenario 2: 

Pile Burn

Scenario 3: 

Maint. 

Broadcast

Kosh*

Visual

Range 

(Miles)

Kosh* Visual

Range (Miles)

Kosh* Visual

Range (Miles)

Class 1 

Airsheds

Mazatzal 

Wilderness

25 SW No Impact No Impact No Impact

Sierra Ancha 

Wilderness

25 SW No Impact No Impact No Impact

Mount Baldy 

Wilderness

75 SE No Impact No Impact No Impact

Petrified Forest 

NP

60 NE 75.4 >99.9 67.4

Pine Mountain 

Wilderness

40 W 43.4 87.8 37.7

Sycamore Canyon

Wilderness

65 NW 83.2 >99.9 74.7

Smoke 

Sensitive 

Areas

Payson 15 SW No Impact No Impact No Impact

Heber/Overgaard 13 NE 8.7 16.7 1.8

Winslow 60 NNE 75.4 >99.9 67.4

Forest Lakes 0 N 52.6 1.4 6.5

Kosh values taken under good stability conditions with 7 m.p.h. winds. Kosh visual range is a measure of the distance 

in miles of visibility; the higher the number, the more visibility. Therefore, the less impact from smoke PM-2.5

emissions.

The combined effect of these ongoing projects and many foreseeable projects along, above, and 

below the Mogollon Rim for restoration and fuel reduction provide for a mosaic of stand 

conditions, allowing for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity. This same mosaic would allow 

for a diversity of fire effects, thereby increasing opportunities for the maintenance of forest 

structure and function using wildfire and prescribed fire in the long-term future. Both action 

alternatives proposed in the Rim Lakes area would continue to create a mosaic of fuel along the 

Mogollon Rim. Alternative A would continue to maintain the Rim Lakes area with high potential 

for severe fire effects.

Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

As described in this section, the amendment proposed as part of alternative B would have

beneficial effects to the long-term fire conditions in the project area. Effects of alternative C, 

which allows for the even-aged emphasis, are also described in this section. In summary, this 

amendment would result in a forest that would return to an undesired FRCC sooner, and remain at 

risk of active/passive crown fires. Stands would be less open, providing less herbaceous ground 

cover to restore surface fire function to the project area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 77

Wildlife

This section includes key effects analysis and conclusions for threatened, endangered and 

proposed species and critical habitat listed under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended, and Region 3 sensitive species, management indicator species, and migratory birds and 

their habitats within the Rim Lakes Project area, Black Mesa Ranger District.

The wildlife specialist report uses and incorporates the results of the silviculture (Richardson et 

al., 2012), fire and fuels (Nicolet, 2011), watershed (Nelson, 2011) and transportation (Johnson, 

2011) reports in its analysis.

The wildlife report contains detailed information and background on law, regulation, policy, 

forest plan requirements, methodology, species descriptions, etc., which are not repeated here. 

The wildlife specialist report and addendum (Brown et al., 2011 and Brown 2012) are located in 

the project record.

The project area supports the most diverse suite of wildlife habitats on the Black Mesa Ranger 

District, including threatened species, sensitive species, management indicator species (MIS), 

game and nongame species. While the majority of the area is ponderosa pine (66 percent), other 

habitat types within the analysis area include mixed conifer (24 percent), pine/oak (8 percent), 

water (<1 percent), and meadows (<1 percent) (table 29). Aspen, Rocky Mountain maple, Gambel 

oak, box elder, and big-toothed maple are also present as minor and usually understory species.

Table 29. Wildlife habitat cover types

Forested Cover Types Acres Percent of Project Area

Ponderosa pine 22,258 66.3

Mixed conifer 8,127 24.2

Pine-oak 2,571 7.7

Total Forested 32,956 98.2

Nonforested cover types

Wetland 24 <0.1

Reservoirs* 286 0.9

Gravel pits* 17 <0.1

Private land* 24 <0.1

Grassland 241 0.7

Total Nonforested 593 1.8

Total Project Area Acres 33,548 NA

The “Wildlife” section describes the affected environment and the effects of the alternatives to 

wildlife species classified in a number of ways: (1) federally listed as threatened or endangered 

under the Endangered Species Act; (2) listed sensitive by the Southwestern Region regional 

forester; (3) classified as management indicator species (MIS) under the “Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan;” and (4) analyzed under the Migratory 

Bird Treaty Act. Each category has its own requirements and standards for analysis. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

78 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Some species, such as the Mexican spotted owl, New Mexico jumping mouse, and northern 

goshawk, are analyzed in more than one category in this section. However, duplicate analysis has 

been removed where possible.

Figure 12. Stand structure development

VSS Classification of Forest Structure

The forest structure of wildlife habitat can determine whether some species will be present or 

absent. Vegetation structure stages (VSS) (Reynolds et al., 1992) present within the project area 

range from VSS 1 to VSS 6 (table 30). VSS 1 is the youngest forest structure, consisting 

primarily of grasses, forbs, shrubs, and seedlings and saplings less than 1 inch in diameter. VSS 6 

stands, at the opposite end of the spectrum, are mature forests consisting largely of trees greater 

than 24 inches in diameter. Stands categorized in any one VSS class include other sized class 

trees included within the class. Habitat containing a variety of VSS classes is preferred by many 

wildlife species. Approximately 89 percent of the Rim Lakes Project area is currently in VSS 3 

and 4. The desired condition, as defined by the forest plan is to have a more balanced distribution 

of habitat. 

Treatments proposed to MSO habitat are shown in table 31. Treatments to northern goshawk 

habitat are shown in table 32. Other treatments are shown in table 33.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 79

Table 30. Distribution of existing stand VSS acres in the Rim Lakes Project area

Vegetative Structure 

Stage (VSS)

Tree 

Diameter 

(d.b.h.)

Percent of 

Existing 

Condition

Percent of Forest 

Plan Desired 

Condition*

Difference

1 – Grass–forb–shrubs 0–1” 2 10 -8

2 – Seedling/sapling 1–5" 2 10 -8

3 – Young forest 5–12” 47 20 +27

4 – Mid-age forest 12–18" 42 20 +22

5 – Mature forest 18–24" 6 20 -14

6 – Old forest 24" + 1 20 -19

Totals 100 100

* Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan (USDA 1987, as amended 2009)

Table 31. Proposed alternatives in MSO habitat

Vegetation Type Habitat Type Proposed Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C 

Dry Mixed Conifer

MSO Protected 

Habitat

Precommercial thin to 9" 0 341 341

Burn only acres 0 875 875

No treatment acres 1,417 201 201

Total MSO protected acres 1,417 1,417 1,417

MSO 

Restricted 

Habitat

Selective cut to 24" 0 4,188 0

Selective cut to 16" 0 0 4,188

Burn only acres 0 843 843

No treatment acres 5,037 6 6

Total MSO restricted acres 5,037 5,037 5,037

MSO Target 

Threshold

Selective cut to 24" 0 568 0

Selective cut to 16" 0 0 568

Burn only acres 0 900 900

No treatment acres 1,470 2 2

Total target threshold acres 1,470 1,470 1,470

MSO 

Threshold

Intermediate thin to 24" 0 112 0

Intermediate thin to 16" 0 0 112

Burn only 0 97 97

No treatment acres 209 0 0

Total threshold acres 209 209 209

Ponderosa Pine -

Gambel Oak

MSO 

Restricted 

Habitat

Selective cut to 24" 0 1,330 0

Selective cut to 16" 0 0 1,330

Burn only acres 0 975 975

No treatment acres 2,305 0 0

Total MSO restricted acres 2,305 2,305 2,305

MSO Target 

Threshold

Selective cut to 24" 0 85 0

Selective cut to 16" 0 0 85

Burn only acres 0 180 180

No treatment acres 265 0 0

Total target threshold acres 265 265 265
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

80 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 32. Proposed alternatives in northern goshawk habitat

Vegetation 

Type

Habitat 

Type Proposed Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C 

Ponderosa Pine 

MSO 

Protected 

Habitat 

within PAC

Precommercial thin to 9" 0 18 18

Burn only 0 542 542

No treatment acres 578 18 18

Total PAC acres 578 578 578

Northern 

Goshawk 

PFA/Nest

Harvest 0 620 0

Selective cut to 16" 0 0 620

Burn only 0 375 375

No treatment acres 995 0 0

Total PFA/nest acres 995 995 995

Northern 

Goshawk 

Foraging 

with >40% 

Slopes

Harvest 0 16,216 0

Harvest to 16" 0 0 16,216

Burn only 0 4,468 4,468

No treatment acres 20,684 0 0

Total foraging acres 20,684 20,684 20,684

Table 33. Proposed Alternatives in other habitat

Vegetation 

Type

Habitat 

Type Proposed Treatment Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C

Other 

Vegetation

Meadows 

and 

grasslands 

Tree removal 0 176 0

Tree removal to 16" 0 0 176

Burn only 0 56 56

Grassland no treatment 240 8 8

Total meadow/grass acres 240 240 240

Other acres (private, wetlands or 

nonvegetated) no treatment

348 348 348
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

81

Figure 13. MSO habitat including critical habitat designation
82 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 14. Goshawk habitat in analysis area
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 83

Federally Listed Terrestrial Species

Summary 

As shown in table 34, all the action alternatives may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect 

any federally listed species. Minor short-term effects are expected to critical habitat of spotted 

owl, which would result in long-term benefits to the habitat.

Table 34. Summary of affects to federally listed species

Species Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Mexican spotted 

owl (MSO)

No effect to the species 

or its critical habitat.

May affect, not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl.

MSO critical 

habitat

No effect. May affect, not likely to 

adversely affect. Mechanical 

and broadcast burning 

treatments are expected to have 

a short-term insignificant 

impact with a long-term 

benefit.

Similar to alternative B, 

except prey base habitat 

component would become 

shaded out following canopy 

closure and decline in 

condition sooner (15 years) 

than alternative B (30 years).

New Mexico 

jumping mouse

No impact. May impact individual New Mexico jumping mouse, but is not 

likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Little Colorado 

spindace

No effect to species or 

its critical habitat.

May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect. No effect to 

designated critical habitat.

Chiricahua 

leopard frog 

No effect to species or 

its critical habitat.

May affect, but is not likely to adversely affect. No effect to 

designated critical habitat.

Details

Species considered were reviewed using district files as well as the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests. In addition, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service threatened and endangered species 

concurrence list dated June 20, 2008 (Brown 2011, appendix B), was referenced for development 

of species that may occur or have suitable habitat within the project area. For the purpose of 

including these species for effects analysis, species that are known or have potential to occur 

within the project area are further analyzed, and species that are not present or do not have 

potential habitat in the project area are dismissed from further analysis (table 35).

The “Aquatics Species” section (page 171) and aquatic species specialist report (McMillan 2011)

addresses aquatic species and their habitats. One terrestrial threatened species with critical 

habitat, Mexican spotted owl, and one proposed species, New Mexico jumping mouse, have the 

potential to occur in the project area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

84 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 35. Federally listed terrestrial species dismissed from further analysis

Common 

Name

Scientific 

Name

Known 

to 

Occur?

Potential 

to 

Occur?

Federal 

Status Rationale

Mexican gray 

wolf

Canis lupus 

baileyi

No Yes, 

random 

incident

Experimental/

Nonessential

Only the Clifton, Alpine, and 

Springerville Ranger Districts are 

approved for wolf 

release/introduction sites. Black 

Mesa RD is not included within 

existing home ranges of known 

packs, but does occur within the 

experimental population area 

boundary that includes the entire 

Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests.

Southwestern 

willow 

flycatcher

Empidonax 

traillii 

extimus

No No Endangered Minimal cottonwood/willow 

vegetation communities along 

creeks and streams; previous 

surveys in target areas on district 

had no detections.

Yellow-billed 

cuckoo

Coccyzus 

americanus 

occidentalis

No No Candidate Minimal cottonwood/willow 

vegetation communities along 

creeks and streams; previous 

surveys in target areas on district 

had no detections.

Table 36. Federally listed terrestrial species analyzed in detail

Common Name Scientific Name Known to 

Occur?

Potential to 

Occur?

Federal 

Status Critical Habitat

Mexican spotted 

owl

Strix occidentalis 

lucida

Yes Yes Threatened Yes

New Mexico 

jumping mouse

Zapus hudsonius 

luteus

No Yes Candidate NA

.

Mexican Spotted Owl

The Southwestern Region of the U.S. Forest Service incorporated guidelines from the “Mexican 

Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” into all forest plans in 1996 (USDA 1996).

The “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” defines MSO habitat as follows:

• Protected activity centers (PACs) are categorized as protected habitat as well as all areas 

in mixed conifer and pine/oak habitat types with slopes greater than 40 percent where 

timber harvest has not occurred in the past 20 years (USDI 1995). The project area

contains approximately 1,996 acres of MSO protected habitat, of which 1,303 acres are 

within designated PACs that are considered occupied.

• Restricted habitat is defined as unoccupied mixed conifer forests, pine/oak forests, and 

riparian areas on slopes less than 40 percent (USDI 1995). Approximately 9,281 acres of 

MSO restricted habitat exists within the project area, of which 6,710 acres are mixed 

conifer forest, and 2,571 acres are pine/oak forest.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 85

• Current forest plan direction and the “Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan” (USDI 

1995) require that threshold and target threshold areas be designated within MSO 

restricted habitat. These areas consists of 10 percent of pine-oak and 25 percent of mixed 

conifer. The intent of designating these areas is to protect high quality MSO nesting 

habitat where it exists and to develop needed nesting structure elsewhere.

• The project area currently has 209 acres of restricted habitat that meet threshold criteria 

and 1,470 acres of restricted habitat have been designated target threshold as part of this 

analysis (Brown et al., 2011).

In addition, as a requirement of the Endangered Species Act, Mexican spotted owl critical habitat 

was designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2004. Critical habitat is defined as either 

protected or restricted, which contain the primary constituent elements (PCEs) necessary for 

conservation of the species within the designated critical habitat units. Although approximately 

22,788 acres of the project area fall within the critical habitat boundary, most of this area lies in 

ponderosa pine vegetation and does not have the potential to manage for PCEs for the spotted 

owl. Nonetheless, reducing risk of crown fire in ponderosa pine critical habitat benefits the 

protected and restricted habitats by reducing the risk to them as well.

The project area has approximately 3,886 acres of critical habitat that meet the definition of MSO 

protected or restricted habitat. Where possible, areas within designated critical habitat must be 

managed to maintain or enhance primary constituent habitat elements. These elements include 

criteria associated with the range of tree and plant species, canopy closure, snags, downed logs, 

and residual plant cover (USDI 2004). This requirement applies to the 3,886 acres of critical 

habitat that meet the MSO definition.

MSO Monitoring

Completed surveys specific to this project analysis were conducted in 2006 and 2007, with 

complete monitoring history of the four PACs within the project area (table 37).

Table 37. Monitoring summaries of MSO PACs within the project area

Survey 

Year Ridge PAC Palamino PAC Deer Lake Canyon PAC Woods Canyon PAC 

2006 Pair occupancy Single male Single male New PAC, pair occupancy

2007 Single male Pair occupancy No response Single male

2008 Pair – 1 young No response No response No response

2009 Single male Not monitored No response No response

2010 No response Not monitored Not monitored Not monitored
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

86 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 38. Mexican spotted owl (MSO) protected habitat (1,995 acres)

1 100 percent of the area could be allocated for old growth structure. 2 Mixed conifer restricted habitat allocation varies by recovery unit (MSO recovery plan).

Table 39. Mexican spotted owl (MSO) restricted habitat (9,281 acres)

1 100% of the area could be allocated for old growth structure. 2 Mixed conifer restricted habitat allocation varies by recovery unit (MSO recovery plan).

Protected Habitat: MSO PACs

Mexican spotted owl surveys have been conducted in protected and restricted habitat within the

project area and within a half mile of the project area boundary. Surveys dating back to the late 

1980s have occurred in various parts of the project area. Four MSO PACs have been established 

that exist entirely or partly within the analysis area. Only the Ridge PAC occurs entirely within 

the project area, while the Woods Canyon and Palamino PACs and nest core area occurs partially 

in the project area (table 40).

The Deer Lake Canyon PAC mostly occurs outside the project area and does not have any nest 

core habitat within the project area. In addition to the 4 PACs within the project area, 14 other 

PACs fall within the one-quarter mile buffer area around the project area (Brown et al., 2011).

Mixed Conifer Pine-Oak 1 Other (acres) 1 Total

Protected activity center (PAC) 725 0 578 1303

Protected habitat > 40% slope 692 0 0 692

Reserved lands 1 0 0 0 0

Total 1417 0 578 1995

Mixed Conifer Pine-Oak Other Total

Restricted habitat “other”

(90% of pine-oak and 75% of the mixed 

conifer in the project area)

5,031 2,304 0 7,335

Restricted habitat threshold 1 209 0 0 209

Restricted habitat target threshold 1 1,470 267 1,737

Total 6,710 2,571 0 9,281
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 87

Table 40. MSO PACs, nest core habitat, critical habitat, and habitat type in the project area 

MSO PACs

PAC Acres 

within the 

Project Area

Nest Core Acres 

within the 

Project Area

Critical Habitat 

within the 

PACs

Forest Habitat Type 

Acres within Each PAC

Ridge 601 119 601

Mixed conifer 576

Ponderosa pine 18

Grassland 7

Woods Canyon* 371 40 238

Mixed conifer 75

Ponderosa pine 297

Palamino* 262 59 262

Mixed conifer 74

Ponderosa pine 188

Deer Lake Canyon* 75 0 75 Ponderosa pine 75

*PACs located partially within the project area boundary.

Forest Structure and Stand Density in MSO Restricted Habitat “Other”

For the purpose of the analysis, forested habitat analysis has primarily focused effects from forest 

structure and stand density for MSO with approximately 34 percent of the project area (11,000 

acres) being stratified as MSO habitats.

Based on existing conditions, MSO restricted habitats within the project area currently provide 

for the desired distribution of tree sizes specified in the recovery plan and forest plan, except for 

trees in the largest d.b.h. class, which are currently slightly below desired representation. There is 

an excess of trees in the lowest d.b.h. class (12–18 inches d.b.h.), which are the primary size class 

of trees that would be treated. The desired condition, as defined by the forest plan and recovery 

plan guidelines, is to have a sustained level of MSO nest/roost habitat well distributed across the 

landscape while reducing potential for stand-replacing wildfires through MSO habitats. MSO 

restricted habitats would be managed from current condition toward desired long-term 

management of stand density index stand structure.

MSO—Existing and Desired Forest Structure

MSO forest habitats within the project area currently provide for the desired distribution of tree 

sizes specified in the forest plan, except for trees in the 24 inches and larger d.b.h. class, which 

are currently slightly below desired levels. Based upon growth projections, the desired 

representation for this class would be achieved within the next decade (Richardson et al., 2012).

Table 41 and figure 15 display the percent of the maximum SDI by size class compared to the 

desired percent of the maximum SDI by size class for MSO mixed conifer and pine-oak habitat 

from the MSO recovery plan and forest plan guidelines.

Table 41. MSO restricted percent of total existing SDI, by d.b.h. class (2010)

Percent of Maximum 

SDI by d.b.h.

Existing 

Condition Mixed 

Conifer

Desired 

Condition*

Existing 

Condition 

Pine-oak

Desired 

Condition

SDI % 12–18" 31 10 + 34 15 +

SDI % 18–24" 12 10 + 13 15 +
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

88 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Percent of Maximum 

SDI by d.b.h.

Existing 

Condition Mixed 

Conifer

Desired 

Condition*

Existing 

Condition 

Pine-oak

Desired 

Condition

SDI % 24"+ 8 10 + 10 15 +

* Based on the forest plan, desired minimum percentage of trees by size class.

Figure 15. Percent of maximum stand density index in MSO habitat by tree diameter

Existing and Desired Forest Density and Snags in MSO

Stand density index (SDI) and basal area (BA) are discussed in detail within the “Vegetation”

section (page 25). Existing percent maximum SDI and BA for the forested area within the project 

area are shown in table 42. The lower stand densities are concentrated in areas of recent timber 

sales on the west and south side of the project area, power line corridors, and the Rodeo-Chediski 

Fire on the east side. 

Currently, 97 percent of the area is considered high density (zone 3). The low to moderate density 

(zones 1 and 2) stands resulted from retaining trees 16 inches d.b.h. and larger, from a previous 

hazardous fuels reduction project adjacent to the project area.

Forest plan guidelines require BA minimum for protected, target, and target threshold habitats.

This requirement does not allow the flexibility to manage for age class distributions.

For the following two tables, the silviculture specialist report, appendix C (Richardson et al., 

2012) describes stand density index calculations and the basis for desired density conditions 

related to the forest plan vegetation standards and guidelines and project purpose and need. 

The desired condition density ranges represent the zone where attainment of both forest health 

objectives and uneven-aged forest development and maintenance objectives are biologically 

feasible.

Road Systems and the MSO

Two types of road systems totaling 13.96 miles occur within MSO PACs and MSO protected 

habitat in the project area as described in the engineering specialist report (Johnson, 2011) and 

shown in figure 23 (page 235). Level 1 roads are closed roads and level 2 roads are managed for 

high-clearance vehicles (table 44). Level 1 roads used during the project would be returned to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 89

closed status after project completion. No haul routes would occur in the 14 PACS outside the 

project area.

Table 42. MSO mixed conifer existing and desired forest density and snags by stratum 

Table 43. MSO oak-pine forest cover type

Protected Habitat

(including PACs)

Restricted:

Threshold/ 

Target Threshold

Restricted: 

Other

Acres (not all are proposed for treatment) 578 267 2,304

Desired BA NA 150–170 70–90

BA existing average 99 99 99

BA existing range 37–323 37–323 37–323

Desired SDI NA NA 25–40

Existing SDI* 48 48 48

Deisred snags 2.0+ 2.0+ 2.0+

Existing snags 1.2 1.2 1.2

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

Critical Habitat 

Total designated MSO critical habitat within the project area is 22,788 acres. Approximately 

17,212 acres would receive mechanical treatment under either alternative B or alternative C. Of 

the 17,212 acres, approximately 3,886 acres meet the definition of MSO protected or restricted 

(table 45 and table 46, figure 13).

Approximately 22,507 acres of MSO critical habitat would receive low severity prescribed 

burning under either alternative B or alternative C (MSO nest core habitats would not be treated).

Acres not treated by mechanical or prescribed fire include MSO nest core habitat and other nonMSO habitats (reservoir and private lands). 

Protected Habitat 

(including PACs)

Restricted:

Threshold/ 

Target Threshold

Restricted: 

Other

Acres (not all are proposed for treatment) 1,417 1,679 5,031

Desired BA NA 150–170 70–90

BA existing average 111 111 111

BA existing range 30–235 30–235 30–235

Desired SDI* NA NA 25–40

Existing SDI 52 52 52

Deisred snags 2.0+ 2.0+ 2.0+

Existing snags 2.5 2.5 2.5

*Within stand matrix (not including regeneration group openings).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

90 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 44. Road level and use in MSO PACs and protected habitat

Road Levels Habitat Type Road Use

Miles of 

Roads

Level 1 – Basic 

Custodial Care 

(Closed)

Protected Habitat Outside PAC

Haul Route 0.28

Remain Closed 0.22

Sum Total 0.50

Protected Habitat within PAC

Haul Route 0.96

Prohibit Haul 1.38

Remain Closed 3.59

Sum Total 5.93

Level 2 – HighClearance Vehicles

Protected Habitat Outside PAC

Haul Route 0.25

Not Used 0.20

Sum Total 0.45

Protected Habitat within PAC

Haul Route 5.31

Not Used 1.76

Sum Total 7.07

Grand Total of Roads 13.95

Table 45. MSO critical habitat with proposed mechanical treatment type and acres

MSO Critical Habitat 

Treatment Type

Alt. B and Alt. C Acres

in Critical/Restricted 

Owl Habitat

Alt. B and C in 

Critical Habitat 

Outside 

Protected/Restricted

No Mechanical 

Treatment in 

MSO Critical 

Habitat

MSO protected 288

MSO restricted 3,290

MSO target threshold 240

MSO threshold 68

NOGO – foraging habitat 12,856

NOGO – nest/PFA 345

Meadow enhancement 125

Total 23,670 3,886 13,326 6,458
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 91

Table 46. MSO critical habitat with proposed prescribed burning 

Treatment Type Acres

Low severity prescribed burning 22,507

No prescribed burning (MSO nest core and other) 281

Environmental Effects to MSO

Alternative A 

This alternative would not have mechanical thinning or low severity broadcast burning in MSO 

protected or restricted habitat. There would be no increase in human-related activities within or 

adjacent to the MSO habitat. Therefore, no change in foraging, nesting, and roosting habitat 

would occur. This alternative would not reduce the risk of high severity canopy wildland fire, 

which is identified as one of two highest threats to MSO recovery in the recovery plan (USDI 

1995).

As noted in the “Fuels and Fire” section (page 63), the effect of canopy openings and distribution 

of tree groups and clumps on potential fire behavior was estimated using FlamMap. Alternative A 

demonstrates much of the north and central portions of the project area exhibiting active crown 

fire and passive crown fire above levels of both alternatives B and C.

In terms of FRCC, alternative A also represents current conditions for this landscape with all 

MSO habitats remaining in FRCC 3, at high risk of active crown fire. No mechanical thinning or 

low severity broadcast burning to reduce fuel loading would be performed, the project area

remains at a high risk of stand-replacing wildfire. If a high severity active canopy wildfire were to 

occur, it would alter habitat suitability for MSO. Managing the project area toward forest plan 

guidelines and MSO recovery would not occur.

Alternative B—Direct/Indirect Effects

One of the four PACs in the project area would be treated mechanically (see table 47). The Ridge 

PAC would be mechanically treated on 281 acres, with 119 acres of nest core habitat buffer not 

receiving treatment. With treating within the Ridge PAC, 22 percent of the total PAC acres within 

the project area would be mechanically treated. Protected habitat would be treated on 77 acres, 11 

percent of the available protected habitat within the project area.

Table 47. Mechanical treatment in MSO habitat

MSO Habitat Treated Acres Total Stratified Habitat Acres Percent Treated

Protected habitat 358 1,995 18

Restricted target threshold 653 1,737 38

Restricted threshold 112 209 54

Restricted “other” 5,518 7,335 75

Grand Total 6,641 11,267 59

Low severity burning would occur in each of the four PACs within the project area (table 48).

Only the Ridge PAC would be thinned from below, then treated by low severity broadcast fire.

Habitat in the other three PACs would receive low severity broadcast burning without mechanical 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

92 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

treatments due to the areas being within established inventoried roadless areas where no 

mechanical treatments are proposed. All activities would avoid the PAC nest core buffers where it

occurs in the project area. 

Mechanical thinning and low severity prescribed burning would result in the forest understory to 

be more open within the Ridge PAC.

Low severity prescribed burning in the other three PACs and protected habitat would not alter 

forest structure. Low severity prescribed burning would primarily reduce surface fuels—such as 

duff and litter—and reduce only a minor component of young age class trees. This would increase 

understory vegetation following recovery that is desirable for the MSO prey base and future 

maintenance treatments. Prey base habitat would be temporarily disturbed over the short term 

with mechanical and prescribed fire treatments, but enhanced following forest understory 

vegetative recovery. By phasing the project activities, not all MSO habitats would be treated 

simultaneously, thus lessening the impacts.

Table 48. Low severity burning in MSO PACs

PACs

PAC Acres in 

the Project 

Area

Acres Treated 

in the Project 

Area

Acres Excluded from 

Treatment in the 

Project Area

Percentage of 

Treated Acres 

in the PACs*

Woods Canyon 371 330 41 55

Deer Canyon Lake 75 75 0 13

Palamino 262 203 59 34.5

Ridge** 601 431 170 72

Total 1,309 1,039 218 79

*PAC area designation is a minimum of 600 acres.

**Ridge PAC is the only PAC that occurs entirely within the project area.

Table 49. Low severity broadcast burning on MSO stratified habitat

MSO Habitats Acres

Protected habitat 1,952

Restricted other habitat 7,330

Restricted target threshold 1,735

Restricted threshold 209

Total acres of low severity burning 11,226

Table 50. No burn MSO areas, including nest core

MSO Habitats Acres

Protected habitat outside PAC 4

Protected habitat within PAC 271

Restricted “other” 6

Restricted target threshold 2

Total acres of no treatment 283
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 93

Under alternative B, MSO PACs and protected habitat diameter limits along with high density BA 

requirements in threshold and target threshold would limit achieving the objective to reduce 

canopy fuel continuity or for understory vegetation to respond to treatment. Consequently, areas 

in protected, threshold, and target threshold habitat would remain as FRCC 3 or move to FRCC 2 

in situations where some canopy can be affected without losing the desired BA.

Figure 16. Percent of habitat restored to FRCC 1 by alternative

In alternative B, restricted “other” habitat (MC) can be restored to an FRCC 1 where the species 

composition, structure, and function of these stands would be in concert with a surface fire 

regime at 67 percent of this habitat. Alternative C would restore about 17 percent. Alternative B 

would restore about 46 percent of restricted habitat (pine/oak), whereas alternative C would 

restore about 12 percent.

FlamMap analysis of fire type potential for alternative B shows a marked reduction in passive and 

active crown fire in protected, restricted, target, and target threshold habitats over alternative A 

(page 63).

Active crown fire between alternative B and C is not significantly different. However, there are 

marked differences between the passive crown fire between alternative B and C for restricted and 

threshold, target threshold habitats. Alternative B has minimized the canopy fire behavior due to 

the creation of tree canopy openings and tree stand distribution of groups and clumps resulting in 

reducing the potential for active and passive crown fire within MSO restricted “other” habitats.

This alternative has reduced the risk of high severity canopy fire in restricted, threshold, target 

threshold, and old growth significantly more than alternative A, and also provides for a longer

effective timeline for meeting project objectives compared with alternative C.

Mechanical treatment for PACs, protected, restricted threshold, and restricted target threshold 

habitats would retain tree canopy and meet/move toward BA objectives by reducing tree 

competition.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

94 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Treatments in restricted habitat “other”—outside threshold and target threshold areas—would 

provide for more canopy cover diversity, spatial arrangement for groups, and clumps of stands 

with openings less than 2 acres to increase the understory vegetation component. Canopy cover 

would change slightly in restricted other habitat with development of uneven-aged stand 

management with retention of a range of 25–40 percent SDI (a reduction from 52 percent) which 

equates to a range of 40–70 percent canopy coverage. The excess of 12- to 18-inch d.b.h. trees 

would be treated to move toward desired conditions. The desired condition, as defined by the 

forest plan and recovery plan guidelines is to have a sustained level of MSO nest/roost habitat 

well distributed across the landscape while reducing potential for stand replacing wildland fires 

through MSO habitats.

Smoke from prescribed burning may temporarily disturb MSO within and adjacent to the project 

area, but this is short term and would not adversely affect MSO due to the low severity 

prescription. Prevailing southwest winds and the topography of the area typically cause smoke to 

carry north and east. Wind may carry smoke to PACs, but it is expected to be short term and 

transitory in nature.

Burning proximate to PAC(s) during the breeding season (March 1–August 31) would be 

conducted in such a manner that limited smoke occurrence within a PAC(s) and smoke would not 

settle in PAC(s) for long durations, having an negligible indirect effect to MSO.

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 analysis 

area.

Snags and logs would be retained at or managed toward meeting forest plan guidelines. Data 

collected from 2006 to 2007 showed an average snag density of 1.8 per acre and an average of 4.2 

logs (12 inches at midline and 8 feet long) per acre in the project area. Current snag densities are 

below forest plan standards of 2–3 per acre. Current log densities fall within the forest plan 

standard of 3–5 per acre. Future snag recruitment is expected through existing insect infections 

and low severity broadcast burning on unhealthy trees. Potential snags would be tallied and left to 

meet the minimum forest plan standards of 2–3 per acre during mechanical treatments.

Alternative B would retain current old growth habitat and develop old growth components in 

newly allocated stands within MSO stratified habitat. About 3,940 acres would be allocated to be 

managed for old growth structure.

All treatments, including product hauling and road maintenance within a quarter mile of PAC 

boundaries within and adjacent to the project area, would be subject to established breeding 

season restrictions (DEIS appendix B). Approximately 0.96 mile available as level 1 roads would 

be temporarily opened within PACs and 5.31 miles of available level 2 high-clearance roads 

would be used within PACs (table 51). Approximately 6.73 miles of roads within PACs would 

remain closed, prohibit hauling, or not be used. By selecting to use a majority of the available 

level 2 roads within PACs, noise and disturbance to previously nondisturbed areas of closed level 

1 roads are minimized. Approximately 16 percent of the closed roads within PACs would be 

opened to support project activities then reclosed. Additionally, 1.38 miles of level 2 roads within 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 95

the PACs would not be used for haul roads. For all PACs, approximately 52 percent of the 

available roads would not be utilized.

Table 51. Road level and use in MSO PACs

Project Area Road Levels and 

Classification

Total Miles of 

Roads

Percentage of Miles of Road 

Used/Not Used in PACs

1 – Basic Custodial Care (Closed) 

Area within PAC

Haul route 0.96 16% used

Prohibit haul 1.38

84% not used

Remain closed 3.59

Sum Total 5.93

2 – High-Clearance Vehicles 

Area within PAC

Haul route 5.31 75% used

Not used 1.76 25% not used

Sum Total 7.07

Sum Total of Used Roads 13

Early morning and late evening activities and noise associated with mechanical thinning, logging,

and chipper trucks, and road use and maintenance operations may disturb foraging Mexican 

spotted owls. Any roads located within one-quarter mile of PACs that are identified for projectrelated use would be subject to breeding season timing restrictions (Brown et al., 2011). No 

product hauling or maintenance would occur on these roads from March 1 through August 31.

Alternative C—Direct/Indirect Effects

Mechanical treatment and broadcast burning treatments would occur in the same stands as 

alternative B, except that no trees greater than 16 inches in diameter would be cut. Effects 

analysis of alternative C is similar to alternative B.

With alternative C, 75 percent of MSO restricted other habitat forest types (by area) are projected 

to meet desired maximum density conditions post treatment. Overall differences in stand density 

are slight relative to alternative B; however, the forest vegetation spatial arrangement would be 

different under this alternative than under alternative B. The posttreatment tree distribution would 

be more uniform under alternative C without the clumpy and groupy stand arrangement, and so 

there would be less opportunity to create openings. This forest structure and stand arrangement 

leads to more rapid canopy closure (estimated at 15 years) of the forest as it develops post 

treatment (Richardson et al., 2012 ). This rapid canopy closure has significant implications for 

high severity wildland fire risk with both crown fire and FRCC, along with understory 

herbaceous and shrub community development. Restricted other habitat would be managed for 

clumpy and groupy stand arrangement with openings less than 2 acres, where constraints do not 

limit achievement of objectives. This alternative would reduce the risk of high severity canopy 

fire in restricted, threshold, and target threshold more than alternative A but less than alternative 

B.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

96 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Because of the diameter limit in alternative C, canopy cover would be slightly different than 

alternative B in restricted habitat with development of an even-aged stand with retention of a 

range of 25–40 percent SDI (a reduction from 52 percent) which equates to a range of 40–70 

percent canopy coverage.

The excess of 12- to 16-inch d.b.h. trees would be treated to move toward desired conditions.

Treatment resulting in even-aged stands would continue to be at a higher risk for active crown 

fire over alternative B.

Alternative C has similar effects as alternative B for MSO high density BA requirements in 

threshold and target threshold habitats. Alternative C would reduce the ability to reduce canopy 

fuel continuity or for understory vegetation to respond to treatment. Areas in protected, threshold, 

and target threshold habitat would remain as FRCC 3 or move to FRCC 2 in situations where 

some canopy can be affected without losing the desired BA. 

In alternative C, restricted habitat (MC) would be restored to an FRCC 1 less than alternative B

(figure 11 above). Implementing alternative C would manage for less of an improved FRCC 

within MSO restricted habitat post treatment for up to 20 years (Nicolet 2011). Potential crown 

fire would be higher than alternative B, with the ability to manage wildland fire for resource 

benefit and maintenance treatments in the future less than alternative B. High severity crown fire 

was identified as one of two primary threats to the MSO when it was listed as threatened in 1995 

(USDI 1995a). High severity crown fire continues to be a primary threat today.

Prey base habitat would be enhanced following forest understory vegetative recovery, but for a 

shorter period of time than alternative B due to increased canopy coverage over time.

MSO ESA Determination Effect

Alternative A

Based on the above discussion, alternative A has no effect to Mexican spotted owl or its critical 

habitat. This alternative would not reduce the threat of high severity active canopy fire, which is a 

major concern for recovery of this species. This alternative does not manage toward forest plan or 

recovery plan objectives of MSO.

Alternative B

The determination of effects for the Mexican spotted owl habitats is based on design criteria, 

mitigation, and conclusions based on the above effects discussion. Alternative B may affect, not 

likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl.

This alternative would meet forest plan and recovery plan guidelines for MSO. MSO stratified 

habitat would provide for a mosaic of desired stand structure conditions, allowing for wildlife 

habitat and vegetative diversity. This mosaic would allow for a diversity of fire effects, thereby 

increasing opportunities for the maintenance of forest structure and function using natural and 

broadcast fire in the long-term future (up to 30 years). This alternative would improve the 

conditions in the project area to reduce the risk of high severity crown fire within treated acres for 

30 years by reducing FRCC in restricted habitats and surrounding northern goshawk stratified 

habitats that are adjacent to MSO protected, threshold, and target threshold habitats. FRCC would

largely remain unchanged in protected, target, and threshold target habitats (fuels specialist 

report). This alternative would move vegetation toward protected and restricted habitat recovery 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 97

plan and forest plan objectives for MSO and would manage adjacent northern goshawk habitats 

objectives for an estimated 30 years with opportunities for maintenance treatments or wildland 

fire use.

Alternative B would provide long-term nesting and roosting benefits while reducing potential risk 

of high severity wildland fire. To mitigate adverse effects associated with treatments within 

protected habitat, no activities would occur within the nest core buffer with approved activities 

occurring outside the breeding season. Low severity prescribed fire within MSO stratified habitat 

would retain forest stand structure and provide for understory grass–forb–shrub release to 

improve habitat components following vegetative recovery for MSO prey base.

Alternative C

Alternative C, determination of effects for MSO is based on the above discussions and pertinent 

alternative C discussions and determinations carried forward. Alternative C may affect, not likely 

to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl.

Alternative C would provide long-term nesting and roosting benefits while having an increased 

risk of high severity wildland fire compared with alternative B. To mitigate adverse effects 

associated with treatments within protected habitat, no activities would occur within the nest core 

buffer with approved activities occurring outside the breeding season.

Cumulative Effects to MSO

Alternative A

Activities identified in cumulative effects background in this chapter (page 39) add to the 

cumulative effects to this species by disturbance-related activities. No direct cumulative effects 

would occur to MSO because there are no direct effects from this project. Alternative A does not 

manage toward recovery objectives for MSO.

Alternatives B and C

In addition to the vegetation management listed at the beginning of this chapter, development of 

private lands in Forest Lakes Estates is expected to continue. Forest Lakes Estates only contains 

MSO foraging habitat. Although development of these properties would likely make vegetation

less suitable for foraging, this would not affect the species because these activities would not 

affect MSO protected, restricted, or critical habitat.

Private land development is likely to increase human occupancy and attract more forest user days 

to this area. Activities associated with an increase in nighttime human activity associated with 

occupancy may cause some displacement to foraging spotted owls adjacent to the Rancho Allegre 

property. Human occupancy and associated activity effects in this area are not significant to 

Mexican spotted owl as the nearest PAC is greater than a mile away.

Effects Analysis for MSO Critical Habitat

Approximately 3,886 acres of designated critical habitat in the project area has potential to 

provide PCEs. To maintain forest structure PCEs to levels consistent with the forest plan and 

recovery plan, this protected and restricted habitat would be mechanically treated in the project 

area. Treatment activities retain forest structure and prey base, and so would have minimal effects 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

98 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

on critical habitat. The Ridge PAC MSO nest core habitat would not be treated by mechanical or 

prescribed fire on 119 acres.

Approximately 22,507 acres of designated critical habitat would receive low severity prescribed 

burn treatments incrementally during the 15-year implementation schedule. This low severity 

prescribed burn treatment would result in some temporary effects on prey base habitat elements, 

but these effects should not result in adverse effects and would result with improved habitat 

conditions for prey base following vegetative recovery. It is expected that burning would 

positively affect prey base by allowing for understory vegetative species to be released after 

mechanical thinning and low severity prescribed fire that would provide additional cover and 

food resources.

Canyon habitats would not be treated and so would not be affected. They would, however, benefit 

as surrounding lands become less susceptible to uncharacteristically severe wildfire.

Alternative B

Following is the effects analysis of alternative B on the primary constituent elements.

Forest Structure 

1. Restricted habitat (other) - within the tree species (mixed conifer, pine-oak): 

implementation would take the 80 percent of 5-inch to 18-inch d.b.h. structure and create 

variable younger age class stands. Treatments would provide new openings up to 2 acres, 

but majority would result in 0.25–0.75 acre openings in mixed conifer and 1–2 acres in 

pine-oak. Uneven-aged stand management with regeneration openings would be managed 

toward meeting forest plan guidelines.

2. Ridge PAC and protected habitat would receive precommercial thinning that removed 

trees greater than 9 inches d.b.h. on 281 acres and 77 acres respectively that would 

remove finer fuels and slightly reduce the BA and low level canopy; however, any 

canopy or BA lost would be short term as individual trees that remain would increase in 

canopy and BA with reduced competition. Restricted target and target threshold 

treatments would have similar structure effects with the exception that select trees may be 

harvested up to 24 inches d.b.h.. 

3. Low level canopy cover would be reduced within protected habitat and restricted 

target/target threshold habitats due to thinning small trees, but still retain these levels to 

forest plan standards in protected and target threshold habitats and move target threshold 

toward threshold standards. Any canopy or BA lost would be short term as individual 

trees that remain would increase in canopy and BA with reduced competition. Canopy 

cover would change slightly in restricted habitat with development of uneven-aged stand 

management with retention of a range of 25–40 percent SDI, which equates to 40–70 

percent canopy coverage.

4. Broadcast burning may reduce the number of large, dead trees (snags), but by using low 

severity broadcast burning with adequate fuel moistures, it is expected that most existing 

snags would be retained. Selection and management for snag retention and creation 

would be employed to meet forest plan guidelines during mechanical treatments. 

Landings in MSO critical habitat would be located in existing openings or in areas where 

snags would be minimally impacted. Mechanically thinning and broadcast burning 

treatments are not expected to adversely affect this primary constituent element. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 99

Pretreatment and posttreatment monitoring would be conducted according to current 

Forest Service protocol to evaluate snag retention effectiveness. Logs are currently 

meeting forest plan guidelines and would be maintained at guideline levels.

Prey Species

1. Broadcast burning would reduce the amount of fallen trees and other woody debris across 

treated areas in order to decrease high fuel loads. This moves toward desired levels 

similar to historic conditions that allow for future maintenance and reduce the risk of high 

severity wildland fire over time. Burning techniques would be used to retain most large 

existing downed logs (12 inches or greater at the midpoint and at least 8 feet long). This 

would be accomplished by burning in adequate fuel moistures and with ignition 

techniques that reduce the risk of log consumption. Landings would be located in existing 

openings or in areas where logs would be minimally impacted when available. Not all 

critical habitat would be treated at once because of the requirement for phased 

implementation (appendix B). The prey base habitat elements would receive some 

temporary effects within burned areas. However, it is expected that low severity 

broadcast fire would not consume all ground fuels and would leave unburned areas. The 

prey base numbers may be temporarily impacted and rebound following vegetative 

recovery, but prey base populations are not expected to be adversely affected by these 

treatments. Not all MSO habitats would have impacts to prey base habitats, additionally, 

the phased implementation allows for not all MSO prey base habitats to be impacted at 

once, and providing untreated or recovered habitats within foraging habitat range.

Posttreatment monitoring would be conducted according to current Forest Service 

protocol to evaluate log retention effectiveness.

2. Treatments are not expected to reduce desired tree and plant species composition, 

including Gambel oak. No oak trees would be thinned or harvested, but some may be lost 

to low severity broadcast fire. Overall, shade-intolerant Gambel oak would greatly 

benefit from these proposed treatments because of the release of large oak from overstory 

tree competitors. Fire may stimulate regeneration of oak in areas with high duff layers. 

Benefits from implementing the treatments would be realized with opening of the 

overstory canopy that provides opportunities for understory vegetative species to be 

released providing cover and food resources for prey base. 

3. Adequate levels of residual plant cover to maintain a mosaic of unburned habitat patches 

containing fruits and seeds, and allow plant regeneration for the needs of MSO prey 

species would be maintained with a low severity broadcast fire due to an expected 

burned, partially burned, and unburned duff layers. New herbaceous plant growth would 

occur in areas where thick layers of dead plant material has accumulated over time and 

prevented herbaceous growth. Treatments are expected to have a short-term impact of 1 

to 2 years until forest understory recovery, but are not expected to adversely affect this 

primary constituent element. 

Design criteria and mitigation would be implemented to be compliant with forest plan and 

recovery plan guidelines. Activities associated with mechanical thinning and broadcast burning 

would be implemented to minimize effects to MSO within PACs by avoiding treatments in the 

nest buffer and only treating 281 acres within the Ridge PAC.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

100 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The protected habitat, restricted threshold, and restricted target threshold habitats would be 

managed toward forest plan and recovery plan guidelines and would develop future nesting 

habitat.

Restricted other habitat would be managed for age class structure development and move toward

forest plan guidelines. A short-term impact with mechanical thinning and broadcast burning 

activities would provide for long-term future benefits for MSO habitats being managed toward

forest plan and recovery plan guidelines.

Other effects to critical habitat are described previously in the “Effects” portion of this section.

The desired condition, as defined by the forest plan and recovery plan guidelines, is to have a 

sustained level of MSO nest/roost habitat well distributed across the landscape while reducing 

potential for stand replacing wildland fires through MSO habitats. The forest plan also described 

uneven-aged forest structure as the desired condition for restricted (other) habitat areas. Prey base 

habitat would be enhanced following forest understory vegetative recovery. Roads and access that 

would be temporarily opened during activity implementation would be closed and rehabilitated 

upon project completion. The forest plan amendment proposed as part of this alternative would 

not directly change these conditions because it provides for achieving northern goshawk habitat 

objectives, which indirectly benefit MSO critical habitat by providing landscape level condition 

class changes.

Alternative C

As with alternative B, approximately 3,886 acres of critical habitat meeting the definition of 

protected habitat or restricted habitat would be treated in the project area to maintain or enhance 

primary constituent habitat elements for forest structure and prey base. Canyon habitats would not 

be affected.

Mechanical treatment and broadcast burning treatments would occur in the same stands as 

alternative B, except that no trees greater than 16 inches in diameter would be cut. Effects 

analysis to MSO protected, restricted threshold, restricted target threshold, and restricted “other” 

are described above. The direct, indirect, and cumulative effects for alternative B are applicable to 

alternative C. The amendment proposed for alternative C would allow for stands in northern 

goshawk habitat to move toward even-aged conditions and away from the uneven-aged 

conditions that most benefit goshawk. Although this moves stands toward a condition that 

provides nest/roost sites well distributed, it does not reduce the long potential for stand-replacing 

wildfires in MSO habitats.

Cumulative Effects to Critical Habitat—Alternatives B and C

Development of private lands in Forest Lakes Estates and the Rancho Alegre private land parcel 

is expected to continue. Rancho Allegre is a meadow not within designated critical habitat but is 

bordered by National Forest System lands containing restricted habitat. Continued development 

of these properties may make them less suitable for MSO foraging. Restricted habitat adjacent to 

the Rancho Alegre property may become less suitable for nesting or roosting. The loss of habitat 

in these parcels is negligible when compared to the amount of available habitat on surrounding 

national forest lands.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 101

Private land development is likely to attract more forest users to this area. Activities associated 

with an increase in nighttime recreation may cause some displacement to foraging spotted owls 

adjacent to the Rancho Allegre property. Recreation in this area is not believed to have notable

effects to Mexican spotted owl behavior.

Table 52. Comparison of alternatives on MSO habitat

Summary Evaluation 

Criteria Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Biological diversity, 

restricted habitat (other) 

(excluding MSO 

protected, threshold, 

target threshold) 

Low: shaded out 

understory, stands 

dominated by 5–18" 

class trees, aspen 

and oak restricted. 

High: clumpy/groupy stand 

distribution with regeneration 

openings; understory release 

of herbaceous/browse is high; 

increased stand age class 

distribution; future 

maintenance to complement 

regeneration openings and 

understory composition and 

production. 

Moderate: even-aged 

stand with minimal 

regeneration openings; 

understory release less 

than desirable with 

canopy closure expected 

in 15 years. 

Forest understory 

vegetation development 

(MSO prey base, 

ungulates) 

Low potential: 

shaded out, 

degrading over time 

(i.e. not 

sustainable). 

High potential: stand 

developed with groups and 

clumps and regeneration 

openings; long-term 

maintenance (30 year 

longevity). 

Moderate potential: 

short-term gain until 

canopy closes (15 year 

longevity). 

Forest understory 

vegetation - surface fire 

potential (percent of 

stratified habitat) 

MSO Restricted = 

26% 

MSO 

Threshold/Target = 

28% 

MSO Restricted = 73% 

MSO Threshold/Target = 87% 

MSO Restricted = 50% 

MSO Threshold/Target = 

72% 

Forest structure –

restricted habitat (other) 

Low: dominated by 

5–18" class trees, 

lack of age class 

diversity.

High: initial mechanical 

treatment with groups, 

clumps, and regeneration 

openings provide most 

diversity. Class development 

would occur over time; 

periodic broadcast burn 

maintenance planned for 

developing regeneration 

openings. 

Moderate: initial 

mechanical treatment 

with cap limits spatial 

distribution, less 

diversity. Class 

development than 

alternative B; no 

broadcast burn 

maintenance planned; no 

future regeneration 

openings. 

Posttreatment passive 

crown fire potential –

MSO threshold/target 

threshold 

High risk of adverse

habitat alteration 

modeled at 63%.

Low risk of adverse habitat 

alteration modeled at 8%.

Moderate risk of adverse 

habitat alteration 

modeled at 23%.

Posttreatment passive 

crown fire potential –

MSO restricted 

High risk of adverse 

habitat alteration 

modeled at 54%.

Low risk of adverse habitat 

alteration modeled at 27%.

Moderate risk of adverse 

habitat alteration 

modeled at 27%.

Posttreatment passive 

crown fire potential –

MSO protected 

High risk of adverse 

habitat alteration 

modeled at 60%.

Low risk of adverse habitat 

alteration modeled at 8%.

Moderate risk of adverse 

habitat alteration 

modeled at 28%.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

102 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Determination of Effects for MSO Critical Habitat

Alternative B

The determination of effects for the Mexican spotted owl critical habitats is based on design 

criteria, mitigation, and conclusions based on the above effects discussion. Alternative B may 

affect, not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl critical habitat for forest structure 

and prey base PCEs. It is recognized that treatments (mechanical and broadcast burning) are 

expected to have a short term insignificant impact with a long-term benefit.

This alternative with future maintenance for restoration and fuel reduction treatments provide for 

a long-term maintenance of primary constituent elements. Developing a mosaic of stand 

conditions throughout the critical habitat would allow for a diversity of fire effects, thereby 

increasing opportunities for the maintenance of forest structure and function using natural and 

broadcast fire in the long-term future (up to 30 years). This alternative would improve the 

conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown fire within treated acres for 30 years

by reducing FRCC in restricted other habitats and surrounding northern goshawk. FRCC would 

largely remain unchanged in protected, target, and threshold target habitats (Nicolet 2011). This 

alternative has moved toward protected and restricted habitat recovery objectives for MSO and 

would manage adjacent northern goshawk habitats objectives for an estimated 30 years with 

opportunities for maintenance treatments or wildland fire for resource benefit.

Alternative C

Alternative C may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Mexican spotted owl critical habitat 

for forest structure and prey base PCEs. It is recognized that treatments (mechanical and 

broadcast burning) are expected to have a short term insignificant impact with a long-term 

benefit.

This alternative for restoration and fuel reduction treatments provide for medium-term 

maintenance of primary constituent elements. Developing even-aged stand conditions throughout 

the critical habitat would allow for less diversity of fire affects than alternative B. This alternative 

would improve the conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown fire within treated 

acres for 15 years until canopy closure occurs. FRCC would largely remain unchanged in 

protected, target, and threshold target habitats (Nicolet, 2011).

This alternative would move toward recovery objectives for MSO for protected and restricted 

target and target threshold habitat. Prey base habitats would initially be adversely affected, with 

long-term gains following vegetative recovery.

The prey base habitat component would become shaded out following canopy closure and decline 

in condition sooner than alternative B.

Consistency With MSO Biological Opinion (2012)

This section describes how alternatives relate to the “Eleven Forest Biological Opinion for 

Mexican Spotted Owl Reasonable and Prudent Measures Terms and Conditions and Conservation 

Measures.”

The USDA Forest Service consulted with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) on the 11

land and resource management plans (LRMP) for all national forests and grasslands in the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 103

Southwestern Region. A final biological and conference opinion (LRMP BO) was issued for “The 

Continued Implementation of the LRMP for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests of the 

Southwestern Region” USDA Forest Service on April 30, 2012. Section 7(d) of the Endangered 

Species Act of 1973, as amended, requires that Federal agencies “shall not make any irreversible 

or irretrievable commitment of resources with respect to the agency action which has the effect of 

foreclosing the formulation or implementation of any reasonable and prudent alternative which 

would not violate subsection (a)(2).” It is the current direction of the Southwestern Region to 

conduct a consistency check to determine whether an amendment to a LRMP is necessary to be 

consistent with the requirements of the LRMP BO for an action alternative.

An LRMP amendment is considered to be consistent with the LRMP BO if:

• It results in effects (to species and/or designated critical habitat) that were analyzed in the 

BO;

• It does not result in exceeding the amount of take issued in the BO;

• It meets the assumptions stated in the BO; and,

• It would result in continuing to implement the terms and conditions of the BO.

The FWS in its opinion included reasonable and prudent measures in order to minimize incidental 

take of MSOs:

1. Minimize or eliminate adverse effects to MSOs on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (see terms 

and conditions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3)

2. Minimize or eliminate adverse effects to MSO habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs (see 

terms and conditions 2.1 and 2.2)

3. Monitor the impacts of site-specific projects on the MSO (see terms and conditions 3.1 

and 3.2).

In addition to the “Reasonable and Prudent Measures Terms and Conditions,” section 7(a)(1) of 

the ESA directs Federal agencies to utilize their authorities to further the purposes of the act by 

carrying out conservation programs for the benefit of endangered and threatened species. 

Conservation recommendations are discretionary agency activities to minimize or avoid adverse 

effects of a proposed action on listed species or CH, to help implement recovery plans, or to 

develop information.

Table 53 identifies each alternative on consistency with the 11 forest BO for Mexican spotted 

owl. Although there is no difference with consistency between alternatives B and C, there are 

significant differences between longevity or benefits of project activities (30 years vs. 15 years) 

as it directly relates to forest canopy closure and wildland fire risk as well as fire regime 

condition class. Alternative B is superior to alternative C with reducing the potential for high 

severity canopy wildland fire, which is one of the top two risks to MSO recovery.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

104 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 53. Consistency of alternatives with Mexican spotted owl ESA requirements

Terms and Conditions No Action Alt. B Alt. C

1.1 Where feasible, the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs shall avoid activities 

within 0.25 mile of PACs during the MSO breeding season (March 

1 to August 31) that could result in disturbance to MSOs.

NA Consistent, 

with longterm 

benefit.

Consistent, 

with shortterm 

benefit.

1.2 MSO surveys shall occur within the Wallow Fire perimeter to 

determine the status and distribution of MSOs impacted by the fire. 

(Note: As we have stated earlier in this document, there is much 

uncertainty in regards to the status of the MSO within the Wallow 

Fire and we do not know how many MSOs would be able to use a 

portion of the fire area (approximately 22,267 acres of previously 

identified nesting/roosting habitat) for activities other than foraging 

into the future. There is currently no science that allows us to say 

exactly how many MSOs may be able to continue to conduct 

roosting and/or nesting behaviors within the fire perimeter. 

However, we are using our knowledge of MSO behavior following 

other large, high-severity fires and the existing status of the species 

within the UGM EMU to estimate the number of PACs we believe 

must still be present before reinitiation of this consultation should 

occur.)

Surveys shall be conducted according to protocol unless other factors 

(e.g., human health and safety) result in needed modifications. 

Surveys should be coordinated with the FWS prior to 

implementation of any projects. Surveys should focus on potential 

habitat within the fire perimeter.

NA Consistent Consistent

1.3 On site-specific projects, the USFS will work with FWS staff to 

identify and implement additional reasonable and prudent measures 

and terms and conditions specific to the project, to minimize effects 

to MSOs.

Consistent Consistent Consistent

2.1 Where feasible, vegetation management treatments (which could 

include activities such as fuels reduction, utility line maintenance, 

etc.) will maintain adequate amounts of important habitat features or 

MSOs (such as large trees, large snags, and large logs).

NA Consistent Consistent

2.2 On site-specific projects, the USFS will work with FWS staff to 

identify and implement additional reasonable measures, specific to 

the project, to minimize effects to MSO habitat.

NA Consistent Consistent

3.1 The Apache-Sitgreaves NFs shall monitor incidental take 

resulting from the proposed action and report their findings to the 

FWS. Incidental take (implementation) monitoring shall include 

information such as when or if the project was implemented, 

whether the project was implemented as analyzed in the site-specific 

BO (including CMs and best management practices (BMPs)), 

breeding season(s) over which the project occurred, relevant MSO 

survey information, and any other pertinent information as 

described in the site-specific BO about the project’s effects on the 

species.

Consistent Consistent Consistent

3.2 Annual reports, which will include this species, shall be sent to 

the appropriate local FWS Ecological Services field office by March 

1st of each year.

Consistent Consistent Consistent
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 105

Conservation Recommendations No Action Alternative 

B

Alternative 

C

1. We recommend that the USFS work with the FWS to conduct 

MSO surveys over the next several years to attempt to determine 

how MSOs modify their territories in response to the Wallow Fire 

and other wildland fires. This information will aid us in 

understanding the short- and long-term impacts of fire on the MSO, 

and its subsequent effect on the status of the species in the UGM 

EMU.

NA Consistent Consistent

2. We recommend that the USFS work with the FWS to design 

forest restoration treatments across the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs that 

protects existing nest/roost habitat from high severity, standreplacing fire and enhances existing or potential habitat to aid in 

sustaining MSO habitat across the landscape. PACs can be afforded 

substantial protection from wildland fire by emphasizing fuels 

reduction and forest restoration in surrounding areas outside of 

PACs and nest/roost habitat. 

NA Consistent Consistent

Consistency Finding: Based on a review of the LRMP BO and information discussed in the

above effects analysis, it is determined that implementation of any of the action alternatives 

would be consistent with the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Programmatic LRMP 

Biological Opinion” and a forest plan amendment is not necessary.

New Mexico Jumping Mouse 

This species has been documented in the White Mountains of southern Apache and northern 

Greenlee Counties (Hoffmeister 1986). The nearest known site occurs on the north fork of the 

White River. No surveys have been completed in the analysis area for this species, but riparian 

habitat does occur within the project area. The Mexican jumping mouse nests in dry soils, but 

uses moist, streamside, riparian soils to hunt in at night, making the range long and narrow (often 

as long as 150 m) along permanent running water. The project area has grassy and meadow 

habitats adjacent to perennial water that may provide suitable habitat for this species. Nonforested 

cover types (wetland, reservoir, grassland) totaling approximately 551 acres combined with 32.2 

miles of riparian areas is considered for effects analysis.

Effects

Alternative A

Alternative A would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used 

by New Mexico jumping mouse. Forested habitat would continue to be overstocked and shade 

out the understory. Meadow habitats would continue to receive conifer encroachment over time.

The forested habitat within the project area would be at a higher risk of stand replacing crown fire 

(fire specialist report).

There would be no cumulative effects associated with this alternative because there is no effect 

from this project.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

106 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative B

Proposed activities adjacent to wet meadows and riparian corridors could negatively affect New 

Mexico jumping mouse individuals. Tree thinning, broadcast burning, opening level 1 roads, use 

of approved routes, and maintenance of existing roads could result in injury or mortality of 

individuals. Most meadows and riparian corridors would be either undisturbed or lightly 

disturbed by tree thinning and associated vehicle traffic simply because there are few trees in 

these areas. Mice could be injured or killed by falling trees or vehicles running over them. 

Skidders and other equipment could collapse burrows or tunnels, causing harm or disturbance to 

individual active or hibernating mice.

Benefits from treatments would include management toward VSS class distribution objectives 

and increased understory herbaceous and browse species that would benefit this species.

This alternative would improve the conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown

fire within treated acres up to 30 years by creation of uneven-aged stand management with tree 

stands arranged in groups and clumps with regeneration openings. Additionally, the species would 

benefit from this alternative’s changing the FRCC rating from FRCC 3 to FRCC 1 in MSO 

restricted other habitats and surrounding northern goshawk up to 20 years.

Alternative C

The effects analysis from alternative B applies under this alternative with a few exceptions.

Differences in the effects analysis result from VSS class distribution objectives. This means that 

in alternative C, with less canopy opening, less development of the understory herbaceous and 

browse species would occur, and so the benefit would be less to the New Mexico jumping mouse.

Alternative C has a shorter duration before the crowns close as well, so that herbaceous species 

would be maintained. As the FRCC returns to FRCC 3, the benefits to the mouse would be 

reduced as the risk of high severity canopy wildland fire increases.

This alternative has improved the conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown fire 

within treated acres up to 15 years for northern goshawk habitats and MSO restricted other 

habitats by even-aged stand management and resulting FRCC. FRCC would largely remain 

unchanged in protected, target, and threshold target habitats (see “Fuels” section).

Benefits from treatments would include management toward VSS class distribution objectives 

and increased understory herbaceous and browse species that would benefit New Mexico jumping 

mouse until canopy closure occurs (15 years) and desirable understory becomes shaded out.

This alternative has improved the conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown fire 

within treated acres for up to 15 years by reducing FRCC in restricted other habitats and 

surrounding northern goshawk. FRCC would largely remain unchanged in protected, target, and 

threshold target habitats (see “Fuels” section).

Determination of Effect

Alternative A: Based on the above discussion, alternative A would have no impact to New 

Mexico jumping mouse. With not treating within the project area, it would remain mostly at the 

FRCC 3 level and would be susceptible to a high severity, stand-replacing crown fire.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 107

Alternative B or C: The determination of effects for the New Mexico jumping mouse and its 

habitat (193 acres of meadow and riparian) are based on conclusions on the above discussion. 

Based on the above discussion, alternative B or alternative C may impact individual New Mexico 

jumping mouse, but is not likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Forest Service Sensitive Terrestrial Species 

Summary

The analysis identifies sensitive species that might be affected by this project. In includes 

mammals (four), birds (five), reptiles (one), and plants (five). Also, sensitive species of fish (four) 

and amphibians (two) are included in the analysis (in the “Aquatics Species” section starting at 

page 171).

Sensitive species are defined as “those plant and animal species identified by a regional forester 

for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in population numbers or density, or (b) significant current or predicted 

downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species’ existing distribution (FSM 

2670.5(19)).” 

Both action alternatives may impact individual sensitive species, but these alternatives are not 

likely to result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. The difference between the 

action alternatives is that alternative B would maintain its beneficial habitat effects for at least 30 

years, while alternative C is expected to maintain that benefit for 15 years or less.

Details

The Black Mesa Ranger District utilized the “Region 3 Regional Foresters Sensitive Species List”

dated September 21, 2007, to assist with development of species that may occur or have suitable 

habitat within the project area for effects analysis or are not analyzed in detail based upon species 

occurrence or habitat in the project area (table 54). Details about the northern goshawk follow, 

but readers should see the wildlife specialist report (Brown 2011) for details on other species.

Table 54. Sensitive species reviewed for effects analysis in the project area

USFS Sensitive Species

(Scientific Name) Species or Habitat Occur in Project Area

Following Species Analyzed in Detail with Rationale

Mammals

Merriam’s shrew

(Sorex merriami 

leucogenys)

Species may occur; habitat present in project area.

Merriam’s shrews have not been recently captured in the project area. Surveys 

specific to this species have not been conducted in or near the project area.

DeRosier and Ward (1994) documented anatomical parts of this species from 

Mexican spotted owl pellets collected on the Black Mesa Ranger District. The

project area has grassy and meadow habitats adjacent to perennial water scattered 

across the project area that likely provides suitable habitat for this species.

Nonforested cover types (wetland, reservoir, grassland) scattered across the project 

area totaling approximately 551 acres combined with 32.2 miles of riparian areas 

is considered for effects analysis.

Long-tailed vole

(Microtus longicaudus)

Species may occur; habitat present in project area.

Long-tailed voles have not been recently captured in the project area and site-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

108 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

USFS Sensitive Species

(Scientific Name) Species or Habitat Occur in Project Area

specific surveys for this species have not been performed in the project area.

DeRosier and Ward (1994) documented anatomical parts of this species from 

Mexican spotted owl pellets collected on the Black Mesa Ranger District. The

project area has grassy and meadow habitats surrounded by coniferous forests that 

likely provide suitable habitat for this species. Nonforested cover types (wetland, 

reservoir, grassland) scattered across the project area totaling approximately 551 

acres combined with 32.2 miles of riparian areas is considered for effects analysis.

New Mexico jumping 

mouse

(Zapus hudsonius luteus)

Species may occur; habitat present in project area (described in detail in the 

federally listed section above).

Allen’s lappet-browed bat

(Idionycteris phyllotis)

Species documented on district; habitat present in project area. Bat surveys have 

not been conducted recently in the project area. Allen’s lappet-browed bat has 

been documented at several sites on the Black Mesa Ranger District, including 

areas within a few miles east, west, and north of the project area (Petryszyn and 

Sidner 1994). One individual of the species was netted in 2003 at Bruno Tank, 

within .25 mile of the project area boundary. The project area has several thousand 

snags that could be used by Allen’s lappet-browed bat for roosting, as they are 

known for using tree roosts on the Coconino and Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests in Arizona (AZGF 2001). The Mogollon Rim and several canyons in and 

near the project area also provide suitable roosting habitat for this species, water in 

the form of lakes, cienegas, stock tanks, and streams is also readily available. All 

forested and nonforested habitats totaling approximately 33,548 acres in the 

project area is considered for effects analysis for foraging, while forested habitats 

are considered for roosting.

Birds

Bald eagle

(Haliaeetus leucocephalus)

Species and habitat present in project area.

The bald eagle south of the 40th parallel was listed as endangered under the 

Endangered Species Preservation Act of 1966, and was reclassified to threatened 

status on July 12, 1995 (USDI 1995). Bald eagles were delisted from the 

Endangered Species Act throughout most of Arizona and the United States in July 

2007 (USDI 2007). The Sonoran Desert population continues to be protected 

under ESA as a threatened species (USDI 2008). Bald eagles that occur within the

project area remain protected by the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and 

Migratory Bird Treaty Act, with both acts prohibiting the “take” of bald eagles.

Bald eagles have been detected at Woods Canyon and Willow Springs Lakes 

during the summer months with an active nest located at Woods Canyon Lake. 

Wintering bald eagles have been observed at Bear Canyon, Woods Canyon, and 

Willow Springs Lakes. There are no known roost sites in or near the project area.

Existing reservoirs totaling approximately 286 acres and adjacent coniferous forest 

is considered for effects analysis. 

Northern goshawk

(Accipiter gentilis)

Species and habitat present in project area (see below).

Common black-hawk

(Buteogallus anthracinus

Species and habitat present in project area. No formal surveys for common blackhawks have been conducted on the Black Mesa district, but some overlap in 

suitable habitat has occurred during northern goshawk surveys. To date, no blackhawk nests have been discovered during goshawk surveys although black-hawks 

have been observed in Chevelon, Woods, and Slim Jim Canyons which contain 

suitable nesting habitat. The Black Mesa district provides suitable nesting habitat 

in Woods and Chevelon Canyons where pools containing black-hawk prey persist 

throughout the year. Chevelon Creek is perennial above Chevelon Lake and 

intermittent below the lake. The portion of Willow Creek within the project area 

has perennial pools which may provide suitable black-hawk foraging habitat. The

project area contains limited suitable nesting habitat for common black-hawks.

Common black-hawks have been observed in Woods Canyon adjacent to the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 109

USFS Sensitive Species

(Scientific Name) Species or Habitat Occur in Project Area

project area and farther north in Chevelon Canyon area. Effects analysis addresses 

potential habitats along the 32.2 miles of riparian areas and adjacent forested areas 

scattered across the project area.

American peregrine falcon

(Falco peregrinus anatum)

Species and habitat present in project area. The American peregrine falcon was 

removed from the Endangered Species Act’s threatened and endangered species 

list in 1999 (USDI 1999). It is now classified as a Region 3 forest sensitive 

species. Surveys for peregrine falcons have been conducted along much of the 

Mogollon Rim adjacent to the Rim Lakes Project area and in portions of canyons 

north of the project area. There are three known eyries along the Mogollon Rim on 

the Tonto National Forest adjacent to the project area. All three were monitored

and occupied in 2007. The project area borders the Mogollon Rim along its entire 

length. While the project area itself contains no suitable nesting habitat, the cliffs 

along the rim directly below the project area are excellent habitat. The project area 

is likely used by peregrine falcons as foraging habitat. Forest Service policy 

provides for protection of peregrine falcon eyries and restrictions on activities 

during the nesting season. All forested and nonforested habitats totaling 

approximately 33,548 acres in the project area are considered for effects analysis 

as foraging habitat and known nest sites for nesting habitat.

Zone-tailed hawk

(Buteo albonotatus)

Species and habitat present in project area.

Although adapted to a variety of habitats, the Zone-tailed is uncommon and 

patchily distributed, occurring in diverse lowland and higher elevation habitats, 

the species ranges from riparian woodland and humid forests to semiarid open 

country and montane highlands (Johnson et al., 2000). A zone-tailed nest is also 

known from Hart Canyon, north of the project area. No zone-tailed hawk nests 

were located in suitable habitat during formal northern goshawk surveys within the

project area. Zone-tailed hawks have been observed along the Mogollon Rim and 

could be nesting below the rim and foraging in the project area. All forested and 

nonforested habitats totaling approximately 33,548 acres in the project area are

considered for effects analysis as foraging habitat.

Reptiles

Narrow-headed garter 

snake

(Thamnophis rufipuctatus)

Species not known to occur; habitat present in project area.

No formal surveys for narrow-headed garter snakes have been conducted on the 

Black Mesa district, however snakes and other aquatic species were documented 

during recent leopard frog surveys which occurred in suitable narrow-headed 

garter snake habitat within and adjacent to the project area. No narrow-headed 

garter snakes were detected during these surveys. A narrowed-headed garter snake 

was detected at the Vincent Ranch in Hart Canyon in a 1991 USFWS report. The 

element occurrence card from this sighting lacks verifiable information (no 

photograph) and the individual was found with two wandering garter snakes. The 

report is the only reported occurrence of this species from the Little Colorado 

River watershed, which is outside the project area. Nonforested cover types 

(wetland, reservoir, grassland) scattered across the project area totaling 

approximately 551 acres combined with 32.2 miles of riparian areas are considered 

for effects analysis.

Plants

Arizona sneezeweed

(Helenium arizonicum)

Species and habitat present in project area.

This plant is endemic to north-central Arizona in Coconino, Gila, Apache, and 

Navajo Counties. It occurs around wet places such as ponds, lakes, and roadside 

ditches. It can be abundant in its habitat and does not appear to be grazed even 

though its habitat can have heavy grazing impacts. It is vulnerable to drainage or 

drying of wetlands. Arizona sneezeweed has been documented at several locations 

within the project area along the Mogollon Rim. Effects analysis addresses this 

species in proximity to reservoirs and wetlands (310 acres).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

110 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

USFS Sensitive Species

(Scientific Name) Species or Habitat Occur in Project Area

Eastwood alum root

(Heuchera eastwoodiae)

Unconfirmed reports of species in project area; habitat present in project area.

Surveys for Eastwood alum-root have not been conducted on the Black Mesa 

Ranger District. The species has not been documented as occurring within the

project area. Suitable habitat for this species exists in the major canyons scattered 

throughout the project area; effects analysis addresses forested habitat totaling 

approximately 32,596 acres within these major drainages.

Arizona sunflower

(Helianthus arizonensis)

Species not documented; habitat may exist in project area.

Surveys for Arizona sunflower have not occurred within the project area. It is 

unknown whether this species exists within the project area. Effects analysis

addresses all forested and nonforested habitats totaling approximately 33,548 acres 

in the project area as potential habitat.

Blumer’s dock

(Rumex orthoneurus)

Species and habitat present in project area.

Blumer’s dock has been documented in Woods and Willow Canyons within the

project area and found elsewhere in the Black Mesa Ranger District outside the

project area. Nonforested cover types (wetland, reservoir, grassland) scattered 

across the project area totaling approximately 551 acres combined with 32.2 miles 

of riparian areas are considered for effects analysis.

Bebb’s Willow

(Salix bebbiana)

Species and habitat present in project area.

Bebb’s willow occurs at a few locations within and near the project area. Surveys 

for this species were completed by Granfelt (2001) with several relic Bebb’s 

willows found in the project area. Effects analysis addresses the headwaters of 

Woods and Willow Canyons and wet meadows (24 acres).

Table 55 lists species and/or habitat determined to not be present in the project area and/or have 

no impact under the action alternatives.

Table 55. Sensitive species not analyzed

Following Species Not Analyzed in Detail with Rationale

Common Name Scientific Name

Birds

Baird’s sparrow Ammodramus bairdii 

Gray catbird Dumetella carolinensis

Abert’s towhee Pipilo aberti

Burrowing owl (Western) Athene cunicularia hypugaea

Arizona bell’s vireo Vireo bellii arizonae

Gray vireo Vireo vicinior

Mammals

Dwarf shrew Sorex nanus

Water shrew Sorex palustris navigator

Western red bat Lasiurus blossevillii

Spotted bat Euderma maculatum

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat Corynorhinus townsendii pallescens

Greater Western mastiff bat Eumops perotis californicus

White Mountains chipmunk Tamias minimus arizonensis

White Mountains ground squirrel Spermophilus tridecemlineatus monticola
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 111

Following Species Not Analyzed in Detail with Rationale

Common Name Scientific Name

Arizona gray squirrel Sciurus arizonensis arizonensis

Springerville silky pocket mouse Perognathus flavus goodpasteri

Southern red-backed vole Clethrionomys gapperi

Arizona montane vole Microtus montanus arizonensis

Navajo Mogollon vole Microtus mogollonensis navaho

Reptiles

Mexican gartersnake Thamnophis eques megalops

Orange giant skipper Agathymus neumoegeni

Plants

Arizona alum root Heuchera glomerulata

Maguire’s beardtongue Penstemon linarioides ssp. maguirei

Davidson’s cliff carrot Pteryxia davidsonii

Goodding’s onion Allium gooddingii

Greene milkweed Asclepias uncialis ssp. uncialis

Villous groundcover milkvetch Astragalus humistatus var. crispulus

White Mountains paintbrush Castilleja mogollonica

Gila thistle Cirsium gilense

Yellow ladys-slipper Cypripedium parviflorum var. pubescens (=C. 

calceolus var. pubesens, C. pubescens)

Heathleaf wild buckwheat Eriogonum ericifolium var. ericifolium

Wislizeni gentian Gentianella wislizeni

Arizona alum root Heuchera glomerulata

Mogollon hawkweed Hieracium brevipilum (=H. fendleri var. 

mogollense)

Heartleaf groundsel Packera cardamine (=Senecio cardamine)

Maguire’s beardtongue Penstemon linarioides ssp. Maguirei

Davidson’s cliff carrot Pteryxia davidsonii

Parish’s alkali grass Pucinellia parishii

Arizona willow Salix arizonica

Mogollon clover Trigolium longipes ssp. Neurophyllum (=T. 

neurophyllum)

Northern Goshawk

The project area has four goshawk post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) (figure 14). Surveys have 

documented no activity in two PFAs for at least 5 years; one was burned severely during the 

Rodeo-Chediski Fire and the other has not been active since the mid-1990s. No goshawk nests 

were located outside established PFAs. 

Table 56. Northern goshawk habitat—ponderosa pine forests

Nest Habitat 257 acres
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

112 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Post-Fledgling Family Areas (PFA) Habitat

 Uneven-aged 441 acres

 Even-aged 298 acres

 slopes > 40% 1 0

 Total inside PFAs 739 acres

Areas Outside of PFAs

 Uneven-aged 8,776 acres

 Even-aged (Foraging) 11,685 acres

 slopes > 40% 1 223 acres

 Total outside PFAs 20,684 acres

 Total Acres in Planning Area 21,680 acres

1 100 percent of the area could be allocated to be managed for old growth 

structure. Uneven-aged stands would be managed toward 40 percent large tree 

structure.

Northern Goshawk Scale Analysis

Distribution of habitat structures (tree size and age classes, tree groups, density, snags, dead and 

down woody material, etc.) were evaluated at three scales: the small (site) scale; the mid-scale 

(stand), and at the project area scale:

• Small scale evaluation used plot data.

• The mid-scale evaluation used aggregated plot data divided into two categories; one for 

inside goshawk PFA/nest areas, and a second for habitat outside of PFA/nest areas.

• The project area scale evaluation used plot average data aggregated for all northern 

goshawk habitats in the planning area for each alternative.

Size and age class are described by using vegetation structural stage (VSS) classifications in this 

evaluation. 

Basal area is provided as the best available density measure for this habitat type. Basal area data 

were collected at the plot level and aggregated to the stand level, and these data were aggregated 

to the mid-scale and project area scale.

There are two data sets for the snags and logs: (1) inventory conducted during northern goshawk 

surveys, and (2) stand exams. The inventory points for the northern goshawk surveys were 

strategically located for calling points. They provide the best available data for snags and logs 

within northern goshawk habitat for this project area.

Canopy Coverage: Forest plan minimum canopy cover guidelines apply only to VSS 4–6; 

therefore, a stand-level measurement of canopy cover is not applicable, and a point-level 

measurement may or may not be applicable (depending upon point location within tree 

group/patch).

Examples of treatment prescription results are found in the wildlife specialist report (Brown 

2011).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 113

Structure at the Small (Site) Scale

The plot data are the scale at which data is collected. Each plot was evaluated in FSVEG and 

assigned to a given VSS classification based on dominant BA. These data can be found in the 

silviculture specialist report, (Richardson 2011, appendix A). Display of all plot data by VSS 

classification in this evaluation would depict an array of VSS categories from VSS 1 to VSS 6.

This array would be predominantly VSS 3 and 4 with lesser amounts approaching VSS 6. A 

similar relationship exists approaching VSS 1. However, VSS 2 appears to be the smallest class 

of VSS representation.

These attributes of existing VSS conditions were evaluated, and then action alternatives features 

were used to address changes to these existing attributes.

Mid-Scale and Project-Scale Evaluation for Structure (VSS)

The mid-scale habitat evaluation aggregated inventory plot data in two strata. One is outside of 

PFA/nest area stratum from all stands (95 percent of total goshawk habitat in project area), and 

the other is inside PFA/nest areas, the remaining 5 percent. Project scale evaluation includes all 

stands whether PFA/nest or foraging areas (FAs).

Table 57 shows the desired conditions as defined in the forest plan and the current condition at 

two scales of analysis. Although the table shows apparent surplus amounts of VSS 3 mid-scale 

outside PFA and project scale, only about one-third of the VSS 3 class evaluated has the vigor to 

move toward larger VSS classes (VSS 4, VSS 5, VSS 6). Approximately two-thirds does not have 

the vigor judged necessary to be managed forward.

Table 57. Mid-scale and project area stand structures

VSS

Forest Plan 

Desired

Percent of 

VSS

Alt. A (Current) 

Percent of VSS 

Mid-scale

Outside PFA/Nest

Alt. A (Current) 

Percent of VSS 

Mid-Scale

within PFA/Nest

Alt. A (Current) 

Percent of VSS 

Project Scale 

1 10 7 4 7

2 10 4 2 4

3 20 28 15 27

4 20 38 42 38

5 20 17 24 17

6 20 6 15 6

Three Scale Basal Area Evaluation

Basal area was examined as a measure of tree density at three scales. Aspects of density that 

could not be accurately reflected in these data that are necessary for forest plan consistency have 

been built into project design features common to both action alternatives (B and C). For 

example, the forest plan refers the reader to RMRS 217 for guidance on how to manage nest 

areas, and that document further identifies that 120 BA is desired. This nest area BA would be 

met as part of the design requirements for both action alternatives. If nest areas are not at this 120 

BA, they would not receive any treatment that would lower the BA.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

114 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

As with the three scales evaluation for structure, the site-scale evaluation used inventory plot 

data. The mid-scale aggregated inventory plot data by two strata: PFA/nest area stratum, all 

stands (5 percent of total goshawk habitat in project area) and areas outside PFA/nest areas (table 

58).

At the project area scale, this evaluation shows all northern goshawk habitat in the planning area 

using plot average data. A comparison of basal area as a measure of density shows alternative A 

currently at 88 square feet per acre at the project area scale of evaluation (table 58). Alternative A 

has BA values that are above historic conditions and does not address the problem of reducing 

and arranging fuels to reduce large scale, high-intensity fires and effects that are not desired.

Table 58. Mid-scale/project area BA analysis: all stand structures

VSS Alt. A (Current) Mid-BA 

Outside PFA/Nest

*Alt. A (Current) MidBA Inside PFA/NestAlt. A (Current) BA

Project Scale

1 0 0 0

2 6 2 6

3 37 24 36

4 28 32 28

5 12 16 12

6 5 5 5

Total BA 88 79 88

Snags

Forest plan guidelines require two snags per acre, which is currently above existing conditions 

(table 59).

Table 59. Existing and desired forest density and snags by goshawk habitat

Stratified Habitat Existing Acres* Existing Snags per Acre Desired Snags per Acre

PFA/nest 996 0.7 2.0+

Out of PFA/nest 20,684 0.8 2.0

Project area 21,680 0.8 2.0

* Not all acres are proposed for treatment.

Table 60. Northern goshawk inventory plots for logs/acre, data from area 

larger than project area

Survey Area (1,665 plots) Acres Average Dead/Down Logs per Acre

Rim East 3,289 3.22

Rim Lakes 16,414 4.92

Rim Promontory 4,744 5.08

Rim R/C Area 5,299 2.44

Rim West 10,332 4.23

Acres 40,078 Project Area Average 3.98
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 115

Logs were recorded at approximately 1,665 plots during northern goshawk surveys in 2005 and

2006 covering 40,078 acres and included the majority of stratified habitat areas within the project 

area (table 59) and habitat outside the project area (table 60). Log data is not available for the 

mid-scale level at the same aggregates as the VSS evaluation. Plot data were aggregated to 

nonoverlapping survey areas, and those areas were aggregated to the project area scale. These 

data displays the dead/down log average conditions within the survey areas and project area. An 

average of logs throughout the inventoried areas was 3.98 large downed logs per acre, which 

exceeds the forest guidelines for ponderosa pine of at least three downed logs per acre, and 5–7 

tons of woody debris per acre. Both action alternatives contain design criteria to retain at least 3 

downed logs per acre, and 5–7 tons of woody debris per acre.

Northern Goshawk—Effects

Alternative A—No Action 

Conditions would not change from current, meaning that goshawk habitat would be less effective 

and resistant to fire effects.

Alternative B—Direct/Indirect Effects

To decrease the risk of losing northern goshawk habitat to high-severity wildfire, PFAs and nest 

stands would be treated either mechanically and/or with low severity broadcast fire following 

forest plan guidelines, including those in the proposed forest plan amendment to provide for 

openness. Thinning within PFAs is expected to result in a clumpy distribution of all-aged trees,

which would create more open conditions while still providing sufficient cover to fledgling 

goshawks, and follow canopy coverage guidelines. Northern goshawks and habitats would have 

direct and indirect disturbance impacts to both mechanical thinning and broadcast fire treatments. 

Existing nest stands have a high canopy cover of mature to old age trees and these conditions 

would be maintained. Except for the situations noted in the forest plan amendment (for public 

safety or stand development reasons), no VSS 6 tree groups would be thinned. Mechanical and 

low severity broadcast burning treatments would alter northern goshawk habitat by thinning tree 

densities and reducing existing tree canopies dominated by VSS 3 and 4 classes toward meeting 

forest plan guidelines of uneven-aged stands (silviculture specialist report).

In nest/PFAs and foraging areas, group selection would be used to regenerate ponderosa pine, 

white pine, and Douglas-fir in openings (.25–4 acres in size). Openings would be developed 

within excess VSS classes and/or diseased patches (generally within VSS 3 and 4 areas). If 

present, leave a minimum of 3–5 mature and old, live trees per acre in groups or stringers with 

interlocking crowns. Tree groups would be maintained by VSS class, ranging from a quarter acre 

to 1 acre in size and generally in groups of 4–20 trees (0.1 acre basis). Treatments would strive to 

distribute percentages according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan. Residual stand 

density would vary, but would average 50–70 square feet of basal area per acre in foraging areas, 

and would average 70–80 square feet in PFA. Where stand structures are predominantly evenaged, the stand would be thinned in an irregular-density fashion, striving to create groups and 

clumps of residual trees. Desirable dominant and codominant white pine and ponderosa pine 

would be left as single trees or groups throughout the area.

Alternative B would preserve current old growth habitat and develop old growth components in 

designated stands within northern goshawk stratified habitats (figure 14) on 223 acres that would 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

116 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

be allocated to be managed for old growth structure. Old growth wildlife habitat would increase 

as designated stands increase in maturity over time. 

Where severe dwarf mistletoe infection centers are located, focus on removal of infected trees to 

establish new regeneration groups (VSS 1) or to favor existing regeneration. Where regeneration 

groups are not to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees within the leave 

tree groups (Richardson et al., 2011 and Richardson et al., 2012).

Small inclusions of aspen remnants within portions of ponderosa pine would be regenerated by 

removing all conifers in the immediate area, .5–1 chain (33–66 feet) from the clone, with some 

removal of aspen or site-disturbing activity such as ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen 

clone. Where aspen is present in mixed conifer, it may be promoted through group selection 

described above with removal of all conifers .5–1 chain from the aspen clone.

Desired condition for average posttreatment canopy cover for PFAs is 50–60 percent on VSS 4 

and 50 percent in VSS 5 and VSS 6; and average canopy cover at 40 percent in VSS 4, VSS 5, 

and VSS 6 (Richardson et al., 2011 and Richardson et al., 2012). Small and medium sized trees 

are also important habitat components in goshawk PFAs and nest stands. These canopy cover 

ranges would provide for northern goshawk foraging habitats and improve prey base habitats with 

the development of openings and uneven-aged vegetation structure. The posttreatment canopy 

cover moves toward the forest plan standards for northern goshawk in both PFAs and nest stands.

Broadcast burning would occur throughout the foraging and PFA/nest habitat. In addition, low 

severity maintenance burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts 

associated with the initial broadcast burn treatments would reoccur. A fall and winter burning 

period would reduce any impact to nesting and fledgling goshawks from broadcast burning 

activities and smoke, as burning would only occur outside the sensitive reproductive season. 

Smoke may settle in the PFAs during the breeding season, but would be transitory and short term 

in nature. Resident goshawks would be able to move beyond smoky areas during the fall burning 

season and still be in or near their respective PFAs. Broadcast fire is recommended in ponderosa 

pine and mixed-species forests to perpetuate northern goshawk habitat and to reduce fuel loading 

(Reynolds et al., 1992).

Small openings would be created within the forested areas to provide more sunlight to the forest 

floor, thereby increasing grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Low severity broadcast fire would result in a 

mosaic of burned, partially burned, and unburned duff layers. An increase in herbaceous plant 

growth would increase in areas where a thick layer of dead plant material has accumulated over 

time and is burned off during treatments. The increase in herbaceous plants and shrubs should 

result in additional forage and cover for goshawk prey species such as cottontails, golden mantled 

ground squirrels, and mourning doves.

The existing road system within the analysis area would receive higher vehicle use than currently 

occurs. Existing roads would be used for transporting crews to and from worksites, hauling 

materials from worksites, and as control lines for broadcast burning. Activities could occur during 

any time of the year but would not affect the entire project area all at once. Projects would be 

implemented in stages, affecting different areas at different times. Higher use of the road system 

could result in higher levels of noise, visual, and dust disturbance to goshawks although Grubb et 

al. (1998) found that logging trucks passing within 413 m of an active goshawk nest did not elicit 

any behavioral response from a brooding female goshawk. Timing restrictions in PFAs and nest 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 117

stands would reduce the effects of road use in breeding areas during the breeding season. 

Foraging habitat outside of PFAs could be affected yearlong and could cause goshawks to avoid 

foraging in areas where vehicle traffic associated with treatment activities is high. Approximately 

2,766 acres of foraging areas would not be mechanically treated, which would provide areas for 

undisturbed foraging.

Short-term disturbance to goshawk by treatment activities would temporarily displace or alter 

foraging and roosting areas. Timing restrictions for treatment activities within northern goshawk 

PFAs would not disturb goshawks during the breeding season. The project area would be treated 

in phases over time and would not occur over the project area at the same time. Northern 

goshawk would only experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one 

time.

Fire and smoke effects from broadcast burning may disturb individual birds, but this should be a 

short-term impact and would not adversely affect goshawks due to implementing a low-severity 

prescription. Timing restrictions within PFAs would prevent burning in PFAs during the breeding 

season and reduce any impacts from breeding season burning outside of PFAs. 

The forest plan includes direction to establish dispersal PFAs at a 2 to 2.5-mile spacing across the 

landscape where active goshawk territories are absent. Two dispersal PFAs have been established 

in the project area; these areas would be managed according to the forest plan. 

With approximately 102 goshawk PFAs established on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, a 

potential impact to the reproduction success of two active PFAs associated with the project area

would not cause a measurable change to the forestwide goshawk population trend. The quality of 

habitat across the project area would improve within the project area and work toward improving 

habitat quality forestwide.

Understory herbaceous and browse component would have more diversity and production under 

this alternative compared to alternative C due to the spatial arrangement (groupy and clumpy) of 

trees and regeneration openings. Alternative B provides for a closed canopy at 30 years post 

treatment resulting in a shading effect on understory herbaceous and browse that prey species 

depend upon. Maintenance low severity broadcast burning would occur once on ponderosa pine 

forest types, so impacts associated with the initial broadcast burn treatments would reoccur.

Benefits from maintenance treatments would include management toward VSS class distribution 

objectives and increased understory herbaceous and browse species that would benefit forest 

health.

If no followup treatments occur after the maintenance burn included in alternative B, canopy 

closure is anticipated to provide vegetation structure for a high severity canopy wildland fire in 

30 years (Richardson et al., 2012). The effect of canopy openings and distribution of tree groups 

and clumps on potential fire behavior can be seen in table 61. For northern goshawk PFA/nest 

stand habitats, the fire specialist report (Nicolet 2011) identifies that posttreatment conditions 

would provide moderate potential for crown fire across 18 percent of PFA/nest stand habitats and 

a low potential for crown fire across 15 percent of the northern goshawk foraging habitat.

Alternative A percentages are 36 and 39 percent, respectively.

For FRCC, alternative B shows a favorable difference between PFA/nest and foraging FRCC 

following year 1 out to year 20 for keeping 50 percent or better of the area in FRCC 1 while 

alternative C is dominated by FRCC 2 at year 1. Alternative B retains less than 23 percent of the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

118 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

area or less FRCC 3 for PFA/nest and foraging habitat at year 20, while alternative C is 58

percent for PFA/nest and 64 percent foraging habitat at FRCC 3.

Figure 17. Percent of project area in low and moderate crown fire potential by alternative

Table 61. Northern goshawk potential fire type comparison of alternatives

Habitat Type Potential Fire Type Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C 

Goshawk PFA/Nest Surface fire 50 72 61

Passive crown fire 36 18 28

Active crown fire 14 10 1

Goshawk Foraging Surface fire 35 65 50

Passive crown fire 39 15 29

Active crown fire 26 20 21

Old Growth Surface fire 40 79 64

Passive crown fire 46 11 25

Active crown fire 14 10 11
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 119

Figure 18. Goshawk habitat and fire type compared by alternative

This alternative has improved the conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown fire 

within treated acres for 30 years by reducing FRCC surrounding northern goshawk habitat 

(PFA/nest, foraging) as compared to alternative C discussed below. If a high severity canopy fire 

occurred, it would destroy perching, nesting, and foraging habitat in the project area.

Alternative C—Direct/Indirect Effects

The effects analysis from alternative B applies under this alternative with a few exceptions 

involving spatial distribution of trees, openings of trees, understory herbaceous and browse 

species, canopy closure as it relates to fire potential, and long-term FRCC that results in potential 

high severity canopy fire conditions.

Mechanical treatments within northern goshawk stratified habitats with a 16-inch-diameter 

constraint would be a thin from below application that would not allow the flexibility for spatial 

arrangement of leave tree groups or clumps with openings. Openings would only be available in 

stands that have all trees less than the diameter constraint.

Understory herbaceous and browse component would have less diversity and production under 

this alternative compared to alternative B due to the lack of interspatial openings between trees.

Alternative C provides for a closed canopy at 15 years post treatment resulting in a shading effect 

on understory herbaceous and browse that prey species depend upon.

Based upon mechanical thinning limitations (16-inch-diameter constraint), the spatial 

arrangement of trees and stands are limited due to existing conditions of the project area 

dominated by VSS classes 3 and 4. Canopy closure is anticipated to provide vegetation structure 

for a high severity canopy wildland fire in 15 years (Richardson et al., 2011). For northern 

goshawk PFA/nest stand habitats, the fire specialist report (Nicolet 2011) identifies that 

posttreatment conditions would provide for moderate potential for passive crown fire across 23

percent of the area for alternative C, a lower potential for crown fire across 18 percent of 

PFA/nest stand habitats for alternative B, and a high crown fire potential across 36 percent for 

alternative A. Active crown fire between alternative B and C is nearly identical, the differences 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

120 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

between action alternative is the passive crown fire modeling. For northern goshawk foraging 

habitats, the fire specialist report models identifies that posttreatment conditions would provide 

for moderate potential for crown fire across 29 percent of the area for alternative C, a low 

potential for crown fire across 15 percent for alternative B and a high crown fire potential across 

39 percent for alternative A.

This alternative has improved the conditions in the project area to reduce high severity crown fire 

within treated acres for 15 years in surrounding northern goshawk. If a high severity canopy fire 

occurred, it would adversely modify northern goshawk habitat in the project area.

Effects Evaluation at Three Sales

Comparison of Alternative B and Alternative C 

A few differences between alternatives B and C that affect canopy coverage are worth discussion:

• Alternative B would not thin any VSS 6 group, with a few exceptions.

• Alternative C would not thin any VSS 5 or VSS 6 tree due to d.b.h. limitations.

Alternative B has a greater ability to thin down to desired BA to meet spatial and groupy/clumpy 

distribution over alternative C. Alternative C has a 16-inch d.b.h. limitation as a design feature for 

implementation and may not allow for obtaining desired BA needed to meet fuels objectives 

resulting from higher canopy values and tree crown spacing. Additionally, higher canopy values 

or retention of 16 inch or greater over the top of VSS 2 or VSS 3 sized trees can suppress those 

smaller trees and preclude recruitment of larger size trees needed for canopy cover in the future.

Due to spatial arrangement of tree groups and clumps, alternative B shows a marked reduction in 

passive crown fire than alternative C for both PFA/nest and foraging habitat. It can also be seen 

that areas with active and passive crown fire are interspersed with surface fire. Alternative C also 

exhibits a reduction in crown fire over alternative A but continues to have larger areas with 

potential for passive crown fire than alternative B.

The scaled analyses for northern goshawk in this section have compared the effects of alternative 

B and alternative C.

Mid-scale analysis aggregated plot data by two strata: Outside of PFA/nest area stratum, which is 

95 percent of total goshawk habitat in the project area; and inside PFA/nest areas, which is about 

5 percent of the project area (table 62).

Table 62. Mid-scale: outside and inside PFA/nest (all stand structures)

VSS

Forest Plan 

Desired Percent

of VSS

Alt. A 

Outside

PFA

Alt. B

Outside

PFA

Alt. C 

Percent

of VSS

Alt. A

Inside

PFA/Nest

Alt. B

Inside

PFA

Alt. C

Inside

PFA

1 10 7 10 7 4 10 5

2 10 4 10 5 2 10 5

3 20 8 10 10 15 15 5

4 20 38 27 30 42 26 31

5 20 17 28 33 24 24 36

6 20 6 15 15 15 15 18
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 121

Figure 19. VSS distribution in foraging areas (FAs) and PFAs

Mid-Scale Outside of PFA/Nest Area Stratum

Alternative B

Alternative B, mid-scale outside of PFA/nest area stratum contains approximately 4,623 acres that 

are predominantly low density and would not require mechanical treatments. Implementing 

alternative B would move existing stands toward a VSS distributions in a more balanced 

distribution of age classes by favoring larger age classes, creating more VSS 1 regeneration 

openings, and developing VSS 2 seedlings and saplings.

Figure 19 displays the changes to structure among the three alternatives at the middle scale. Each 

alternative shows VSS distribution in foraging areas outside PFA/nest (e.g. alternative A FAs), 

and VSS distribution inside PFA/nest (e.g. alternative A PFAs).

The change from current age classes occurs as VSS 3 and VSS 4 are moved toward VSS 1, VSS 

2, VSS 5, and VSS 6. The reduction of VSS 3 is due in part to the fact that only approximately 

one third of the VSS 3 class in the project area has the vigor to be manageable for growth into

later VSS classes (VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6). Approximately two-thirds do not have the vigor 

judged necessary to be managed forward. 

Alternative A (current condition) shows a VSS classification that is a higher amount of VSS 3

because the VSS classification model uses the dominant size class (determined by basal area of 

that size class) and so by removing VSS 3 size classes, a mixed stand can move toward VSS 4 or 

VSS 5 by making those size classes dominant (Richardson 2011). After treatment, these VSS 3 

stands would shift in classification to VSS 5 or VSS 6 because of removal of subdominant trees.

Alternative B’s basal area changes are also influenced by favoring VSS 2 groups that would 

release and grow into manageable groups or by placing regeneration openings, both of which are 

improved in alternative B. The shift in VSS 4 is 11 percent less but is a shift toward a desired 

balance (20 percent) in this structural size class.

Alternative B shows an increase of 11 percent in the VSS 5 class. This shift exceeds the desired 

proportion of 20 percent by 8 percent to carry more VSS 5 to become VSS 6 which after 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

122 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

treatment is 5 percent deficit of the desired 20 percent. Alternative B moves all treated even-aged 

stands toward uneven-aged stands, thus increasing structural diversity, and moves all treated 

uneven-aged stands toward a desired distribution of balanced VSS structural classes. 

Alternative C

As with alternative B, alternative C mid-scale evaluation outside of PFA/nest area stratum

indicates that approximately 4,623 acres are predominantly low density and would not require 

treatments. 

As shown in figure 19, implementing alternative C would move existing stand VSS distributions 

toward VSS classes representing older aged structural stages, especially VSS 4 and VSS 5.

This alternative was designed to retain all trees greater than 16 inches, and this diameter limit 

threshold lies within the upper range of VSS 4 (12–18 inches). This alternative does not change 

VSS 1 from current and shows only a 1 percent increase in VSS 2 because of the limitation to 

create openings resulting from the diameter limit.

Size class reductions in basal area come predominantly by taking from the VSS 3 and VSS 4 

category with gains in VSS 5 and VSS 6. By reducing VSS 3 to such a low amount (5 percent 

when the desired is 20 percent), alternative C moves many existing uneven-aged stands toward

even-aged stands, thus simplifying within stand and structural diversity.

Alternative B/C, Mid-Scale Inside PFA/Nest

Implementing alternative B would move existing stand VSS distributions toward a more balanced 

distribution of age classes. Alternative B moves all even-aged stands toward uneven-aged stands,

thus increasing structural diversity within the stands.

Implementing alternative C would move existing stand VSS distributions toward VSS 5 and VSS 

6 with these two classes comprising 54 percent of the age class distribution. The VSS 1 and 2 

classes would remain almost unchanged. Short term the VSS 3 and VSS 4 stages would decline 

while VSS 5 and 6 would increase.

Alternative C was designed to retain all trees greater than 16 inches. This diameter lies within the 

upper range of VSS 4. Size class reductions from current are predominantly taken from the VSS 3

and VSS 4 categories with 10 percent and 11 percent reductions, respectively. These reductions 

are primarily shifted to gains of 12 percent in VSS 5 and 3 percent in VSS 6 classifications.

As is found in habitat outside PFA/nest areas, alternative C moves many uneven-aged stands 

toward even-aged stand conditions, thus simplifying within stand structural diversity.

Both action alternatives constitute approximately 5 percent of goshawk habitat in the project 

analysis area identified as PFA/nest area stratum.

Only occasional VSS 6 groups would be treated in alternative B consistent with the forest plan

amendment. No VSS 5 or VSS 6 would be treated in alternative C. Currently all PFA/nest area 

stands are classified as even aged in both action alternatives.

As noted in table 63, comparison of alternative B and alternative C VSS classes in PFA/nest area 

stratum shows alternative B moves toward a wider distribution of age classes while alternative C 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 123

moves toward a more even-aged stand, dominated by larger trees that have a more continuous 

canopy, which is more susceptible to loss as a result of uncharacteristic severe wildfire.

Project Area Scale 

(All Northern Goshawk Habitat in the Planning Area)

Table 63 shows all northern goshawk habitat in project area. 

Table 63. Project area-scale: all northern goshawk habitat (all stand structures)

VSS

FLRMP 

Desired 

Percent of VSS

Alt. A (Current) 

Percent of VSS

Alt. B 

Percent of VSS

Alt. C 

Percent of VSS

1 10 7 9 7

2 10 4 9 5

3 20 27 14 14

4 20 38 29 32

5 20 17 25 30

6 20 6 13 13

Alternative B—Project Area Scale

Implementing alternative B would move existing stand VSS distributions toward a more balanced 

distribution of age classes as defined above. This improvement toward a VSS structural size class 

balance over current conditions (alternative A) is easily seen for VSS 1, VSS 2, VSS 4, and VSS 

6. As was also indicated in the mid-scale evaluation of VSS, the reduction in VSS 3 is due in part 

to the fact that only approximately one-third of the VSS 3 class in the project area has the vigor to 

be manageable for growth into later VSS classes (VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6). Approximately 

two-thirds do not have the vigor judged necessary to be managed forward.

After treatment, VSS 3 would shift to VSS 5 or VSS 6 because of removal of subdominant trees.

The alternative B basal area is also influenced by favoring VSS 2 groups that would release and 

grow into a manageable group or by placing regeneration openings, both of which are improved 

in alternative B.

The VSS 3 can be considered slightly improved. The significant reduction in VSS 3 largely 

reflects favoring older aged structural attributes found in VSS 5 and VSS 6, such as no treatment 

in existing VSS 6 group conditions and using VSS 3 to move toward desired VSS 1 and VSS 2 

proportions in the desired balance of size class. Alternative B moves all even-aged stands toward

uneven-aged stands, thus increasing structural diversity. 

Alternative C—Project Area Scale

Alternative C would move existing stand VSS distributions toward older aged structural stages.

This alternative was designed to retain all trees greater than 16 inches, and this diameter limit 

threshold lies within the upper range of VSS 4. This alternative does not change VSS 1 from 

current and only a slight change in VSS 2. It decreases the percentage of VSS 3 and VSS 4 as it 

increases the percentage in VSS 5 and VSS 6. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

124 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The decline in VSS 3 reflects favoring larger size classes (VSS 5 and VSS 6) because of the 16-

inch-diameter threshold for retention. The increases in VSS 5 and VSS 6 are also because of the 

16-inch-diameter threshold for retention. Alternative C moves all uneven-aged stands toward

even-aged conditions.

Mid-Scale Basal Area Analysis for Density

As with the VSS classifications, mid-scale basal area analysis aggregates inventory plot data by 

two strata: outside PFA/nest areas and inside PFA/nest areas. Density represents averages; 

including stand openings.

It is important to note in table 64 that these BA averages are density representations at the stand 

level and include regeneration gaps and other stand level openings at the mid-scale for both strata 

and at the project area scale. Posttreatment density represents stand-level averages (60 square feet 

BA in stand matrix); including regeneration gaps and other stand openings.

It is also important to note that to achieve fuel treatment effectiveness, the BA must be reduced 

but more importantly, the spatial arrangement of residual trees influences the fuel reduction 

effectiveness. With an appropriate special arrangement, a stand may have a higher BA but be 

more resistant to crown fire.

Table 64. Mid-Scale: basal area outside and inside PFA/NA (all stand structures)

VSS Alt. A 

(Current)

Alt. B 

Outside PFA

Alt. C 

Outside PFA

Alt. A

Inside PFA

Alt. B

Inside PFA

Alt. C 

Inside PFA

1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2 6 1 1 2 0 0

3 37 10 10 24 8 9

4 28 17 19 32 27 34

5 12 10 12 16 16 25

6 5 5 5 5 5 5

Total BA 88 43 47 79 56 83

Alternative B is designed to provide a spatial arrangement of groups and clumps of residual trees 

with interspaces that separate tree crowns between groups and clumps. This provides reduced 

probability of crown fires at large scales and provides more years of protection than alternative C.

Alternative C provides improvement in fuels conditions, but the effectiveness is lost in 

approximately one-half the time that alternative B provides.

A comparison of basal area as a measure of density shows alternative A currently at 88 square feet 

per acre for the area outside of PFA/nest area stratum. Alternative B reduces this as does 

alternative C, but alternative C treatments carry more BA than alternative B in part because 

alternative B has more VSS 1 which is openings, for regeneration purposes, that alternative C 

does not have. The basal area for stands outside of PFA/nest area treatment is identified as 60 

square feet per acre for both alternatives B and C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 125

A comparison of basal area as a measure of density shows alternative B and alternative C reduce 

density. Alternative B treatments carry less BA density in part due to this alternative managing for 

more VSS 1 and VSS 2. The PFA/nest area treatment in the stand matrix is identified as 70 square 

feet per acre for both alternatives B and C.

Project Area Scale Basal Area Analysis

Project area scale basal area analysis for all northern goshawk habitat in the planning area used

plot average data (table 65).

Table 65. Project area scale: basal area all northern goshawk habitat (all stand structures)

VSS Alt. A (Current) Alt. B Alt. C

1 0 0 0

2 6 2 2

3 36 16 15

4 28 20 21

5 12 11 12

6 5 5 5

Total BA 88 53 56

Alternative B and C Basal Area

A comparison of basal area as a measure of density shows alternative B and alternative C reduce 

density similarly. As is found at the mid-scale, alternative C treatments carry more BA because of 

the removal of trees less than 16 inches in diameter, with the remaining BA in larger sized trees,

16 inches or greater, and fewer regeneration canopy gaps for VSS 1 and VSS 2.

Both action alternatives have lower BA values than alternative A because both alternatives 

remove significant amounts of BA to achieve project objectives. However, they distribute that BA 

differently.

Alternative B has a project area BA of 53 square feet per acre. Alternative C has project area BA 

of 56 percent. As noted in the mid-scale evaluation, alternative B leaves stands outside of 

PFA/nest area BA value of 43 square feet per acre and PFA/nest area value of 56 square feet per 

acre. Alternative C leaves stands outside of PFA/nest area BA value of 47 square feet per acre and 

PFA/nest area value of 63 square feet per acre.

Both action alternatives reduce the tree density. Alternative A has BA values that are above 

historic conditions and does not address the problem of reducing and arranging fuels to reduce 

large scale, high-intensity fires and effects that are not desired. 

Snags

Forest plan guidelines require two snags per acre, which is currently above the existing conditions 

(table 66). According to stand exam data, snag densities are currently below forest plan guidelines 

throughout the stratified habitat. There are minimal differences between the PFA/nest area and out 

of PFA/nest area (mid-scale) strata. This data does not display any difference between mid-scale 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

126 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

and project area (landscape-scale) snag densities. Project design features have been identified to 

address the shortage of snags at desired levels for both action alternatives.

Table 66. Existing and desired forest density and snags by northern goshawk stratum

Stratified Habitat Existing Acres* Existing Snags per Acre Desired Snags per Acre

PFA/nest 996 0.7 2.0+

Out of PFA/nest 20,684 0.8 2.0

Project area 21,680 0.8 2.0

* Not all acres are proposed for treatment.

Dead/Down Logs

Logs were recorded at approximately 1,665 plots during northern goshawk surveys in 2005 and

2006 covering 40,078 acres and included the majority of stratified habitat areas within the project 

area and habitat outside the project area (table 67). Log data is not available for the mid-scale 

level at the same aggregates as the VSS evaluation. Plot data were aggregated to nonoverlapping 

survey areas, and those areas were aggregated to the project area scale. These data displays the 

dead/down log average conditions within the survey areas and the project area. An average of 

logs throughout the inventoried areas was 3.98 large downed logs per acre, which exceeds the 

forest guidelines for ponderosa pine of at least 3 downed logs per acre and 5–7 tons of woody 

debris per acre. Both action alternatives contain design criteria to retain at least 3 downed logs per 

acre and 5–7 tons of woody debris per acre.

Table 67. Northern goshawk inventory plots for logs/acre, data from area 

larger than project area

Survey Area (1,665 plots) Acres Average Dead/Down Logs per Acre

Rim East 3,289 3.22

Rim Lakes 16,414 4.92

Rim Promontory 4,744 5.08

Rim R/C Area 5,299 2.44

Rim West 10,332 4.23

Acres 40,078 Project Area Average 3.98

Effects Determination

Alternatives B and C

The determination of effects for this species is based on the following: 

1. There are four established northern goshawk PFAs present in the project area out of 102 

across the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Impacts to nesting success to 4 PFAs 

within the project area would have negligible impacts to forestwide population trends of 

the 102 PFAs across the forest.

2. Mechanical and broadcast burn treatments in PFAs (including nest stands) and foraging 

habitat would not increase the quantity of habitat but would improve the quality of habitat 

across the project area and work toward improving habitat quality forestwide.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 127

3. Mechanical tree thinning and broadcast burning would be limited to seasonal restrictions 

within the four PFAs. 

4. Smoke may settle in the PFAs but would be transitory and short term in nature.

5. One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

6. For alternative B, VSS class distribution would be managed for moving toward forest 

plan requirements with a groupy, clumpy spatial arrangement.

7. In alternative C, VSS class distribution would be managed for moving toward forest plan 

requirements where possible, but would lack the groupy and clumpy tree group spatial 

arrangement of alternative B. Under this alternative, much of the area would remain as it 

is—even-aged—or move toward even-aged structure.

8. In alternative C, a reduction in snags and logs within log landings may reduce foraging 

and nesting habitat for some small mammals and birds, which are northern goshawk prey; 

however, these areas are limited in size, and snags and logs would be managed at or 

above forest plan guidelines outside these areas.

9. Logs per acre at each scale (nest/PFA, foraging, and all stratified habitats) would meet 

forest plan guidelines, with the exception of areas of landings. 

10. Snags per acre at each scale (nest/PFA, foraging, and all stratified habitats) would remain 

below forest plan guidelines with the potential for increased numbers of snags per acre in 

the future. During mechanical treatments, identification of and development of future 

snags would occur in goshawk stratified habitats. Additional potential for snag 

recruitment would result from broadcast burning. In alternative c, snags per acre at each 

scale (nest/PFA, foraging, and all stratified habitats) would remain below forest plan 

guidelines with the potential for increased numbers of snags per acre in the future. During 

mechanical treatments, identification and development of future snags would occur in 

goshawk foraging, PFA, and nest stands (silviculture specialist report).

11. In alternative B, an increase in herbaceous and shrub understory would result from

treatments and provide more forage and cover for northern goshawk prey species post 

treatment. Alternative C would not see the same level of herbaceous understory recovery.

12. Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year. Thus not disturbing all PFAs in one year and provide foraging habitat 

areas without treatment disturbance.

13. Reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy wildfire for 30 

years that could destroy perching, nesting, and foraging habitat in the project area.

14. In alternative B, 50 percent of the PFA/nest habitat and 63 percent of the foraging habitat 

is within FRCC 1 under this alternative. In alternative C, 12 percent of the PFA/nest area 

habitat and 16 percent of the foraging habitat is maintained to FRCC 1 out to 20 years 

under this alternative.

Based on the above discussion, alternative B (proposed action) for the project area may impact 

individuals of northern goshawk but would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Additionally, this alternative would meet the northern goshawk recommendations and would 

move the stratified habitat toward the desirable clumpy and groupy tree stand arrangement with 

potential for more even distribution of VSS classes over time. Alternative B provides for 

sustainability with maintenance treatments that would create regeneration openings and improve 

the primary prey base habitat structure improving the quality of habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

128 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Based on the above discussion, alternative C may impact individuals of northern goshawk but 

would not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability. This alternative would not meet the 

northern goshawk standard for uneven-aged management, as it would not move the stratified 

habitat toward a more even distribution of VSS classes over time (Richardson 2012). In addition, 

the spacing of trees remaining due to diameter cap limitations provide for rapid canopy closure 

within 15 years to increase the risk of high severity canopy fire. Alternative C would meet shortterm sustainability out to 15 years, while alternative B provides for long-term sustainability out to 

30 years.

Environmental Effects—All Other Sensitive Species

Alternative A - Impacts Common to All Forest Sensitive Species

The effects described for alternative A apply to all sensitive species as if no treatments are being 

implemented. The following effects analysis for alternative A applies to each sensitive species 

being analyzed in table 67.

Alternative A—Direct/Indirect/Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used 

by any of the sensitive species. Forested habitat (32,956 acres) would continue to be overstocked 

and shade out understory. Meadow habitats would continue to receive conifer encroachment over 

time. The forested habitat within the project area would be at a higher risk of stand replacing 

crown wildfire (Nicolet 2011).

There would be no cumulative effects associated with this alternative because there is no effect 

from this project.

Alternative A would have no impact to sensitive species as identified in table 67 as being 

analyzed. With no treatments within the project area, it would remain mostly at the FRCC 3 level 

and would be susceptible to a high severity, stand replacing crown wildfire.

Alternatives B and C

Effects determinations for sensitive species analyzed are in table 68, except for effects to northern 

goshawk which follow the table. 

Table 68. Sensitive species effects determination for alternatives B and C 

USFS Sensitive 

Species Effects Determination

Mammals

Merriam’s shrew Alternative B or C may impact individual Merriam’s shrews, but are not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Merriam’s shrews have not been recently detected on the Black Mesa Ranger District. 

Anatomical parts of this species were found in Mexican spotted owl pellets collected on the 

district in the early 1990s. Suitable habitat exists within the project area.

Thinning and broadcast burning activities may impact individual Merriam’s shrews, if they 

are present in the project area.

Meadows that would support Merriam’s shrews would be undisturbed during treatments.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same effects as the first entry.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 129

USFS Sensitive 

Species Effects Determination

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.

Alternative B would reduce high severity wildland fire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 

years.

Long-tailed vole Alternative B or C may impact individual long-tailed vole, but are not likely to result in a 

trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Anatomical parts of this species were found in Mexican spotted owl pellets collected on the 

district; suitable habitat exists within the project area.

Thinning and broadcast burning activities may impact individual voles, if they are present in 

the project area.

Minimal mechanical treatments would occur in meadow habitat, while the majority of the

habitat would not be mechanically treated and remain undisturbed.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same effects as the first entry.

Understory herbaceous and browse response with treatments would improve habitat.

Alternative B would reduce high severity wildland fire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 

years. 

New Mexico 

jumping mouse*

See analysis above in federally listed section.

Allen’s lappetbrowed batAlternative B or C may impact individual Allen’s lappet-browed bats, but are not likely to 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Allen’s lappet-browed bats were captured on the Black Mesa Ranger District during bat 

surveys conducted in the 1990s. Suitable habitat exists for this species within the project 

area.

Thinning and broadcast burning activities may impact individuals by altering foraging and 

roosting habitats to Allen’s lappet-browed bats if they are present in the project area. Snag 

densities would be reduced within log landings, but managed for forest plan guidelines 

throughout other areas in the project area.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same effects as the first entry.

Mechanical treatments would identify and retain snags at the forest plan requirement.

Birds

Bald eagle Alternative B or C may impact individual bald eagles, but are not likely to result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

There is one known bald eagle nest site within the analysis area that would continue to have 

a seasonal forest closure during nesting season. There are no known winter roost sites 

adjacent to or within the project area.

Nest and roost sites would be protected during thinning and broadcast burning.

Mechanical treatments would identify and retain desired snags per acre.

The treatment activities (broadcast burning and mechanical thinning) may cause short-term 

displacement to foraging and perching bald eagles.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Some large snags that could be used for perching could be removed within landings or 

burned during broadcast burning treatments; however, the remainder of the project area

would be managed for forest plan snag guidelines.

Smoke may be present in the project and analysis areas when bald eagles are present, but it is 

expect to be short term and transitory in nature.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years, and alternative C for 15 years; that could destroy perching and foraging 

winter habitat for bald eagles in the project area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

130 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

USFS Sensitive 

Species Effects Determination

Northern 

goshawk

Alternative B or C may impact individuals of northern goshawk but would not result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability (see above for details).

Common blackhawkAlternative B or C may impact individuals of the common black-hawk but would not result 

in a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

There are no known black-hawk nests on the Black Mesa district although black-hawks have 

been sighted in Woods and Chevelon Canyons.

Suitable nesting habitat exists within perennial stream segments of Woods and Chevelon 

Canyons, which has areas included in the streamside management zones and buffered from 

treatment activities.

Conservation measures and BMPs should minimize the amount of sediment and ash on 

downstream riparian habitat and the effects on common black-hawk prey.

Thinning trees would improve watershed conditions, which may result in increased water 

quality and quantity for black-hawk prey.

Smoke may be present in the project area but it is likely to be short term and transitory in 

nature.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year. Thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years, and alternative C for 15 years; that could destroy perching, nesting, and 

foraging habitat in the project area.

American 

peregrine falcon

Alternative B or C may impact individuals of the American peregrine falcon but would 

not result in a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

There are no known peregrine falcon eyries present in the project area. No suitable nesting 

cliff habitat is present. Three active eyries exist adjacent to the project area along the 

Mogollon Rim.

Treatment activities within the primary management zone and line-of-sight of active eyries 

would not occur during the breeding season.

The posttreatment distribution of VSS classes would provide a variety of foraging habitat 

and cover for peregrine falcon prey. Snags and logs within log landings would likely be 

removed, but other areas within the project area would be managed for forest plan 

guidelines. 

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year. Thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and 15 for alternative C; that could destroy foraging habitat in the

project area.

Zone-tailed hawk Alternative B or C may impact individuals of the zone-tailed hawk but would not result in a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability.

There are no known zone-tailed hawk nests in the project area. The nearest known nest is 5–

6 miles north of the project area. Zone-tailed hawks have been documented soaring within 

the project area.

Potential nesting habitat, similar to MSO protected habitat, would be managed for forest plan 

guidelines and would remain suitable nesting habitat following treatments.

Zone-tailed hawk prey abundance may increase as a result of proposed treatments.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year. Thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 131

USFS Sensitive 

Species Effects Determination

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 years; that could destroy foraging habitat in the

project area.

Reptiles

Narrow-headed 

garter snake

Alternative B or C may impact individuals of the narrow-headed garter snake but would not 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

One record of a narrow-headed garter snake occurrence on the Black Mesa district exists 

from 1991 from Vincent Ranch in Hart Canyon. This is the only report of this species in the 

Little Colorado River drainage. The Black Mesa district is considered to be at the periphery 

of this species’ range.

Conservation measures and BMPs should minimize the amount of sediment and ash (water 

quality) to downstream aquatic and riparian habitat and its effects to narrow-headed garter 

snake prey species.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Streamside management zones provide for buffers along riparian corridors.

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year. Thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 years; that could adversely modify habitat in 

the project area.

Plants

Arizona 

sneezeweed

Alternative B or C may impact individuals of the Arizona sneezeweed but would not 

result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability. 

Arizona sneezeweed has been observed at several wetland depression locations within the

project area. Mechanical or low severity broadcast fire treatments within riparian habitats are 

limited and would employ BMP.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Treatments could cause damage or mortality to individual plants if they were present.

Potential habitat (wet meadows, reservoirs) would be protected during mechanical 

treatments with BMPs.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 years; that could adversely modify habitat in 

the project area.

Eastwood alum 

root

Alternative B or C may impact individuals of the Eastwood alum-root but would not result in 

a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Eastwood alum-root plants have been documented on the Black Mesa district along 

Chevelon Canyon and near Black Canyon Lake. Forest Service personnel have not 

conducted surveys of suitable habitat in the project area to determine presence or absence of 

the species.

Suitable moist habitat can be found on the steeper slopes of the headwaters of Woods, 

Willow Springs, Willow, and Beaver Canyons in the project area.

Treatments could cause mortality to individual plants.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 years; that could adversely modify habitat in 

the project area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

132 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

USFS Sensitive 

Species Effects Determination

Arizona 

sunflower

Alternative B or C may impact individuals of the Arizona sunflower but would not result in 

a trend toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Arizona sunflower is not known to exist within the project area. One account exists from the 

Sitgreaves National Forest with no specific location given.

Treatments could cause damage or mortality to individual plants, if they are present.

Drainages, which may provide habitat for Arizona sunflower, would be protected during 

mechanical treatments.

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Treatments within the project area would be incremental and generally not exceed 6,000 

acres per year, thus not disturbing all potential habitats in any one single year.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 years; that could adversely modify habitat in 

the project area.

Blumer’s dock Alternative B or C may impact individuals of Blumer’s dock but would not result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Blumer’s dock plants have been detected within the project area in Woods and Willow 

Canyons. Suitable Blumer’s dock habitat can also be found in other headwater drainages and 

wet meadows.

Treatments could cause damage or mortality to individual plants.

BMPs would be employed to protect Blumer’s dock habitat during mechanical and broadcast 

burn treatments. Wet meadows and ephemeral drainages would be protected during 

mechanical treatments and a filter strip would be retained in riparian areas. 

One broadcast burn maintenance treatment within the ponderosa pine forest type would 

provide for the same short-term effects as the first entry.

Mechanical treatments would open the canopy around some wet meadows, which could 

increase the amount of habitat available for Blumer’s dock.

Reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy wildfire for 30 years

and alternative C for 15 years; that could adversely modify habitat in the project area.

Bebb’s willow Alternative B or C may impact individuals of Bebb’s willow but would not result in a trend 

toward Federal listing or loss of viability.

Bebb’s willows have been detected within the project area in Woods and Willow Canyons.

Suitable Bebb’s willow habitat can also be found in other headwater drainages and wet 

meadows in the analysis area.

Treatments have the potential to cause damage or mortality to individual plants, however, (1) 

BMPs (buffer) and other protective measures would be employed to protect Bebb’s willows 

and habitat (wet meadows and ephemeral drainages) during mechanical and broadcast burn 

treatments, and (2) crown sprouting of willows would be expected if individuals were 

burned with a low-severity fire. A buffer strip would be retained in all riparian areas. 

Mechanical treatment would open the canopy around some wet meadows. This could 

increase the amount of habitat available for Bebb’s willow. Mechanical maintenance 

treatments would be done on meadows to reduce conifer encroachment.

Alternative B’s reduction of fuels would reduce the potential for high severity canopy 

wildfire for 30 years and alternative C for 15 years; that could adversely modify habitat in 

the project area.

Management Indicator Species

Management Indicator Species—Summary

The analysis identifies 11 management indicator species, as well as aquatic macroinvertebrates 

(several species). After considering the effects on MIS populations forestwide after 2011 Wallow 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 133

Fire, neither action alternative would affect forestwide trends, whether upward trends that are 

established for many species, or negative trends established for mule deer and 

macroinvertabrates.

The difference between the action alternatives is that alternative B would maintain its beneficial 

habitat effects for at least 30 years, while alternative C is expected to maintain that benefit for 15 

years or less. The addendum to the wildlife specialist report (Brown 2012) includes more detailed 

analysis regarding the current habitat conditions and population trends.

The amount of habitat for the forest MIS is small—less than 5 percent (table 69)—and so changes 

in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends.

Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for 

this species and their associated habitat types.

Table 69. MIS species, habitat components, forest trends, and acres analyzed

MIS Species by 

Forest 

Management Area

Habitat 

Component 

Indicated*

Forestwide

Habitat 

Trend*

Forestwide

Population 

Trend*

Acres of 

Habitat 

Forestwide

Acres 

Analyzed in 

Project Area 

(Percent of 

Habitat)

Mexican Spotted 

Owl Stratified

Habitat MA-01

Late 

Succession

Declining Declining 649,069 11,276 (1.7%)

Northern Goshawk

Stratified Habitat

MA-01

Late 

Succession 

(ponderosa 

pine)

Stable to 

Declining

Declining 1,682,492 21,680 (1.3%)

Rocky Mountain Elk

MA-01

Early 

Succession

Increasing Stable to 

Declining

1,690,439 33,221 (2%)

Mule Deer MA-01 Early 

Succession

Increasing Stable to 

Increasing

1,769,299 33,221 (1.9%)

Hairy Woodpecker

MA-01

Snags (all 

types)

Upward Stable 712,366 32,956 (4.6%)

Red-naped 

Sapsucker (area with 

small inclusions of 

aspen) MA-01

Snags (aspen) Stable Stable 800,000 30,385 (3.8%)

Merriam’s Turkey

MA-01 

Late 

Succession

Stable Stable 936,663 33,221 (3.5%)

Pygmy Nuthatch

MA-01 

Late 

Succession 

(ponderosa 

pine)

Declining Stable 569,890 32,956 (4%)

Abert’s Squirrel

MA-01

Early 

Succession 

(ponderosa 

pine)

Stable to 

Declining

Stable 746,902 24,829 (3.3%)

Red Squirrel MA-01 Late 

Succession 

(spruce/mixed 

conifer)

Declining Stable to 

Declining

203,347 8,127 (4%)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

134 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

MIS Species by 

Forest 

Management Area

Habitat 

Component 

Indicated*

Forestwide

Habitat 

Trend*

Forestwide

Population 

Trend*

Acres of 

Habitat 

Forestwide

Acres 

Analyzed in 

Project Area 

(Percent of 

Habitat)

Yellow-breasted 

Chat MA-03

Low to Mid 

Elevation 

Riparian

Stable Stable 10,101 <100 (1%)

Cinnamon Teal MA11Wetlands Upward Stable 29,430 310 (1.1%)

* USDA Forest Service. 2006 (unpublished document). Management indicator species assessment: ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. USDA Forest Service, Springerville, AZ.

** There are no pure stands of cottonwood/willow riparian habitat in the project area. The density of conifer trees 

causes all streamside stands to be classified as conifer stands. Therefore, acres of yellow-breasted chat riparian 

habitat are estimated to be <100 acres.

For each MIS with potential to occur in the project area, the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

MIS Assessment” (USDA 2006) was utilized for habitat condition and trend of their 

representative habitat component and population trend across the forest (table 69 and table 70).

This analysis was updated in 2012 following the Wallow Fire, which burned substantial portions 

of the forest east of the project area.

MIS species occurring within Woodland (MA-2) and Grassland (MA-4) are not analyzed because 

these habitat types do not occur within the project area and no changes in habitat trend, quality, or 

quantity are expected to occur as a result of this project. Lucy’s warbler, a low elevation (4,000 

feet and below) riparian habitat indicator, and Lincoln’s sparrow, a high elevation riparian habitat 

indicator, were not considered in the analysis for this project because the habitat types they 

inhabit do not occur within the project area, and neither species has been detected during 5 years 

of songbird surveys on the Black Mesa Ranger District.

The amount of MIS habitat forestwide is compared to the representative habitat within the project 

area. The amount for each species is shown by percentages of appropriate forest cover types (see 

table 70). No forest habitat cover type would be converted to another forest habitat cover type for 

any MIS under any alternative. The percentages of forest wide habitat in the project area are

lowest for the northern goshawk at 1.2 percent and highest with the pygmy nuthatch at 5.8 

percent. Table 70 provides a basis for reviewing each MIS quantity of habitats that would be 

treated in the project area to the forest plan identified habitats (USDA 2006).

Table 70. Comparison of MIS habitat forestwide and within the project area

MIS Species Current Forestwide

Species Habitat (acres)

Representative Habitat 

within Project Area 

(acres)

Percent of Forestwide

Habitat in Project Area

Mexican spotted owl 649,069 11,276* 1.7

Northern goshawk 1,682,492 21,680* 1.2

Elk 1,690,439 33,221 2.0

Mule deer 1,769,299 33,221 1.9

Hairy woodpecker 712,366 32,956 4.6
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 135

MIS Species Current Forestwide

Species Habitat (acres)

Representative Habitat 

within Project Area 

(acres)

Percent of Forestwide

Habitat in Project Area

Red-naped sapsucker 800,000 30,385 3.8

Merriam’s turkey 936,663 33,221 3.5

Pygmy nuthatch 569,890 32,956 5.8

Abert’s squirrel 746,902 24,829 3.3

Red squirrel 203,347 8,127 4.0

Yellow-breasted chat 10,101 <100 < 0.9

Cinnamon teal 29,430 310 < 0.1

*Acres of northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl in the project area are derived from the habitat stratification in

figures 9 and 10. 

Mexican Spotted Owl

Effects to Mexican spotted owls and their habitat are addressed in more detail for each alternative 

in the section above, additional discussion regarding MIS follows.

Forestwide Habitat Trends

The Mexican spotted owl is a management indicator species for late succession forest habitat in 

the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs). Both timber harvest and wildfires have affected 

mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forests. Records indicate that there have been 1,890 acres of 

timber harvests that removed large diameter trees (seed cuts, clearcuts, and overstory removals) 

since 1996 for an average of about 371 acres per year. Records also show that these timber 

harvesting practice have ceased on the forest since 2001 (i.e., zero acres harvested using these 

techniques). Because of this, it is not likely that habitat suitability for Mexican spotted owls has 

been reduced since 2001 due to timber harvest.

Catastrophic fires can cause landscape-wide modifications to the habitat capability of the forest 

for spotted owls. Over the last 11 years, the ASNFs have been subject to several large wildfires.

The Wallow Fire of 2011 was the largest recorded fire in Arizona history and burned over 

500,000 acres of the ASNFs.

During containment, the forest initiated a burned area evaluation and restoration (BAER) group to 

identify values at risk and initiate emergency protection of these values. Based on the risk 

assessment conducted by the BAER wildlife resource team, risk to Mexican spotted owls was 

found to be very high. A large number of nest sites (PACs) were impacted by the fire in relation to 

the total number of PACs occurring on the ASNFs. A total of 76 Mexican spotted owl PACs, 

accounting for 58 percent of the PACS on the forest occur within the burn perimeter of the 

Wallow Fire. Of these, 30 are considered to be at high risk of loss and another 23 PACs are 

considered to be at moderately high risk (unpublished USFS report “Rapid Assessment Team 

Wildlife Report”). 

Given the extent of loss, management and restoration actions are being taken to prevent further 

deterioration and to enhance recovery rates. Pheromone treatments have been implemented to 

reduce the risk of beetle induced tree mortality within the fire perimeter, and seeding and helimulching has occurred over large areas encompassing all or portions of many of the PACs.

Reforestation activities are also proposed for implementation within these PACs (unpublished 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

136 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

USFS report “Rapid Assessment Team Wildlife Report”). The full impact of the Wallow Fire on 

the owl population on the ASNFs would probably not be known for several years. 

The Wallow Fire caused considerable loss of mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest types and 

had severe impacts to some PACs. Therefore, available habitat quality for the Mexican spotted 

owl is low on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Habitat on unburned portions of the forest 

is likely improving due to protection of existing and potential old growth areas, decreasing 

harvest levels, and high net annual growth rate. However, actual improvements in the quality of 

late succession management areas would take many decades. The improvement in habitat for 

Mexican spotted owl would be slow. Therefore, habitat trends forestwide are considered to be 

declining.

Forestwide Population Trends

Monitoring of known Mexican spotted owl territories was conducted by Forest Service personnel 

from 2006 to 2011 within all three of the ranger districts on the ASNFs. The Mexican spotted owl 

territories monitored on the Black Mesa Ranger District show a high proportion of territories to 

be unoccupied annually (33–69 percent). In general, the percentage of nesting territories was 

relatively stable from 2006 to 2011 as was the percentage of territories occupied by single birds 

only.

During the 6-year period, the number of territories monitored per year on the Alpine/Clifton and 

Springerville/Lakeside Ranger Districts ranged from 0 to 17. During most years, monitored 

territories numbered 5 or less. These sparse datasets make it difficult to reliably infer population 

trends on these two ranger districts. In general, however, results suggest a declining trend in the 

percentage of territories occupied and show a high proportion of territories to be unoccupied 

annually (24–67 percent). Direct effects of the large-scale Wallow Fire on known territories in

these two ranger districts cannot be inferred since monitoring was not conducted in 2011 due to 

restrictions. It is known, however, that a large number of nest sites (PACs) were impacted by the 

fire in relation to the total number of PACs occurring on the ASNFs. A total of 76 Mexican 

spotted owl PACs, accounting for 58 percent of the PACS on the forest occur within the burn 

perimeter of the Wallow Fire. Of these, 30 are considered to be at high risk of loss and another 23 

PACs are considered to be at moderately high risk (unpublished USFS report “Rapid Assessment 

Team Wildlife Report”).

Given the considerable loss of forest vegetation due to recent large scale forest fires (i.e., Wallow 

Fire), Mexican spotted owl populations on the ASNFs would likely decline due to decreased 

habitat capability. Additional monitoring of Mexican spotted owl territories would give a better 

picture of population trend, however, the effects of the fire would likely not be known for several 

years.

The Mexican spotted owl is considered a rare, permanent resident of the ASNFs (USDA 1996).

Available information from the 2006 assessment of management indicator species report showed 

that Mexican spotted owls were fairly well distributed in forested habitats on the ApachesSitgreaves National Forests and populations in the forest were considered to be stable, but likely 

lower than potential. Given the considerable loss of forest vegetation and severe impacts to PACs 

resulting from the Wallow Fire in 2011 and other wildfires since 2006, Mexican spotted owl 

abundance is considered to be declining due to decreased habitat capability to support the species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 137

Alternative A

Implementation of this alternative would not allow for management actions that are supported by 

forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types. Alternative A 

would not likely change the “declining” forestwide habitat trend or the “declining” forestwide

population trends. 

Alternative B

Alternative B would move MSO habitats toward forest plan guidelines. The treatments in MSO 

restricted threshold habitat and restricted target threshold (objective to achieve 150–170 BA

where available) would be managed for nest and roost characteristics. Implementing treatments 

would reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity, crown fire throughout the project 

area. MSO habitats moving toward forest plan guidelines would support the “declining” 

forestwide habitat trend and not alter the “declining” forestwide population trend.

Due to only 1.7 percent of the available forestwide habitat occurring within the project area, 

changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends.

Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for 

this species and their associated habitat types. 

Alternative C

Overall differences in stand density are slight relative to alternative B. However, the forest 

vegetation spatial patterns would be different under this alternative than under alternative B in 

“restricted other” habitats. The posttreatment tree distribution would be more uniform under 

alternative C, leading to more rapid canopy closure (15 years) and increased risk of high severity 

wildland canopy fire, which would be detrimental to MSO habitats. MSO habitats moving toward

forest plan guidelines would support the “declining” forestwide habitat trend and “declining” 

forestwide population trend. Due to only 1.7 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Northern Goshawk

Forestwide Habitat Trend

Habitat conditions for the northern goshawk have declined over the past 100 years. However, 

forest management activities are being enacted to improve goshawk habitat across the ApacheSitgreaves National Forests. Thinning and prescribed natural fires would improve on habitat 

conditions favoring goshawk flight maneuverability, prey species, snags, and down woody 

material with increased vegetation diversity. Nest sites are protected and foraging habitat is 

managed for improvement. Recent drought conditions, landscape-scale wildfires, and tree insect 

outbreaks across Southwestern forests have lead to the loss of some forest habitat and have 

depressed the populations of many northern goshawk prey species.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service finds that despite forest management activities across the 

western United States, the goshawk continues to be well distributed throughout its historic range.

The service also finds no evidence that lack of habitat is limiting the overall population, causing 

extirpation, or curtailing species from its range.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

138 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Low reproductive performance on the ASNFs may reflect the fact that the forest is on the 

southern edge of the range of A. g. atricapillus. Population density tends to be greatest near the 

center of the range and lower toward the boundaries, because resources are often scarce and/or 

environmental conditions approach tolerance limits at a species’ geographic fringe. Also, direct

and indirect effects of climate often seem to be important in the persistence of marginal 

populations, especially important given that environmental factors may affect demographic rates 

of northern goshawk populations.

Based on the information above, habitat trend is considered to be stable to declining on the 

ASNFs. The “Sensitive Species” section above discusses effects for each alternative to northern 

goshawk.

Forestwide Population Trend

During the last 6 years (2006–2011) only 3 northern goshawk territories were monitoried on the 

Alpine/Clifton Ranger Districts out of 24 named territories: 1 was occupied on the Clifton RD in 

2006 and 2007 and another additional territory was occupied in 2007; and 1 northern goshawk 

territory was occupied on the Alpine RD in 2007 (ASNFs, unpublished data). In additon, the 

sparse monitoring data for northern goshawk territory activity on the Springerville and Lakeside 

Ranger Districts show a high percentage of territories monitoried to be unoccupied. 

The northern goshawk territories monitored on the Black Mesa Ranger District show a high 

proportion of territories monitored to be unoccupied annually (62–82 percent). The high 

percentage of territories unoccupied within the ASNFs is most likely a combined result of the 

lack of intensive monitoring (i.e., results from small sample sizes) and the recent large scale, 

forest stand-changing fires and the resulting poor forest conditons for nesting goshawks. The 

recent Wallow Fire (2011) on the Springerville and Alpine Ranger Districts has impacted 30 

goshawk territories, with an additional 3 territories impacted by forest fires on the Black Mesa 

Ranger District. Given past drought conditions and recent large scale forest fires (i.e., RodeoChediski and Wallow Fires), the existing habitat conditions on the ASNFs have lead to northern 

goshawk populations to be in decline. However, there are several areas of potential habitat that 

have rarely been surveyed (e.g. Chevelon Canyon, Leonard Canyon) where additional goshawk 

nesting territories may still be located.

Alternative A

Alternative A would not alter the “stable to declining” forestwide northern goshawk habitat trend 

or the “declining” forestwide population trend. Implementation of this alternative would not be 

consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Alternative B would move northern goshawk habitats (nest stands/PFAs, foraging habitats, and 

project area) toward improvement in quality of habitat and meeting forest plan guidelines, 

including those descriptions found in the forest plan amendment (page 25).

The development of uneven-aged stands in groupy, clumpy arrangements with regeneration 

openings within PFAs, nest stands, and foraging habitats would release understory 

herbaceous/shrub communities that provide habitat for prey of the northern goshawk. This 

alternative would reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire. More forested 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 139

stands within the project area would be managed for the stand structure goshawks prefer.

Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types,

so that impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur. Thirty-three 

goshawk PFAs have been impacted by fire (30 on the Alpine/Springerville RDs by the Wallow 

Fire and 3 on the Black Mesa RD). Although the Rim Lakes Project has a potential disturbance in 

reproductive success in two active PFAs, a measurable change to the forestwide goshawk 

population trend is not expected because of mitigation measures that would control the timing of 

any disturbance if the PFAs were active.

Improving the quality of habitat for northern goshawk in the project area (1.2 percent of the 

forestwide acres) would contribute toward improving the overall quality on the ASNFs for this 

species and would improve the “stable to declining” forestwide habitat trend and not contribute 

further to a “declining” forestwide population trend. Only 1.2 percent of the available forestwide

habitat occurs within the project area, so changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not 

be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent 

with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

During public comment for this project, one line of research was mentioned that raised concerns 

about the effectiveness of the northern spotted owl recommendations in reproductive success 

(Beier 2008 and Beier 2012). This research conducted a test of the recommendations and 

concluded that reproduction of goshawks declined as forest structures in their breeding areas 

became increasingly similar to those described in the recommendations. These concerns have 

been evaluated in a response (Reynolds et al. 2012), which found the methods used by Beier to 

reach his conclusion were flawed. For example, Reynolds found the methods used to determine 

similarity to the structural conditions described in the recommendations resulted in inappropriate 

measures of similarity. Reynolds also concluded that insufficient monitoring and other factors 

contributed to Beier’s conclusions.

Alternative C

Alternative C would improve northern goshawk habitats in the short term; and make progress 

toward, but not attain, forest plan guidelines due to even-aged management.

The development of even-aged stands within PFAs and foraging habitats would improve site 

conditions for majority of prey species following treatments, but would lack the clumpy and 

groupy stand arrangement with numerous regeneration openings. Following 15 years post 

treatment, the forest canopy would provide for a potential for stand replacing, high severity crown

fire. This alternative provides a short-term (up to 15 years) benefit compared to alternative B that 

provides a long-term benefit (up to 30 years).

Alternative C would move habitats toward forest plan guidelines at a lesser extent than alternative 

B, especially in terms of creating uneven-aged structure, but it would support an improvement to 

the “stable to declining” forestwide habitat trend and “declining” forestwide population trend 

with implementation of this alternative.

Due to only 1.2 percent of the available forestwide habitat occurring within the project area, 

changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends.

Implementation of this alternative would make progress toward, but not attain, forest plan 

guidelines due to even-aged management objectives for this species and their associated habitat 

types.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

140 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Elk and Mule Deer

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, elk (Cervus elaphus canadensis) are used as an indicator species for early 

succession forested habitats (USDA 1987a). Fire serves as the main disturbance regime 

influencing the age structure and successional stage of the forests within the ASNFs. Since 2005, 

approximately 650,000 acres have burned with the most recent Wallow Fire affecting 540,979

acres. The Wallow Fire consumed five times more of the forest than all other wildfire events since 

2005. In contrast, forest treatments such as salvage operations, group selection, seed cuts, etc., 

that favor early successional development have decreased since 1985.

Compared with forest management prescriptions, wildfire has much greater potential to create 

early-succession habitat, although catastrophic fires do not appear to result in immediate 

improvements for Rocky Mountain elk habitat. For example, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002 

burned over 173,000 acres and converted approximately 55 percent of the burn to earlysuccession habitat. However, forage and security cover for big game species such as Rocky 

Mountain elk declined after the fire. As a result, the forage capacity for elk declined in the short 

term relative to prefire conditions. In contrast, areas that experienced a moderate- or low-intensity 

burn, resulted in grass and forb enhancement and created a juxtaposition of food and cover that 

benefited Rocky Mountain elk habitat. In summary, low intensity wildfires provide a more 

immediate improvement than high intensity wildfires.

On most forested ranges, fire enhances grazing resources such as grasses, sedges, aster, 

goosefoot, bear grass, eriogonums, lupines, and other early successional and understory montane 

plants. Browse items such as serviceberry, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, rabbitbrush, acorns, 

and leaves of oaks, snowberry, and willows may also be favored by low intensity wildfires. Thus,

low-intensity fire is considered desirable for Rocky Mountain elk habitat. Most (54 percent) of 

the moderate to high density Rocky Mountain elk habitat in the Rodeo-Chediski Fire area burned 

under low intensity fire, thus benefiting the species. Based on these considerations, there is an 

increasing trend in the creation of early-successional habitat that could benefit Rocky Mountain 

elk given the large spatial scale of recent wildfire activity. The important determinant would be 

the juxtaposition of this habitat with security cover—a factor that is best predicted by data 

regarding fire severity. Targeted restoration efforts to promote the establishment of new growth

would ultimately benefit Rocky Mountain elk in moderate and high intensity burned areas.

For mule deer, maintaining an interspersion of quality browse and sufficient cover to support 

population persistence is a primary management goal for mule deer management in Arizona 

where mule deer serve as a management indicator species (MIS) for the ASNFs. 

Fire serves as the main disturbance regime influencing the age structure and successional stage of 

the forests within the ASNFs. Since 2005, approximately 650,000 acres have burned with the 

most recent Wallow Fire affecting over 500,000 acres. In contrast, forest treatments such as 

salvage operations, group selection, seed cuts, etc., that favor early successional development 

have decreased since 1985.

Compared with forest management prescriptions, wildfire has much greater potential to create 

early-succession habitat, although catastrophic fires do not appear to result in immediate 

improvements for mule deer habitat. For example, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002 burned over 

173,000 acres and converted approximately 55 percent of the burn to early-succession habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 141

However, forage and security cover for big game species such as mule deer declined after the fire. 

As a result, the forage capacity for mule deer declined in the short term relative to prefire 

conditions. In contrast, areas that experienced a moderate- or low-intensity burn, resulted in grass 

and forb enhancement and created a juxtaposition of food and cover that benefited mule deer 

habitat. 

On most forested ranges, fire enhances grass/forb growth and shrubs such as Ceanthus spp.,

mountain mahogany, and other hardwood species. Thus, low-intensity fire is considered desirable 

for mule deer habitat. Deer would use areas closer to cover. Most (54 percent) of the moderate to 

high density deer habitat in the Rodeo-Chediski Fire area burned under low-intensity fire 

benefiting mule deer. The remaining 46 percent of the high-density big game habitat burned 

under moderate- to high-severity conditions. Habitat that burned under moderate to high severity

would have little or no habitat value in the short term (1–5 years) because grass and forbs are very 

sparse. Thus, in the long term these areas could provide high quality forage for mule deer.

Based on these considerations there is an increasing trend in the creation of early-successional 

habitat that could benefit mule deer given the large spatial scale of recent wildfire activity. 

Forestwide Population Trend

The ASNFs encompass seven game management units (GMUs) managed by the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has provided aerial survey data for 

Rocky Mountain elk collected between 2001 and 2011 for four GMUs. In unit 27, the Rocky 

Mountain elk annual population estimates averaged 3,370 and varied from a low of 2,988 in 2003 

to a high of 3,730 in 2010. In contrast, the combined population estimates for units 3A and 3C 

suggest that the Rocky Mountain elk populations in this unit are in decline. Population estimates 

for unit 1 are fairly stable, averaging 5,870 and varying from a low of 5,411 in 2006 to a high of 

6,953 in 2001.

Over the last 5 years (2006–2011) Rocky Mountain elk populations on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests have either been relatively stable (GMU 27 and 1) or declining (GMU 3A and 

3C). Wildfire activity over the past decade would likely improve habitat conditions by creating 

early-successional habitats that benefit browse production. Although large scale, high-intensity 

fires—such as the Wallow Fire in 2011 that burned over 540,000 acres—may not result in the 

landscape heterogeneity required to support robust Rocky Mountain elk populations in the short 

term, natural succession combined with active forest restoration designed to create a mosaic of 

uneven-aged stands would ultimately benefit the resident Rocky Mountain elk populations. 

Rocky Mountain elk populations on the ASNFs are in good condition with a stable population 

growth trend.

Elk using the project area are managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in Game 

Management Unit (GMU) 4A. Deer are managed in this area as part of combined GMU 4A/4B.

Nearly all of the project area is considered suitable habitat for elk and mule deer (33,221 acres).

The elk population in 4A has been reduced approximately 50 percent over the past 10 years due 

to Arizona Game and Fish Department management actions, with the estimated population at

2,200 adults.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

142 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The mule deer population is in a long term downward decline in GMUs 4A/4B due to a reduction

in quality forage habitats. There is no estimated population total for these units. An average of 60 

adults has been observed post harvest during helicopter surveys from 1999 to 2004. The average 

annual harvest for 1998–2003 is around 50 deer.

The current forage-to-cover ratio in the project area is approximately 45:55 (table 70). The forest 

plan (USDA 1987, as amended) recommends, “Within diversity units where no conflicts occur 

with TES species needs, as a guideline manage forage to cover ratios between 40:60 and 70:30.”

Annual forage use monitoring conducted by Forest Service and AGFD personnel shows that 

ungulates (domestic livestock, elk, and deer) are overutilizing herbaceous forage in many 

meadows. Visual observations indicate that ungulates are underutilizing upland forage, likely due 

to the fact that upland grasses are less palatable than meadow grasses. Twenty-five to 30 percent 

forage utilization by large ungulates is desired in this area. Table 70 displays the forage needs of 

elk and mule deer within the project area. Domestic livestock are allowed to graze 37 percent 

(about 12,470 acres) of the project area.

Furthermore, the quality of herbaceous forage is less than desired due to forested habitats shading 

out many palatable herbaceous and woody species. Slopes, aspects, and type of habitat stratified 

(MSO vs. northern goshawk) would influence future forage (forest understory vegetation) and 

cover ratios within treated areas. There is a need to improve forage quality and quantity by 

reducing the density of trees by mechanical thinning and prescribed burning to allow release of 

desirable understory herbaceous and browse species.

Fire serves as the main disturbance regime influencing the age structure and successional stage of 

the forests within the ASNFs. Since 2005, approximately 650,000 acres have burned with the 

most recent Wallow Fire affecting 540,979 acres. The Wallow Fire consumed five times the area 

of forest than all other wildfire events since 2005. In contrast, forest treatments such as salvage 

operations, group selection, seed cuts, etc., that favor early successional development have 

decreased since 1985.

Compared with forest management prescriptions, wildfire has much greater potential to create 

early-succession habitat although catastrophic fires do not appear to result in immediate 

improvements for Rocky Mountain elk habitat. For example, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002 

burned over 173,000 acres and converted approximately 55 percent of the burn to earlysuccession habitat. However, forage and security cover for big game species such as Rocky 

Mountain elk declined after the fire. As a result, the forage capacity for elk declined in the short 

term relative to prefire conditions. In contrast, areas that experienced a moderate- or low-intensity 

burn, resulted in grass and forb enhancement and created a juxtaposition of food and cover that 

benefited Rocky Mountain elk habitat. In summary, low-intensity wildfires provide a more 

immediate improvement than high-intensity wildfires.

On most forested ranges, fire enhances grazing resources such as grasses, sedges, aster, 

goosefoot, bear grass, eriogonums, lupines, and other early successional and understory montane 

plants. Browse items such as serviceberry, mountain mahogany, sagebrush, rabbitbrush, acorns, 

and leaves of oaks, snowberry, and willows may also be favored by low-intensity wildfires. Thus, 

low-intensity fire is considered desirable for Rocky Mountain elk habitat. Most (54 percent) of 

the moderate to high density Rocky Mountain elk habitat in the Rodeo-Chediski Fire area burned 

under low-intensity fire, thus benefiting the species. Based on these considerations, there is an 

increasing trend in the creation of early-successional habitat that could benefit Rocky Mountain 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 143

elk given the large spatial scale of recent wildfire activity. The important determinant would be 

the juxtaposition of this habitat with security cover—a factor that is best predicted by data 

regarding fire severity. Targeted restoration efforts to promote the establishment of new growth

would ultimately benefit Rocky Mountain elk in moderate and high intensity burned areas.

Forestwide Population Trend

The ASNFs encompass seven game management units (GMUs) managed by the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. The Arizona Game and Fish Department has provided aerial survey data for 

Rocky Mountain elk collected between 2001 and 2011 for four GMUs. In unit 27, the Rocky 

mountain elk annual population estimates averaged 3,370 and varied from a low of 2,988 in 2003 

to a high of 3,730 in 2010. In contrast, the combined population estimates for units 3A and 3C 

suggest that Rocky Mountain elk populations in this unit are in decline. Population estimates for 

unit 1 are fairly stable, averaging 5,870 and varying from a low of 5,411 in 2006 to a high of 

6,953 in 2001.

Table 71. Estimated herbaceous summer forage needs for elk and mule deer in the project 

area, based on 2003 big game density estimates by AGFD*

Species Density 

Category

Animal 

Density 

(Animals/mi.2)

Area 

(mi.2)

Number of 

Animals 

(Density x 

Area)

Herbaceous 

Forage Needs 

(lb./animal/

season)

Total 

Herbaceous 

Forage Needs 

(lbs.)

Elk 

Summer

Very High 12.5 4.6 57.5

1,555

89,413

High 8.0 34.0 272 422,960

Moderate 4.5 13.7 61.7 95,866

Mule Deer 

Summer

Moderate 7.5 0.9 6.8

225

1,519

Low 3.0 18.5 55.5 12,488

Sparse 0.5 32.9 16.5 3,701

Total 625,947

*Big game density information was based on 2003 population estimates and validated at the game management unit 

level. Utilizing this data at the scale of a single allotment or analysis area may reduce the reliability of the population 

estimates and, therefore, the forage needs calculations. Source: Dave Dorum, Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

11/03/2006.

Alternative A

The forage-to-cover ratio for elk and mule deer would grow to 45:55 under the no action 

alternative. Cover acreage would increase and forage would decrease as stand tree densities 

increase. Meadows and other small openings used for forage would probably receive more elk 

and deer use if populations remain stable. There would be no treatment related disturbance under 

this alternative.

This alternative would not reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire in the 

project area that currently posed a threat to elk and mule deer habitat.

Alternative A would not likely change the mule deer “upward” forestwide habitat trend or the 

“stable to increasing” forestwide population trend. Alternative would not likely change the elk 

“upward” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable to declining” forestwide population trend.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

144 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Implementation of this alternative would not be consistent with forest plan goals and objectives 

for this species and their associated habitat types.

Under alternative A, foraging areas such as forest openings and meadows would decline over 

time due to tree encroachment in the project area. Forage to cover ratios in alternative A would 

not be maintained to meet forest plan guidelines. Ungulate forage use areas would continue to 

target meadows and riparian areas. Herbaceous and browse understory forage species would 

remain at or near existing conditions until a wildland fire occurred that would open up the canopy 

and release forest understory vegetation.

Alternative B

Thinning forest stands followed by low severity broadcast burning would result in more foraging 

habitat (70 percent) than cover habitat (30 percent), or the forage-to-cover ratio is 70:30, which is 

still within forest plan guidelines. Hiding cover would be retained along at least 40 percent of 

arterial and collector roads. It is expected that hiding cover would be better dispersed within this 

alternative due to the uneven stand VSS classes and the retention of clumps of small to medium

sized trees. Because of this uneven structure, wildlife hiding and thermal cover within treated 

stands would likely be more effective in this alternative.

Substantially more upland herbaceous, forb, and browse forage would be available to elk and 

mule deer following treatments and recovery, which may reduce current forage use pressure on 

existing meadows and wetlands. 

Short-term disturbance to elk and mule deer by treatment activities would temporarily displace 

and alter foraging, resting, and traditionally used areas. Timing restrictions for treatment activities 

within MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb elk or mule deer during the 

calving and fawning seasons. The project area would be treated in phases over time and would 

not occur over the project area at the same time. Elk and mule deer would only experience 

activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time.

Smoke effects from broadcast burning may disturb individuals but this should be a short-term 

impact and would not adversely affect elk or mule deer. Timing restrictions within PFAs and 

MSO PACs would prevent burning in these areas during the calving and fawning seasons.

This alternative would reduce the potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire in the

project area that currently posed a threat to elk and mule deer habitat. Maintenance, low severity 

prescribed burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with 

the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur.

Alternative B would likely support the mule deer “upward” forestwide habitat trend but not affect 

the “stable to increasing” forestwide population trend. Similarly, alternative B would likely 

support the elk “upward” forestwide habitat trend but not affect the “stable to declining” 

forestwide population trend. Due to only 2 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area for both mule deer and elk, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat 

would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Herbaceous understory vegetation response 

would be greater post treatment with alternative B and productive out to 30 years. Alternative C 

would expcet to see a productive herbacous understory 15 years post treatment due to canopy 

closure and shading effect. Implementation of alternative B would be consistent with forest plan 

goals and objectives for elk/deer and their associated habitat types.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 145

Alternative B would meet minimum forest plan big game cover guidelines with a ratio of 70:30 

(table 72). Big game would have more forage habitat available following treatments with longterm maintenance of understory with broadcast burning. Maintenance, low severity prescribed 

burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types that would develop interspersed 

regeneration openings with groupy and clumpy stands remaining. Life expectancy for this 

alternative is up to 30 years.

Because the project area supports the highest elk densities on the district, the AGFD and forest 

personnel have identified this area as needing more upland herbaceous and browse forage to 

support big game needs. With the release of understory herbaceous and browse species following 

treatment, big game use areas would expand and the meadows and riparian areas may receive less 

utilization. Browsing on aspen, cottonwood, and oaks might also be reduced by increasing forage 

availability in the uplands. 

Table 72. Changes in forage-to-cover ratios by 

alternative throughout the project area

Alternative Forage:Cover Ratio

Alternative A (no action) 45:55

Alternative B 70:30

Alternative C 63:37

Forested hiding and escape cover would be reduced from current conditions; however, with the 

release of understory herbaceous and browse species (forage) would be a benefit. Alternative B

would provide an effective big game escape cover across the landscape with uneven-aged stand 

management. The clumpy, uneven-aged objective in this alternative would result in lesser sight 

line distances due to the retention of clumps of small to medium diameter trees. Forested cover 

would be retained along 40 percent of arterial and collector roads and around dirt tanks and 

cienegas according to forest plan guidelines. MSO protected, target, target threshold habitats, and 

areas with steep slopes (>40 percent) would also retain forested cover. Herbaceous cover needed 

by small mammals, insects, ground-nesting birds, and reptiles would become more abundant 

under this alternative as tree densities are reduced and understory herbaceous and browse species 

are released.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in alternative B, most of the effects described in alternative B would apply to alternative C.

The forage-to-cover ratio would be 63:37 under this alternative, which is within forest plan 

guidelines. Although more stands would have higher canopy closure—which is a measure of 

wildlife cover—treated stands would likely have more open understories and less escape cover 

compared to alternative B because fewer small to medium sized trees would be retained. 

Substantially more forage would be available to elk and mule deer after treatments are completed, 

which may reduce forage use pressure on existing meadows and wetlands. Foraging habitat 

would not improve quite as much under this alternative as compared to alternative B due to 

somewhat higher tree and crown densities post treatment that would not favor understory species.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

146 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Diameter limits in the Nagel and Little Springs Project areas have resulted in stands with very 

little big game cover where more cover could have been retained without a diameter limit. 

Wildlife species richness and diversity are higher in uneven-aged stands with a variety of tree size 

classes and habitat components (Patton 1992). Inevitably, diameter limits do not allow for the 

reestablishment of groupy and clumpy tree arrangements that are typical of natural ponderosa 

pine stand configurations, because trees would be retained in the openings/interspaces that would 

otherwise enhance the restored stand condition.

Alternative C would likely support the mule deer “upward” forestwide habitat trend but not affect 

the “stable to increasing” forestwide population trend. Similarly, alternative C would likely 

support the elk “upward” forestwide habitat trend but not affect the “stable to declining” 

forestwide population trend. Due to only 2 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area for both mule deer and elk, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat 

would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Herbaceous understory production and 

duration of functionng is less in alternative C due to spatial arrangement of trees and stands that 

allow for canopy closure within 15 years post treatment and have a shading effect on desirable 

understory species. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan goals 

and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C would create more foraging habitat than current conditions but less than alternative 

B over the long term. Forage-to-cover ratios in alternative C would be 63:37 and within forest 

plan guidelines (table 71). Forage availability would improve by approximately 18 percent under 

this scenario and would remove some pressure from meadows, riparian areas, and deciduous tree 

species. Forested cover would decline by 18 percent from existing conditions but would still meet 

forest plan guidelines. In order to meet stand density objectives, alternative C removes more of 

the smaller trees, less than 16 inches, which would increase sight line distances and increase big 

game vulnerability to hunters and other predators. Cover would also be retained along roads and 

water sources in this alternative similar to alternative B. Herbaceous and browse forage would 

improve across the project area, which could result in an increase in wildlife species needing this 

habitat component.

With the release of understory herbaceous and browse species following treatment, big game use 

areas would expand and the meadows and riparian areas may receive less utilization. Browsing 

on aspen, cottonwood, and oaks might also be reduced by increasing forage availability in the 

uplands. 

Big game forage habitat available following treatments would occur at acceptable levels until 

canopy closure occurs, which is expected to be in 15 years. Maintenance, low severity prescribed 

burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types. Understory herbaceous and browse 

species would become shaded out over the long term; 15 years in alternative C compared to 30 

years in alternative B.

Other MIS Environmental Effects

With the forested cover type consisting of 98.2 percent of the project area, the species that inhabit 

forested habitats have the potential to be most affected, both positively and negatively, by 

alternatives B and C.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 147

Hairy Woodpecker

Forestwide Habitat Trend

The “Habitat Quality Index Model” (HQI; version 18) was used to evaluate the present habitat 

capability of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests for hairy woodpeckers. Based on the FIA 

dataset, the model recognized 712,366 acres of year-round habitat that provide at least some value 

to the species (AGFD 2012).

Catastrophic fires, such as the Rodeo-Chediski Fires of 2002, and the Wallow Fire of 2011 may 

cause landscape-wide modifications to the habitat capability of the forests for hairy woodpeckers. 

During the Rodeo-Chediski Fires, a total of about 18,960 acres of mid-aged, mature, and latesuccession forests burned at high or moderate severity, reducing or eliminating the forest value to 

hairy woodpeckers. However, increases in snag density in proximity to lightly burned or 

unburned stands within the fire perimeter likely increases the habitat value of those stands for this 

species. The Rodeo-Chediski Fire Salvage analysis indicated that habitat capability for hairy 

woodpeckers did not change substantially due to the fire (USDA Forest Service 2003b). Recent 

research conducted in burned forests in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) from 

2000 to 2003 indicates that hairy woodpecker populations increased dramatically following 

wildfire but declined as burned areas aged (Covert 2003).

Hairy woodpeckers use snags for both nesting and foraging, and use down logs for foraging. The 

1996 FIA for the Apache-Sitgreaves NFs estimated there were about 44 million standing dead 

trees (snags) greater than 1 inch in diameter, averaging 25 snags per acre. Over half of the snags 

occurred in the ponderosa habitat type. About 24 percent of these snags were between 5 and 10.9 

inches in diameter. These snags provided foraging habitat for many species of insectivorous birds. 

However, most cavity-nesting birds prefer even larger diameter snags for nesting purposes. The 

FIA data indicates that there were about 3.5 snags per acre that are 11 inches in diameter or 

greater at the time of the inventory and 1.4 snags per acre that are 17 inches or greater. There 

were about 8.1 aspen snags per acre greater than 12 inches in diameter available in aspen stands 

with other large diameter aspen snags scattered in other forest types (e.g. Douglas-fir and white 

fir). 

The Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow Fires created large numbers of snags in the burned area. Prior to 

these fires, large snags (≥18" d.b.h.) numbered about 0.4 snag per acre in ponderosa pine habitats 

and about 1.2 snags per acre in mixed conifer habitats (USDA Forest Service 2003b). After the 

fires, large snags were substantially increased across the burned area. There are still pockets of 

low severity burned and unburned stands with low snag numbers. Snag densities in these areas 

are expected to be increasing due to increased insect activity (USDA Forest Service 2003b). 

Snags are expected to fall over in the next 2–20 years depending on tree species and size.

Forestwide Population Trend 

Bird surveys conducted within the ASNFs by Forest Service personnel since 2007 have detected 

this species on forest treatments within ponderosa pine and pine-oak plots, and sparingly in 

pinyon-juniper plots. These surveys determined that this species is well distributed across the 

ASNFs and relatively evenly distributed throughout representative vegetation associations. Based 

on the information, available habitat quality for the hairy woodpecker is fair with an upward trend 

due to increases in snags, ongoing forest growth, and declining timber harvest. However, 

conditions are likely still below potential. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

148 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The project area provides snag numbers across the project area slightly below those described in 

forest plan guidelines, but above the 0.72 snag per acre suggested by Thomas et al. (1979b) to 

maintain at least 40 percent of the maximum potential population of hairy woodpeckers. The 

project area contains 32,956 acres of potential habitat for hairy woodpecker.

Alternative A

Alternative A would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used 

by the hairy woodpecker. Improvement in quality would occur over time because tree densities 

would remain high and mortality of trees would be greater under this alternative. Snag 

recruitment would result in a minor improvement to hairy woodpecker habitat quality. By not 

thinning out high-density stands, tree growth rates would be lower than compared to alternatives

B and C. Hairy woodpecker habitat would remain mostly at the FRCC 3 level and would be 

susceptible to a high severity, stand replacing crown wildfire.

Alternative A would not change the “upward” forestwide hairy woodpecker habitat trend or 

“stable” forestwide population trend. Changes in hairy woodpecker quality habitat acreage would 

be accomplished by maintaining dense stands over time with trees susceptible to higher rates of 

mortality. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan goals and 

objectives for hairy woodpeckers and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

The amount of quality habitat would experience an increase over current conditions with 

managing for diversity of VSS classes over time. Despite the removal of large trees from the 

project area under this alternative, thinning VSS class 3 and 4 trees and leaving the majority of 

large diameter trees would provide for increased growth rates that would allow the stands to 

achieve higher VSS class values over time moving toward forest plan guidelines.

Large trees are an important habitat component for hairy woodpeckers. Large trees often have 

dead limbs and sometimes dead tops which are used by this species for foraging and, 

occasionally, nesting. Large live trees also are the source of large snags, which are necessary for 

the existence of hairy woodpeckers in forested environments. 

Both even and uneven stand VSS class percentages have increased distribution over alternative A 

by moving toward desired conditions.

Prescribed burning is likely to create new foraging and nesting habitat for hairy woodpeckers, as 

burning often causes scattered or small groups of tree mortality. Burning related tree mortality 

can cause short-term increases in bark beetle and woodborer densities, which often results in 

higher hairy woodpecker abundance. Some existing snags currently used as hairy woodpecker 

nesting habitat in the project area are likely to be consumed by broadcast burning, but also new 

snags are created by tree mortality resulting from the prescribed burning. Monitoring has 

documented increases in snag densities, including large snags, following prescribed fire in the 

Southwest. Hairy woodpecker abundance is highest in areas that have burned within 2–3 years 

(Saab et al., 2007). Prescribed burning is expected to occur in various areas of the project area for 

at least 10 years and would provide quality hairy woodpecker foraging habitat and recruit new 

nesting habitat throughout this time period. Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would 

occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn 

treatments would reoccur.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 149

Short-term disturbance to hairy woodpeckers by treatment activities would temporarily displace 

and alter foraging, loafing, roosting, nesting habitat, and territory. Timing restrictions for 

treatment activities within MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb hairy 

woodpeckers during the breeding season. The project area would be treated in phases over time 

and would not occur over the project area at the same time. Hairy woodpeckers would only 

experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time.

This alternative would result in improved quality habitat (forest structure) into the future by 

improving forest stand structure, spatial distribution of openings, and reducing the potential for

stand replacing, high severity crown fire. This alternative would support the “upward” forestwide

habitat trend and the “stable” forestwide population trend. Due to only 4.6 percent of the 

available forestwide habitat occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of 

habitat would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative 

would be consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated 

habitat types.

Alternative C

Alternative C would implement thinning and burning across the same areas of the project area as 

alternative B, but would not authorize the harvest of trees over 16 inches in diameter. Hairy 

woodpecker habitat would experience many of the direct and indirect effects as described in 

alternative B.

More large trees would remain on the landscape than in alternative B, providing a larger source 

for future snags. 

Average VSS class values would be similar to alternative B (silviculture specialist report).

Posttreatment habitat under this alternative would likely provide a denser, interlocked overstory 

canopy combined with a more open understory due to removal of smaller than 16 inch trees.

This alternative would result in improved quality habitat (forest structure) into the future. The 

proposed project would provide long-term benefits to hairy woodpecker following 

implementation by improving forest stand structure and snag recruitment. Based on spatial 

distribution, their still exists the potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire. This 

alternative would support the “upward” forestwide habitat trend and would not affect the “stable” 

forestwide population trend. Due to only 4.6 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

This forest structure would provide less understory herbaceous and shrub component and would 

have a higher risk or potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire 15 years post 

treatment.

Red-naped Sapsucker

Forestwide Habitat Trend

The key habitat feature for which this species was selected as a management indicator species 

was aspen snags. The “Habitat Quality Index (HQI) Model” (version 18), developed by the 

Southwestern Region, was used to evaluate the present habitat capability of the forests for the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

150 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

red-naped sapsucker. Based on the 1996 FIA data and habitat coefficients in the HQI model, there 

is approximately 800,000 acres of suitable and potential red-naped sapsucker habitat. This habitat 

currently has an overall habitat quality rating of 0.4 (i.e., the habitat would support 40 percent of 

maximum potential populations). The foraging habitat quality rating is 0.6, while the cover 

habitat quality rating is 0.3 for the red-naped sapsucker.

In the forest, mid- to late-seral stage aspen are declining, due to both natural causes and 

management actions to regenerate stands. Some early-seral stage stands are being created through 

wildfire and management activities, but recruitment is limited primarily due to grazing by 

animals. FIA data indicates that gross annual growth in aspen far exceeds mortality. A comparison 

of estimated acres of aspen in the forests based on information in the forest plan EIS, 1996 FIA 

data, and current GIS vegetation data indicates that there has been some increase in the amount of 

aspen across the forests during the life of the plan. 

Records of harvest levels for the forest (Beal 2005) indicate that there have been only 829 acres 

of timber harvests that could encourage the regeneration of aspen in aspen stands or mixed 

conifer stands since 1996. Trees are growing in other parts of the forest and habitat conditions 

there are gradually declining as aspen is out-competed by later succession conifer species. 

The Rodeo-Chediski Fire burned approximately 176,000 acres on the Sitgreaves National Forest 

in 2002, of which approximately 25,000 acres could potentially produce aspen regeneration. In 

2011, the Wallow Fire burned approximately 541,000 acres in the Sitgreaves National Forest 

having a similar impact on aspen stands. Early postfire monitoring suggests that wild ungulates 

may be having a negative effect on the recruitment and growth of aspen sprouts. Given the wide 

distribution of red-naped sapsuckers across the forests, the continued recurrence of wildfires is 

likely to maintain or improve the abundance and distribution, and improve the overall habitat 

capability of red-naped sapsuckers in the forests.

The second level of habitat that needs to be considered in assessing forestwide habitat trend for 

the red-naped sapsucker is the abundance of dead and down wood. Red-naped sapsuckers use 

snags for nesting. The 1996 FIA for the ASNFs estimated there were about 44 million standing 

dead trees (snags) greater than 1 inch in diameter, averaging 25 snags per acre. Over half of the 

snags occurred in the ponderosa habitat type. However, not all of these snags have much value for 

wildlife. About 24 percent of these snags were between 5 and 10.9 inches in diameter. These 

snags provided foraging habitat for many species of insectivorous birds. However, most cavitynesting birds prefer even larger diameter snags for nesting purposes. Sapsuckers prefer snags or 

decayed live trees 6 inches or greater in diameter with the average size of nest trees in one central 

Arizona study being >14 inches in diameter (Li and Martin 1991). 

The FIA data indicates that there were about 8.1 aspen snags per acre greater than 12 inches in

diameter available in aspen stands with other large diameter aspen snags scattered in other forest 

types (e.g. Douglas-fir and white fir). However, the vast majority of aspen snags are less than 5 

inches in diameter. Personal use firewood gathering may have contributed to loss of larger aspen 

snags. In other areas of the forests, snags are being recruited as older patches of aspen die out. A 

small 10-year study of aspen decline has found that trees are rapidly becoming snags, but the rate 

has remained steady (Martin 2002).

Snags are not long lived. Snag fall-down rates vary by species, diameter, and cause of mortality. 

Snag fall-down rates for the ASNFs have not been estimated, but fall-down rates for other forests 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 151

with similar habitat types indicate that most ponderosa pine snags persist for 2–20 years (Bull et 

al., 1997). Thus, the persistence of snags across the landscape is dependent on continuing tree 

mortality. Mortality in the ASNFs was estimated based on 1996 FIA data (USDA Forest Service 

2003a) at about 13 percent of gross annual growth. Forty-five percent of this mortality was 

caused by disease, 28 percent by fire, and 15 percent by insects. The remaining 12 percent was 

attributed to weather, suppression, and animal damage, in respective order of prominence. 

Postfire management has attempted to mitigate impacts from the Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow 

Fires. It is not currently known how much impact the Wallow Fire had on red-naped sapsuckers in 

the White Mountains; however, these actions have helped improve riparian conditions in some 

areas of the forests.

As this species is a very uncommon and local breeder within the ASNFs, trend information has 

not changed since 2006.

Forestwide Population Trend

The Arizona Game and Fish Department surveyed a portion (i.e. 1/6th) of each of the 7.5" USGS 

quadrangles that include lands managed by the ASNFs. Of these, 65 sectors occurred on ASNFs

lands. Breeding red-naped sapsuckers were detected, from 1993 to 2000, at least once in 19 of 

these sectors distributed across the forest. This trend information should be interpreted with 

caution due to a very small sample sizes on each route (Sauer et al., 2004). However, the 

information for each route is relevant to documenting the general distribution and persistence of 

the species in the forests. Five breeding bird survey routes are located in the forest. Most of these 

routes have been surveyed annually since 1992. Red-naped sapsuckers were detected on only one 

of the five routes (Sprucedale route). Recent MIS monitoring efforts in the Black Mesa Ranger 

District (unpublished data) conducted from 2001 to 2005 included observations of red-naped 

sapsuckers (n=0, 0, 2, 1, 1). 

Dr. Tom Martin of the USGS Biological Survey, Cooperative Wildlife Research Unit, has 

conducted 15 years of bird productivity studies in snowmelt drainages on the Mogollon Rim on 

the west end of the forest. The Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database (BBIRD) 

study compiled the number of red-naped sapsucker nests identified in snowmelt drainages on the 

Mogollon Rim over the past 10 years. Numbers of nests has varied, starting with 28 nests in 1991, 

and ending with 25 nests in 2000. The greatest number of nests was located in 1998, followed by 

a low of 21 nests in 1999 (Martin, 2002 unpubl. data). The BBIRD dataset indicates that rednaped sapsucker populations are stable on the extreme western portion of the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests. The populations fluctuate over time, but show no indication of increasing or 

decreasing.

Taking into account the continuing occurrence of red-naped sapsuckers across the forest in 

suitable habitats, stable habitat trends for aspen, mixed conifer, and snag habitat in the forest, 

documented nesting in the forest, and the overall population trend across its breeding range, it 

appears that the forest supports well distributed reproducing populations of this species. 

Currently, red-naped sapsucker populations in the ASNFs are considered to be stable, but likely 

lower than potential due to fire suppression.

The project area contains 30,384 acres of small habitat inclusions for potential habitat for rednaped sapsucker.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

152 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative A

The project area lacks pure stands of aspen or cottonwood and, thus, provides less than optimal 

habitat for red-naped sapsuckers and only occurs in dispersed patches across the project area 

(acreage not delineated from forested habitat). Alternative A would not implement thinning or 

burn treatments that might otherwise stimulate aspen and cottonwood regeneration. Alternative A 

would not provide the improvement in habitat needed by red-naped sapsuckers.

Alternative A would not affect forestwide trends for red-naped sapsucker populations or habitat. 

Changes in the amount of habitat and quality habitat would not be large enough to alter 

forestwide trends.

A decrease in red-naped sapsucker quality habitat would occur over time with maintaining dense 

stands and desirable species out-competed by conifers. This alternative would not affect the 

“stable” forestwide habitat trend nor the “stable” forestwide population trend due to the small 

portion of aspen inclusion habitat in the project area verses the total forests management areas.

Implementation of this alternative would not be consistent with forest plan goals and objectives 

for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Alternative B would implement thinning and burning treatments that could improve habitat for 

red-naped sapsuckers with aspen regeneration, which is expected to have the greatest potential 

under this alternative. Despite the potential for aspen recruitment under this alternative, there 

would continue to be no pure aspen stands within the project area. Alternative B includes a 

proposal to fence aspen to facilitate regeneration and exclude large ungulates where it is deemed 

necessary. Regeneration of aspen stands would benefit red-naped sapsuckers by allowing aspen to 

become more abundant in some areas.

Short-term disturbance to birds by treatment activities would temporarily displace and alter 

foraging, loafing, roosting, nesting habitat, and territory. Timing restrictions for treatment 

activities within MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb red-napped 

sapsuckers during the breeding season. The project area would be treated in phases over time and 

would not occur over the project area at the same time. Red-naped sapsuckers would only 

experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time.

Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, 

so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur.

Alternative B would likely have improvement in available aspen habitat but not at levels that 

would alter the “stable” forestwide trends for red-naped sapsucker populations or the “stable” 

forestwide trend for habitat. Due to only 3.8 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Alternative C would implement thinning and burning across the same areas of the project area as 

alternative B. Red-naped sapsuckers habitat would experience many of the direct and indirect 

effects as described in alternative B. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 153

The potential to regenerate aspen would be less than alternative B because the diameter limit on 

harvesting large trees results in more conifer competition in aspen clones. 

This forest structure would provide less understory herbaceous and shrub component and would 

have a higher risk or potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire 15 years post 

treatment. No maintenance treatments would be accomplished.

Alternative C would likely have improvement in available aspen habitat (less than alternative B), 

but not at levels that would change the “stable” forestwide habitat trend or change the “stable” 

forestwide population trend for red-naped sapsucker. Due to only 3.8 percent of the available 

forestwide habitat occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat 

would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be 

consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Merriam’s Turkey

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, the turkey is an indicator species for late-succession habitat (USDA 1987) which 

provides important areas for roosting, nesting, brooding, and loafing. Wildfires have been the 

main disturbance regime influencing the age structure and successional stage of the forests within 

the ASNFs. Since 2005, approximately 650,000 acres have burned with the most recent Wallow 

Fire affecting over 500,000 acres. In contrast, forest treatments such as salvage operations, group 

selection, and seed cuts over the past 3 decades account for approximately 300,000 acres.

The ASNFs encompass seven game management units (GMUs) managed by the Arizona Game 

and Fish Department. Current forest conditions based on GIS data provided by the ASNFs

indicate that primary cover types required for nesting, brood rearing, and roosting have persisted 

despite landscape-scale disturbance within the forest (i.e., Wallow Fire). Approximately 428,344 

acres of ponderosa pine/Gambel oak have been mapped and should continue to support turkey 

populations into the future.

Based on the information, habitat trends for late succession habitat are considered to be stable.

Forestwide Population Trend

Taking into account the continuing occurrence of the turkey across the forest in suitable habitat, 

the abundance and wide distribution of suitable habitats across the forest, stable habitat trends for 

late succession habitat in the forest, and the presence of a harvestable surplus in the turkey 

population, it appears that the forest supports a well distributed reproducing population of this 

species. Currently, outside of the areas impacted by the 2011 Wallow Fire, turkey populations in 

the ASNFs are considered to be stable, and likely near potential.

Wild turkey is a game species managed by the Arizona Game and Fish Department in combined 

Units 4A/4B. The average annual harvest from 1998 to 2004 was 90 birds. Nearly all of the 

project area is considered suitable habitat for Merriam’s turkey (32,956 acres). The high stand 

densities along with being dominated by stands in the VSS 3 and 4 classes, the amount of 

understory forage, and cover habitat has a reduced quality of habitat available for this species.

Harvest data obtained from the Arizona Game and Fish Department for GMUs within the ASNFs

suggests that turkey populations are stable.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

154 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative A

Merriam’s turkeys are a generalist species that use nearly all types of habitat present in the project 

area. They use forested areas and meadows to satisfy a variety of needs. Within the project area, 

the quantity of turkey habitat would not improve and would be reduced over time with increased 

stand density, reduced understory herbaceous, and conifer encroachment into wetlands.

Improvement in Merriam’s turkey habitat within the project area would require the creation of 

more openings in the forest to promote the growth of grasses and forbs for rearing habitat. 

Conifer trees are currently encroaching into the openings and meadows turkeys use as foraging 

habitat. Merriam’s turkey foraging habitat would continue to decline, but roosting and nesting 

habitat would remain relatively unchanged.

Alternative A would not alter the “stable” forestwide trend for turkey habitat trend or “stable” 

forestwide population trend. Implementation of this alternative would not be consistent with 

forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Thinning and prescribed burning treatments would result in considerable improvements to turkey 

foraging habitat. Encroaching conifer trees would be removed from meadows, new openings 

would be created in forested stands, and grass and forb growth would be stimulated by broadcast 

burning and the increase in sunlight to the forest floor. These actions would be expected to 

increase the abundance of insects important to the summer diet of turkey poults. 

The implementation of uneven-aged management would retain tree clumps of various age and 

size classes which would provide cover and roosting habitat within stands. Cover stands that 

occur across the project area in MSO stratified habitats would be treated to obtain a higher tree 

density to provide cover to wildlife species, including turkeys. Northern goshawk stratified 

habitat would also provide groupy and clumpy stands that would improve roost habitats.

Smoke effects from broadcast burning may disturb individual birds but this should be a shortterm impact. Timing restrictions within MSO PACs and PFAs would prevent burning during the 

breeding season in these areas. Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would occur once 

on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments 

would reoccur.

Short-term disturbance to turkeys by treatment activities would temporarily displace and alter 

foraging, loafing, roosting, and some nesting areas. Timing restrictions for treatment activities 

within MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb turkeys during the breeding 

season. The project area would be treated in phases over time and would not occur over the 

project area at the same time. Turkeys would only experience activity-related disturbance in 

portions of the project area at one time. Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would 

occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn 

treatments would reoccur.

Alternative B would improve the quality of habitat for turkey and support the “stable” forestwide

habitat trend, and contribute to the “stable” forestwide population trend which would remain 

unchanged. Due to only 3.5 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring within the project 

area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to alter forestwide
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 155

trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan goals and 

objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated similarly in alternative C as in alternative B, most of the 

effects described in alternative B above would be the same. The difference is that no trees over 

16 inches in diameter would be mechanically cut and the spatial arrangement of trees in groups, 

clumps with regeneration openings.

Turkey habitat would improve slightly under this alternative when compared to alternative A.

Acres of quality habitat would increase over what currently exists. However, because alternative 

C would lack groups and clumps for roost sites, it would not provide as quality habitat.

Short-term disturbance to turkeys by treatment activities would be the same as under alternative 

B. The project area would be treated in phases and not all at the same time. Turkeys would 

experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time.

Alternative C would further support the “stable” forestwide habitat trend with the “stable” 

forestwide population trend remaining unchanged. Due to only 3.5 percent of the available 

forestwide habitat occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat 

would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be 

consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Pygmy Nuthatch

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, the pygmy nuthatch is used as an indicator species for late succession ponderosa 

pine habitat (USDA 1987a). Over the last 11 years, the ASNFs has been subject to several large 

fires and two of the State’s largest fires, the Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow Fires. It was reported in 

the forest plan that 746,902 acres of ponderosa pine habitat occur within the ASNFs, but over 

651,504 acres have been affected by fire from 2005 to 2011 including the Wallow Fire. Postfire 

management activities have attempted to mitigate impacts to the forest. The recent Wallow Fire—

which affected 538,209 acres—has not been completely assessed for all forest species 

(unpublished USFS Rapid Assessment Team Report). The severity of the Wallow Fire varied 

across its footprint, therefore, determining the extent of mature and late succession ponderosa 

pine tree stands would aid in determining the remaining habitat for the pygmy nuthatch.

Complete loss of mature ponderosa trees could have a significant impact on resident pygmy 

nuthatches in areas impacted by the fire. The conversion of late successional forest habitats to 

early-successional habitats by large scale, high-intensity fires such as the Wallow Fire would

likely impact pygmy nuthatch populations negatively. However, fire intensities that were low 

enough in other areas to produce additional nesting structures (snags or dead limbs on live trees) 

could have a short term positive effect for pygmy nuthatches.

The ASNFs encompass seven game management units managed by the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department. Current forest conditions based on GIS data provided by the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests indicate that primary cover types required for pygmy nuthatch viability have 

persisted despite landscape-scale disturbance within the forest (i.e., Wallow Fire). Approximately 

282,030 acres of ponderosa pine forest have been mapped and should continue to support pygmy 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

156 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

nuthatch populations into the future if managed to maintain interlocking canopies and old-growth 

conditions.

Postfire management has attempted to mitigate impacts from the Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow 

Fires on pygmy nuthatch habitat in the ASNFs. However, there is significant lag time between 

catastrophic wildfires and the recovery of late-seral stage forests. It is likely that the broad-scale 

loss of these late-seral stage forests would negatively impact pygmy nuthatch populations in the 

fire affected areas.

Forestwide Population Trend

Bird surveys conducted from 2008 to 2011 within the ASNFs by Forest Service personnel on 

forest treatments detected this species in highest numbers within ponderosa pine plots and lowest 

numbers in pinyon-juniper and pine-oak plots. Surveys detected pygmy nuthatch at 100 percent 

of the ponderosa pine plots surveyed in 2008 and approximately 80 percent of ponderosa pine 

plots surveyed in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Pygmy nuthatch were detected at lower percentages of 

pinyon-juniper and pine-oak plots (pinyon-juniper range = 30–40 percent; pine-oak range = 43–

100 percent). These surveys illustrate the close association the pygmy nuthatch has with mature 

ponderosa pine forests and the importance of properly managing this forest type for the 

persistence of pygmy nuthatch populations on the ASNFs. Survey totals for pygmy nuthatch 

pooled across the entire Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests were 105, 79, 75, and 24 for surveys 

conducted in 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011, respectively. This declining trend in number of 

detections, especially from 2010 to 2011, demonstrates the negative effect that fire (i.e., Wallow 

Fire) can have on pygmy nuthatch habitat and populations.

Monitoring information from the North American Breeding Bird Surveys in Arizona indicates 

that pygmy nuthatch populations are stable. Summaries of pygmy nuthatch BBS data for Arizona 

(Sauer et al., 2011) show a slight negative trend of 1.1 percent between 1968 and 2010 (CI-3.7, 

1.3). This trend estimate is a summary of the population change over the last 42 years, and does 

not provide information on other patterns of population change. Twenty survey routes were used 

in this analysis, and the relative abundance of hairy woodpeckers observed per route was 27.1.

The pygmy nuthatch is common throughout forested areas of Arizona and is considered a 

common permanent resident of the ASNFs (USDA 1996). Currently, pygmy nuthatch populations 

in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are considered to be stable but lower than potential.

Pygmy nuthatch habitat on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests was in good condition and 

stable prior to the large and severe wildfires of 2011. These fires removed large tracks of habitat 

on the eastern half of the forest. This temporal habitat loss would likely lead to a short-term 

decrease in pygmy nuthatch population densities within the fire affected areas on the ASNFs. 

Outside of the fire effect areas, pygmy nuthatch habitat appears to be supporting stable 

populations. Recolonization of the fire affected areas can be expected as the habitat progresses 

back toward a climax seral stage. Overall, the forest is maintaining and/or increasing in older 

seral stage habitats, thus increasing habitat diversity as well as old growth that the pygmy 

nuthatch are associated with. Future implementation of prescribed burning and thinning would

only continue to improve the species’ habitat. Additional catastrophic wildfire in the mixed 

conifer would threaten local pygmy nuthatch populations, however, current emphasis on reducing 

fuels in ponderosa pine would reduce the risk. Restoration prescriptions that reduce catastrophic 

fire risk and create ponderosa pine stands with large diameter trees and interlocking canopies may 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 157

increase pygmy nuthatch density and enhance the long-term persistence of this species in the 

ASNFs.

Alternative A

Alternative A would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used 

by the pygmy nuthatch. Improvement in quality would occur over time because tree densities 

would remain high and mortality of trees would be greater under this alternative. By not thinning 

out high-density stands, tree growth rates would decline as compared with alternative B or C.

Pygmy nuthatch habitat would remain susceptible to a high risk of high severity, stand replacing 

crown wildfire under this alternative. 

Alternative A would not likely change the “declining” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest 

plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Alternative B would provide essentially the same quantity of pygmy nuthatch habitat as currently 

exists, but the quality habitat would increase due to thinning small and medium sized trees and 

retaining most large trees. This would contribute to the upward forestwide habitat trend discussed 

in the forestwide MIS report. 

Large trees are an important habitat component for pygmy nuthatches as they often have dead 

limbs and/or dead tops which are used for foraging and occasionally nesting. 

Prescribed burning is likely to create new nesting habitat for pygmy nuthatches, as burning often 

causes scattered or small groups of tree mortality. Burning related tree mortality can cause shortterm increases in bark beetle densities, which may enhance foraging opportunities. Some existing 

snags currently used as pygmy nuthatch nesting habitat in the project area are likely to be 

consumed by broadcast burning, thereby eliminating established habitat, yet new snags are 

created by prescribed burning (Saab et al., 2007, Saab and Block 2006, Randall-Parker and Miller 

2002). Saab et al. (2007) documented increases in snag densities, including large snags, following 

prescribed fire in the Southwest. Pygmy nuthatches have been documented as having a negative 

response to prescribed fire the year of burning, but a neutral response one or more years after 

burning (Saab et al., 2007). Prescribed burning would occur in various areas of the project area 

for at least 10 years. 

Short-term disturbance to pygmy nuthatches by treatment activities would temporarily displace 

and alter foraging, loafing, roosting, nesting habitat, and territory. Timing restrictions for 

treatment activities within MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb hairy 

nuthatches during the breeding season. The project area would be treated in phases over time and 

would not occur over the project area at the same time. Pygmy nuthatches would only experience 

activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time. Maintenance low severity 

prescribed burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with 

the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur.

Alternative B would further support the “declining” forestwide habitat trend but the “stable” 

forestwide population trend would remain unchanged. Due to only 5.8 percent of the available 

forestwide habitat occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

158 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be 

consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated mechanically and with prescribed burning in alternative C 

as in alternative B, most of the effects described in alternative B above would be the same with 

the exception of that no trees over 16 inches in diameter would be mechanically cut. No 

maintenance treatments would occur.

More large trees would remain on the landscape than in alternative B, providing more of the 

individual habitat components that are important to this species. Posttreatment habitat under this 

alternative would likely provide a denser overstory and more open understory. 

Alternative C would further support the “declining” forestwide habitat trend with the “stable” 

forestwide population trend remaining unchanged. Due to only 5.8 percent of the available 

forestwide habitat occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat 

would not be large enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be 

consistent with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Abert’s Squirrel

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, Abert’s squirrel are used as an indicator species for “mid-successional” forests of 

ponderosa pine (USDA 1987a). Based on the information currently available, there appears to be 

an overall upward trend in late succession and mature ponderosa pine habitat. 

Wildfires have been the main disturbance regime influencing the age structure and successional 

stage of forests within the ASNFs since 2005. Since that time, approximately 650,000 acres have 

burned with the most recent Wallow Fire affecting over 500,000 acres. In contrast, forest 

treatments such as salvage operations, group selection, and seed cuts over the past 3 decades 

account for approximately 300,000 acres.

Current forest conditions based on GIS data provided by the ASNFs indicate that primary cover 

types required for squirrel viability have persisted despite landscape-scale disturbance within the 

forest (i.e., Wallow Fire). Approximately 282,030 acres of ponderosa pine forest have been 

mapped and are expected to continue to support squirrel populations into the future if managed to 

maintain interlocking canopies and old growth conditions across 24–42 percent of the landscape. 

Although there is a general lack of consistent monitoring data for Abert’s squirrels across the 

ASNFs, it appears that recent large-scale wildfires that impacted interlocking canopies and old 

growth conditions, relatively low densities of squirrels, and an overall upward trend in late 

succession and mature ponderosa pine habitat in areas outside the Wallow Fire indicate that 

habitat trends forestwide are fairly stable.

Forestwide Population Trend

Partridge and Ingraldi (2007) examined Abert’s squirrel density between 2004 and 2007 using 

feed sign indices (Dodd et al., 1998) from three sites within the ASNFs’ Lakeside Ranger District. 

Abert’s squirrel density was low across sites (range: 0.01–0.21 squirrels/ha). While mean density 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 159

varied among the three sites, overall low density estimates precluded the detection of a population 

trend. These population estimates on the Lakeside Ranger District are substantially lower than 

those from other sites in Arizona (Dodd et al., 2006). In the Coconino National Forest (1999–

2002), for example, Dodd et al. (2006) obtained estimates of 0.42 (±0.02) squirrels/ha on highquality plots and 0.16 (±0.01) squirrels/ha on low-quality plots.

Populations seem to fluctuate widely over time, caused by the amount of overwinter mortality, 

which is likely related to that fall’s cone crop. Brown (1984) reported densities of 15–30 per 

square mile (about 2 to 5 per 100 acres). Hoffmeister (1986) reported density ranged from a low 

of 1–2 per 100 acres in 1954 up to 12 per 100 acres in 1941 in an area near Flagstaff. Currently, 

Abert’s squirrel populations in the forests are considered to be stable and likely somewhat below 

potential (ASNFs 2012).

The project area contains approximately 24,829 of suitable Abert’s squirrel habitat. Acres of VSS 

3 and VSS 4 exceed desired levels while the percentages of VSS 5 and VSS 6 are below desired 

levels.

Alternative A

Alternative A would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used 

by Abert’s squirrel. By not thinning out high-density stands, tree growth rates would decline 

compared with alternatives B or C. Creation of uneven-aged stands would not occur. The 

desirable large tree groupings in high VSS classes (>20 VSS 5 and VSS 6 trees per acre) with 

interlocking crown would not be attained under this alternative. This alternative would not reduce 

the potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire in the project area that currently poses a 

threat to Abert’s squirrel habitat.

Alternative A would not alter Abert’s squirrel “stable to decling” forestwide habitat trend or the 

“stable” forestwide population trend. Implementation of this alternative would not be consistent 

with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Abert’s squirrel habitat would be improved as stand treatments develop better northern goshawk 

habitat. Reynolds et al. (1992) identified Abert’s squirrel as an important goshawk prey species 

for northern goshawk and recommended large tree retention and management for interlocking

crowns to improve habitat for this species. Applying these management principles to the project 

area is expected to improve the quality of Abert’s squirrel habitat in the long term. 

Disruption of normal behavioral patterns could occur to Abert’s squirrels during thinning, piling, 

and burning activities. This could result in harm to squirrel nestlings but should be limited in 

scope, as the project area would be treated incrementally over a 10-year period. Proposed 

treatments may cause visual or auditory disturbance to individual squirrels, although these effects 

would be short term and limited in scope. Smoke effects from broadcast burning should be

transitory in nature and short term. Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would occur 

once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn 

treatments would reoccur.

Alternative B would not alter Abert’s squirrel “stable to declining” forestwide habitat trend or the 

“stable” forestwide population trend. Due to only 3.3 percent of the available forestwide habitat 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

160 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large 

enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with 

forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated in alternative C as in alternative B, similar effects are 

expected as from alternative B. The main difference is that alternative C would leave trees greater 

than 16 inches, in an even-aged arrangement. Large tree retention is favored by Abert’s squirrels 

for nesting and foraging, but the optimum habitat is relatively open stands of ponderosa pine in 

VSS 3 and VSS 4. Overmature ponderosa pine habitat has been described as poor for Abert’s 

squirrels due to poor cone production.

Alternative C would not alter Abert’s squirrel “stable to declining” forestwide habitat trend or the 

“stable” forestwide population trend. Due to only 3.3 percent of the available forestwide habitat 

occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large 

enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with 

forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Red Squirrel

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, red squirrel are used as an indicator species for “late successional mixed conifer 

and spruce forests” (USDA 1987a). Less than 15 percent of the total land cover of the ASNFs

consists of mixed conifer and spruce-fir (Rogers 2003). However, 42 percent of the forest consists 

of ponderosa pine forest which provides additional habitat when they share a habitat edge with 

mixed conifer (Rogers 2003). The dominant mid-seral conditions on the ASNFs primarily relate 

to cumulative effects of historical heavy logging such as the railroad logging early in the 20th 

century and long term fire suppression. Overstory removal prescriptions also contributed to the 

trend toward smaller diameter stands. Over the past 15–20 years, most of the vegetation 

treatments in red squirrel habitat have shifted away from sawtimber and more toward wildlife 

habitat improvement. Vegetation treatments have been consistent with the forest plan, creating 

small openings and retaining large cone producing trees for red squirrel foraging opportunities.

Trees with middens or other obvious signs of squirrel activity have been avoided during 

vegetation treatments even prior to the current forest plan. Older structured stands have been left 

alone in the areas of middens. The untreated stands continue to provide and maintain a closed 

canopy for fungi production and mesic conditions. As a result, the current habitat condition for 

this species is relatively good, with a stable trend.

Fire serves as the main disturbance regime influencing the age structure and successional stage of 

the forests within the ASNFs. Since 2005, approximately 650,000 acres have burned with the 

most recent Wallow Fire affecting 540,979 acres. The Wallow Fire consumed five times the area 

of forest than all other wildfire events since 2005. In contrast, forest treatments such as salvage 

operations, group selection, seed cuts, etc., that favor early successional development have 

decreased since 1985.

Compared with forest management prescriptions, wildfire has much greater potential to create 

early-successional habitats. For example, the Rodeo-Chediski Fire of 2002 burned over 173,000 

acres and converted approximately 55 percent of the burn to early-succession habitat (USDA 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 161

2003). The large scale, high-intensity Wallow Fire is likely to have a similar impact on the 

conversion of late-successional habitats to early-successional habitats that do not favor red 

squirrel populations. 

The current trend in management practices on the forest places more emphasis on thinning and 

prescribed burning, increasing the desired habitat in mixed conifer. Prescribed fire controls dense 

reproduction and improves prey base populations. Thinning in mixed conifer stands that are not 

maturing into large diameter trees would reduce intertree competition for moisture, nutrients, and 

light and stimulate growth of residual trees. Dense stands of trees are prone to catastrophic 

wildfire, which could completely remove red squirrel habitat, affecting local populations. 

Forestwide Population Trend

The increasing conversion of late-successional habitats to early-successional habitats by fire 

would likely impact red squirrel populations negatively. Postfire management has attempted to 

mitigate impacts from the Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow Fires on red squirrel habitat in the ASNFs.

However, there is significant lag time between catastrophic wildfires and the recovery of lateseral stage forests. It is likely that the broad-scale loss of these late-seral stage forests would

negatively impact red squirrel population in the fire affected areas.

Surveys specific to the red squirrel have not been conducted on the ASNFs. Frequent 

observations and the extensive distribution and abundance of mixed conifer and spruce-fir forest 

are indicative the species continues to survive and reproduce successfully across the forest. There 

is no indication or documentation that red squirrels are declining on the Apache-Sitgreaves or in 

the Southwest. Red squirrel habitat on the ASNFs was in good condition and stable prior to the 

large and severe wildfires of 2011. These fires removed large tracks of red squirrel habitat on the 

eastern half of the forest. This temporal habitat loss would likely lead to a short-term decrease in 

red squirrel population densities within the fire affected areas on the ASNFs. Outside of the fire 

affected areas, red squirrel habitat appears to be supporting stable populations of red squirrel and 

viable populations are being sustained. Recolonization of the fire affected areas can be expected 

as the habitat progresses back toward a climax seral stage. Overall the forest is maintaining and/or 

increasing in older seral stage habitats, thus increasing habitat diversity as well as old growth that 

red squirrels are associated with. Future implementation of prescribed burning and thinning

would only continue to improve the squirrel’s habitat.

There are about 8,127 acres of mixed conifer habitat in the project area. The majority of this 

habitat is found in the western portion of the project area. Insect damage is reducing the large live 

tree component in the mixed conifer forest type but at the same time may be creating snags and 

large down logs needed by this species.

Alternative A 

Alternative A would not result in an immediate change to the quantity or quality of habitat used 

by red squirrel. By not thinning out high-density stands, tree growth rates to decline as compared 

under alternative B and C and the uneven-aged stands would not occur. Denser stands would 

improve red squirrel habitats, but the desirable large tree groupings in high VSS classes (4, 5, and 

6) would not be realized. This alternative would not reduce the potential for stand replacing, high 

severity crown fire in the project area that currently poses a threat to red squirrel habitat.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

162 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative A would not alter Abert’s squirrel “declining” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable 

to declining” forestwide population trend. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent 

with forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Treatment in red squirrel habitats would be performed under the MSO forest plan guidelines for 

protected and restricted habitats. The reduction in quality habitat would occur by mechanical 

thinning and broadcast burning of VSS 3 and VSS 4 trees to a more open condition. Canopy 

closures are being reduced in several VSS 3 and 4 mixed conifer stands to help meet the overall 

objective of reducing potential for stand replacing, high severity crown fire in the project area.

Managing for old growth and MSO forest plan guidelines would provide higher basal area, larger 

trees, and interlocked canopies that benefit red squirrel.

Disruption of normal behavioral patterns could occur to red squirrels during thinning, piling, and 

burning activities. This could result in harm to squirrel nestlings but should be limited in scope, as 

the project area would be treated incrementally over a 10-year period. Proposed treatments may 

cause visual or auditory disturbance to individual squirrels, although these effects would be short 

term and limited in scope. Smoke effects from broadcast burning should be transitory in nature 

and short term.

Broadcast burning may consume downed logs and snags. Snags are used by red squirrels as 

nesting habitat and both logs and snags are used to cache pine cones. These losses would likely 

cause affected squirrels to move out of established territories until the following year or expand 

the size of their territories to encompass needed resources. Some squirrel mortality could occur if 

food caches are burned. Koprowski et al. (2006) found that most squirrels did not abandon intact 

middens following wildfire. Those that did likely did so because the canopy above the midden 

was destroyed. It is highly unlikely that low severity broadcast burning would reduce significant 

canopy around existing middens. Maintenance, low severity prescribed burning would occur once 

on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments 

would reoccur. As needed to meet habitat capability, protect red squirrel caches at a density of one 

cache per 2 acres. Retain all trees within a 26-foot radius from the cache to maintain nest tree 

groupings. 

Alternative B would not alter red squirrel “declining” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable to 

declining” forestwide population trend. Due to only 4 percent of the available forestwide habitat 

occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large 

enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with 

forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated in alternative C as in alternative B, most of the effects

described in alternative B would be expected in alternative C as well. Because trees greater than 

16 inches in diameter would be retained in alternative C, fewer trees less than 16 inches would 

remain in red squirrel habitat following treatments in order to meet stand density objectives. This 

would not substantially change the value of the habitat to the squirrel.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 163

Alternative C would not alter red squirrel “declining” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable to 

declining” forestwide population trend. Due to only 4 percent of the available forestwide habitat 

occuring within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large 

enough to alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with 

forest plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Yellow-breasted Chat

The project area contains only scattered cottonwood and box elder trees in Chevelon, Woods, and 

Willow Canyons. There are some areas in these canyons where alder is present as seedlings (0.1–

0.9 inch d.b.h.) or saplings (1.0–4.9 inches d.b.h.). At the stand scale, the riparian trees, and shrub 

species do not comprise the basal area necessary to be identified as a riparian stand, therefore, are 

estimated to be <100 acres total. 

No yellow-breasted chats have been documented on the survey route or within the project area. 

Breeding Bird Atlas surveyors recorded yellow-breasted chats in Chevelon Canyon and East 

Clear Creek several miles north of the Rim Lakes analysis area (Averrill-Murray and Corman 

2005). Yellow-breasted chats have been recorded during district songbird surveys at Chevelon 

Crossing, which is approximately 15 miles north of the analysis area.

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, yellow-breasted chat are used as an indicator species for “low elevation riparian” 

(USDA 1987a). The forest plan EIS lists a total of 10,101 acres of riparian habitat. In the late 

1980s, grazing by livestock and elk negatively impacted riparian areas on the forest (USDA 

Forest Service 1987b). A total of 385 miles of stream were evaluated using the proper functioning 

condition (PFC) method since 1998. Samples of streams using the PFC methodology 

demonstrated that approximately 22 percent are in satisfactory hydrologic condition. About 22

percent of the streams currently are in satisfactory conditions compared to the estimated 28

percent at the time of the forest plan. Based on the information available, riparian habitat quality 

in higher elevation areas is currently fair to poor.

Since inception of the forest plan, actions have been taken to improve riparian conditions. The 

quantity of livestock animal unit months in the forest has been reduced significantly and several 

riparian areas have been excluded from grazing. Some ranger districts have entered into elk 

forage use agreements with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to reduce elk impacts to other 

wildlife habitat. These actions have helped improve riparian conditions in some areas of the 

forests. 

The forest has been involved in a willow recovery program since 1989 in the Springerville

Ranger District. This project has included fencing and monitoring of plant vigor and survival, 

especially with regard to Arizona willow (Salix arizonica) and Bebb’s willow (Salix bebbiana). 

Willows in riparian areas, especially at higher elevations, show severe hedging and lack of 

regeneration due to heavy herbivory by both cattle and elk.

Postfire management has attempted to mitigate impacts from the Rodeo-Chediski and Wallow 

Fires. It is not currently known how much impact the Wallow Fire had on yellow-breasted chats 

in the White Mountains; however, these actions have helped improve riparian conditions in some 

areas of the forests. As this species is a riparian obligate breeder within the ASNFs, trend 

information is very limited. Bird surveys conducted within the forest by Forest Service personnel 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

164 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

since 2007 have not detected this species to date; however, these bird surveys were focused on 

forest treatments and were not conducted in known breeding locations for this species.

Forestwide Population Trend

Arizona BBS data indicate that yellow-breasted chat populations in the state experienced an 

overall slight increase in population levels of 0.31 percent (CI -.84, 1.55) between 1968 and 2010.

This trend estimate is a summary of the population change over the last 44 years, and does not 

provide information on other patterns of population change. Sixteen survey routes were used in 

this analysis, and the relative abundance of yellow-breasted chat observed per route was 2.54.

Recent MIS monitoring efforts in the Black Mesa Ranger District conducted from 2001 to 2005 

support the status of the yellow-breasted chat in the forest. Yellow-breasted chats were seen in 

riparian habitat or a station adjacent to riparian habitat. Observations of this species decreased 

noticeably from 2003 to 2004 in areas of high-burn severity in the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. Chats 

were also recorded recently along riparian areas associated with the Blue and San Francisco 

Rivers, as well as Eagle Creek in the Clifton RD during surveys for southwestern willow 

flycatchers in 2003. 

The yellow-breasted chat is considered a rare summer resident in the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forest by the White Mountain Audubon Society. The Arizona Game and Fish Department 

conducted breeding bird surveys in support of the National Breeding Bird Atlas effort from 1994

to 2000. Five breeding bird survey routes are located in the forest. These routes have been 

surveyed annually since 1992. Chats have been recorded on two of these routes (Sprucedale and 

Forest Lakes). However, this trend information should be interpreted with caution due to a very 

small sample size. 

Bird survey data from the forest’s ranger districts did not detect this species during their surveys 

(2008–2011). However, considering the continuing occurrence of yellow-breasted chats 

throughout preferred habitats in the forest, habitat trends for low elevation riparian habitat in the 

forest, and the overall population trend across Arizona, it appears that the forest may support well 

distributed, reproducing populations of this species. Currently, yellow-breasted chat populations 

in the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are considered to be stable, but likely lower than 

potential.

Alternative A

Alternative A would not improve yellow-breasted chat habitat within the analysis area. No tree 

thinning would occur, and conifer densities in Woods and Willow Canyons would remain at 

current conditions or increase. Cottonwoods and willows would not regenerate and develop into 

the deciduous riparian gallery forest yellow-breasted chats prefer.

Alternative A would not likely change the “upward” forestwide habitat trend or “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest 

plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Thinning and burning treatments would result in fewer trees on upland areas, which would 

decrease overall transpiration and potentially release water resources into streams. Limited 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 165

thinning would occur in the headwaters of Woods and Willow Canyons, which may encourage 

cottonwood and willow regeneration in these areas. Riparian habitat would likely improve 

slightly but probably not enough to attract yellow-breasted chats to the project area. Other factors, 

such as stream gradient, may inhibit the development of suitable yellow-breasted chat habitat in 

the project area.

Short-term disturbance to yellow-breasted chat by treatment activities would temporarily displace 

and alter foraging, loafing, roosting, nesting habitat, and territory. Timing restrictions for 

treatment activities within MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb yellowbreasted chat during the breeding season. The project area would be treated in phases over time 

and would not occur over the project area at the same time. Yellow-breasted chat would only 

experience activity-related disturbance in portions of the project area at one time. Maintenance,

low severity prescribed burning would occur once on ponderosa pine forest types, so impacts 

associated with the initial prescribed burn treatments would reoccur.

Alternative B would not likely change the “stable” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Due to <0.9 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with Forest Plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated in alternative C as in alternative B, similar effects would

be expected as found with alternative B.

Alternative C would not likely change the “stable” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Due to <0.9 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Cinnamon Teal

There are three lakes within the project area identified in the Forest Plan as “Water,” or MA-11.

Bear Canyon, Woods, and Willow Springs Lakes provide approximately 286 acres of habitat to 

cinnamon teal. Several seasonal wetlands, or cienagas, permanent pools in some of the canyons,

and developed earthen tanks are also available to cinnamon teal. Some of these areas may provide 

suitable nesting habitat, but most of the cienagas are dependent upon monsoons to provide for 

good brood-rearing habitat, therefore, 310 acres are considered potential habitat for cinnamon 

teal.

No cinnamon teal have been observed on the survey route but they have been seen on other areas 

of the Black Mesa Ranger District.

Forestwide Habitat Trend

In the ASNFs, cinnamon teal are used as an indicator species for “wetlands” (USDA 1987a).

There are approximately 996 miles of perennial streams and about 3,771 acres of open water, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

166 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

with an estimated 29,430 acres of riparian/wetland ecosystems associated with these surface 

waters.

Drought conditions exhibited on the forests during the past few years may result in the loss or 

reduction of wetland habitat at many of the spring-fed wetlands (e.g. Sierra Blanca Reservoir) or 

larger manmade lakes with broad, shallow wetland zones (e.g. Luna Lake or Nelson Reservoir).

Many of the larger deep lakes (e.g., Willow Springs Lake, Black Canyon Lake, Chevelon Canyon 

Lake) on the forest generally lack the shallow wetland habitats conducive to cinnamon teal 

nesting, but do provide temporary habitat for migrating birds.

Breeding bird survey data for the cinnamon teal in Arizona show a nonsignificant declining 

population trend from 2000 to 2010. These analyses suffer from many significant deficiencies, 

not the least of which is low sample size (only nine routes detected statewide; Sauer et al., 2011).

The recent removal of livestock grazing on parts of the Alpine and Springerville Ranger Districts 

may have increased the wetland habitat capability for nesting teal. However, approximately 597 

miles of perennial stream was impacted by the Wallow Fire since 2011. These effects include 

scouring and siltation of riparian vegetation (USFS 2011), thereby negating any livestock removal 

benefits to riparian habitat.

Forestwide Population Trend

Cinnamon teal are a harvested game species that is regulated by both the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Harvest data trends can be used as a 

reflection in the overall population trends for a species. The harvest estimates for cinnamon teal 

(which is combined with the morphologically similar blue-winged teal) shows a decreasing trend 

from 2007 to 2010. With no standardized monitoring data of cinnamon teal on the forest to draw

upon, and limited monitoring data available statewide, teal population trends on the forest are 

most likely reflecting the larger state trend; stable to potentially negative trend due to impacts of 

recent large scale forest fires, livestock grazing, recreation, and continued drought. 

Alternative A

Wetlands and lakes used by cinnamon teal would change very little from current conditions. 

Acres and quality of habitat may experience only minor changes as forest succession progresses. 

Seasonal wetlands may dry up sooner if denser forests increase transpiration rates. This could 

affect cinnamon teal nesting success if wetlands dry before young are able to move to more 

permanent water.

Alternative A would not likely change the “upward” forestwide habitat trend or “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest 

plan goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative B

Thinning and prescribed burning treatments proposed in alternative B would reduce the density of 

conifers around wetlands and lakes and remove most encroaching conifer trees from wetland 

perimeters. Fewer conifers could result in more water being available to supply wetland and lake 

habitat. In wetland habitat, this may extend the period suitable habitat is available to cinnamon 

teal. Some short-term disturbance by thinning and prescribed burning may cause cinnamon teal to 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 167

avoid certain areas until the activity is completed. Upland nesting conditions may improve in 

treated areas with increased herbaceous cover and vigor.

Short-term disturbance to cinnamon teal by treatment activities would temporarily displace and 

alter foraging, loafing, and nesting habitat. Timing restrictions for treatment activities within 

MSO PACs and northern goshawk PFAs would not disturb cinnamon teal (if present) during the 

breeding season. The project area would be treated in phases over time and would not occur over 

the project area at the same time. Cinnamon teal would only experience activity-related 

disturbance in portions of the project area at one time.

Alternative B would not likely change the “upward” forestwide habitat trend or “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Due to only 7.7 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project area, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Alternative C

Since the same stands would be treated in alternative C as in alternative B, similar effects are 

expected. Since trees greater than 16 inches would not be removed under this alternative, more 

conifers could be retained around meadow perimeters that provide for a future seed source.

Overall basal area values are similar to alternative B post treatment so potential water release is 

similar under alternative C.

Alternative C would not likely change the “upward” forestwide habitat trend or the “stable” 

forestwide population trends. Due to only 7.7 percent of the available forestwide habitat occuring 

within the project acrea, changes in the quantity or quality of habitat would not be large enough to 

alter forestwide trends. Implementation of this alternative would be consistent with forest plan 

goals and objectives for this species and their associated habitat types.

Cumulative Effects for MIS Species – Alternatives B and C 

Development of private lands in Forest Lakes Estates is expected to continue. Both elk and mule 

deer may also alter their behavior and foraging area due to development and disturbance.

Continued development of these properties may make them less suitable for MIS; however, the 

loss of habitat in these private land parcels is negligible when compared to the amount of 

available habitat on surrounding national forest lands.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act

Summary

The analysis identified species representing habitat types found in the planning area. For most of 

these species, the action alternatives expect short-term noise and smoke disturbance to occur 

during thinning and broadcast burning operations. Unintentional take of nestlings is possible 

during spring and summer thinning/piling and snag removal activities. No adverse affects are 

expected.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

168 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Details

Migratory Bird Treaty Act (as amended 1998) implements Conventions between the United States 

and four neighboring countries (Canada, Mexico, Japan, and Russia) for the protection of 

migratory birds and has specific provisions in the statute that includes: Establishment of a 

Federal prohibition, unless permitted by regulations, to “pursue, hunt, take, capture, kill, attempt 

to take, capture or kill, possess, offer for sale, sell, offer to purchase, purchase, deliver for 

shipment, ship, cause to be shipped, deliver for transportation, transport, cause to be transported, 

carry, or cause to be carried by any means whatever, receive for shipment, transportation or 

carriage, or export, at any time, or in any manner, any migratory bird, included in the terms of 

this Convention . . . for the protection of migratory birds . . . or any part, nest, or egg of any such 

bird.” (16 U.S.C. 703).

Species of Concern

Arizona State Partners in Flight lists priority species of concern by vegetation type. Table 73

displays the species that may occur in or near the project area by vegetation type and the possible 

disturbance effects by mechanical treatments (see wildlife specialist report (Brown 2011) for 

those that do not occur).

Table 73. Migratory bird impacts and disturbance effects

Vegetation 

Type Species Habitat Project AreaImpacts

Disturbance Effects to 

Species under 

Alternatives B, C

Mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, 

ponderosa 

pine/gambel oak

Northern 

goshawk1

Addressed in 

sensitive 

species 

biological 

evaluation 

(BE)

Addressed in sensitive 

species BE and in TES 

section of wildlife 

specialist report. 

Addressed in sensitive 

species BE and in TES 

section of wildlife specialist 

report.

Mixed conifer, 

ponderosa 

pine/gambel oak

Mexican 

spotted owl1

Addressed in 

T&E species 

biological 

assessment/

evaluation 

(BA/E)

Addressed in T&E 

species BAE and in 

TES section of wildlife 

specialist report.

Addressed in T&E species 

BAE and in TES section of 

wildlife specialist report.

Mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, 

piñon-juniper

Peregrine 

falcon 2

Addressed in 

sensitive 

species BE

Addressed in sensitive 

species BE and in TES 

section of wildlife 

specialist report.

Addressed in sensitive 

species BE and in TES 

section of wildlife specialist 

report.

Mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, 

piñon-juniper, 

deserts, 

grasslands, 

tundra

Golden 

eagle 2

Elevated nest 

sites in cliffs or 

large tree 

isolated from 

human 

disturbance.4

Suitable cliff habitat 

exists along the 

Mogollon Rim 

adjacent to the project 

area. No nests have 

been detected within 

the analysis area.

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance to foraging 

eagles possible during 

thinning and broadcast

burning operations. No 

adverse affects expected.

Mixed conifer, 

ponderosa pine, 

piñon-juniper, 

deserts, prairies

Prairie falcon 

2

Cliffs4 Marginal cliff habitat 

or elevated areas 

within project area.

Nearest suitable cliffs 

are 11⁄2 miles from 

project boundary.

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance to foraging 

prairie falcons possible 

during thinning and 

prescribed burning 

operations. No adverse 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 169

Vegetation 

Type Species Habitat Project AreaImpacts

Disturbance Effects to 

Species under 

Alternatives B, C

affects expected.

Ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, 

maple, oak, 

aspen

Cordilleran 

flycatcher1 

Dense canopy, 

mid- to latesuccession 

forests, snags.3

No treatments of oak 

or maple trees.

Ponderosa pine and 

Douglas-fir would be 

thinned according to 

the MSO forest plan 

guidelines. Snags and 

logs would be 

removed in landings, 

but snags would be 

retained and recruited 

within the project area

at forest plan 

guidelines.

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance possible during 

thinning and broadcast 

burning operations.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer 

thinning/piling and 

broadcast burning activities.

Fewer snags would be 

available for nesting. No 

adverse affects expected.

Ponderosa pine Purple martin1 Large snags in 

or near open 

areas usually 

near water. 

Species 

documented 

near WUI. 3

Snags and logs would 

be removed in log 

landings. Trees won’t 

be cut within a 100-

foot buffer around 

stock tanks. 

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance possible during 

thinning and broadcast 

burning operations.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer 

thinning/piling and snag 

removal activities. No 

adverse affects expected.

Ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, 

piñon-juniper

Flammulated 

owl2

Forests with 

some 

undergrowth or 

inter-mixture 

of oaks. Nests 

in aspen, oak, 

pine cavities. 4

Live Gambel oaks 

would not be thinned 

and may increase 

when pine competition 

is removed. Snags and 

logs would be 

removed in log 

landings. Snags would 

be retained within the

project area at forest 

plan guidelines.

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance possible. Live 

Gambel oak cavity nest 

trees would not be affected 

by proposed action.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible if snag 

removal occurs during 

spring and summer. No 

adverse affects expected.

Ponderosa pine, 

burned stands of 

Douglas-fir, 

mixed conifer, 

piñon-juniper

Lewis’ 

woodpecker2

Dead 

ponderosa pine 

or cottonwood 

trees or tall 

stumps for 

cavity nests. 4

Snags and logs would

be removed in log 

landings. Snags would 

be retained within the 

project area at forest 

plan guidelines. More 

open understory would

promote insect prey. 

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance possible.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible if snag 

removal or broadcast

burning occurs during 

spring and summer. No 

adverse affects expected.

Mixed coniferhardwood 

forests including

ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, and 

aspen

Williamson’s 

sapsucker2

Dead or live 

trees infected 

with Fomes 

fungus. 4

Treatments to benefit 

aspen regeneration.

Mixed conifer would 

be treated according to 

the MSO forest plan 

guidelines. Snags and 

logs would be 

removed in landings, 

but snags would be 

retained and recruited 

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance possible.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer 

thinning/piling and snag 

removal activities. No 

adverse affects expected.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

170 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Vegetation 

Type Species Habitat Project AreaImpacts

Disturbance Effects to 

Species under 

Alternatives B, C

within the project area 

at forest plan 

guidelines.

Aspen, mixed 

conifer 

(Douglas-fir, 

ponderosa pine)

Red-naped 

sapsucker1

Groups of large 

aspen, dead or 

live trees with 

heartrot.3

Addressed in MIS 

section of wildlife 

specialist report.

Addressed in MIS section 

of wildlife specialist report.

Ponderosa pine, 

piñon-juniper

Virginia’s 

warbler2

Scrubby brush 

interspersed 

with piñonjuniper or 

ponderosa 

pine. Nests on 

ground. 4

Thinning would

promote growth of 

shrubby understory,

but piling and burning 

could set back 

understory habitat in 

the short term.

Short-term noise 

disturbance possible.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer 

broadcast burning and 

thinning/piling activities.

Ponderosa pine Grace’s 

warbler 2

Pine forests 

approximately 

7,000 feet in 

elevation. 

Nests in pine 

trees up to 60

feet above the 

ground.4

Thinning of ponderosa 

pine trees from 

approximately 24,829

acres.

Short-term noise 

disturbance possible.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer thinning 

and broadcast burning 

activities.

Sycamore, 

cottonwood 

(mature)

Common 

black-hawk1

Gallery 

riparian tree for 

nesting.3

Some mature 

cottonwood present, 

no riparian galleries.

Thinning of conifers 

adjacent to riparian 

areas with less than 40

percent slope.

Short-term noise and smoke 

disturbance to foraging 

black-hawks possible 

during thinning and 

prescribed burning 

operations. Minimal 

changes to common blackhawk habitat would occur. 

No adverse affects 

expected. 

Box elder, 

tamarisk, 

willow, Russian 

olive, alder

Southwestern 

willow 

flycatcher1

Dense, 

midstory and 

understory.

Almost always 

associated with 

surface water.3

Limited dense 

midstory habitat 

present in project area.

Surface water is 

limited in areas with 

box elder and alder.

No adverse affects 

expected.

Ribes species, 

willow, Gambel

oak, snowberry,

and maple 

thickets

MacGillivrays 

warbler1

Prefers dense, 

moist, brushy 

habitat. Nests 

in dense 

shrubbery close 

to ground.3

Broadcast burning 

could set back 

understory habitat in 

the short term but may 

promote long-term 

production of Ribes 

species, Gambel oak,

and maple.

Short-term noise 

disturbance possible.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer thinning 

and broadcast burning 

activities.

Maple, oak, 

sycamore, 

willow (and 

associated 

conifers –

Engelmann 

Red-faced 

warbler1

Steep, sloping 

canyons.

Ground nester. 

3

No treatments on 

slopes greater than 40

percent. Thinning of 

conifers adjacent to 

riparian areas with less 

Short-term noise 

disturbance possible.

Unintentional take of 

nestlings possible during 

spring and summer 

broadcast burning activities. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 171

Vegetation 

Type Species Habitat Project AreaImpacts

Disturbance Effects to 

Species under 

Alternatives B, C

spruce, Douglasfir, and 

ponderosa pine)

than 40 percent slope. Minimal changes to redfaced warbler habitat would 

occur. No adverse effects 

expected. 

1 Priority bird species identified in Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan.

2 Species on the “Birds of Conservation Concern – 2002” list for BCR 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau), issued 

by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

3 Habitat requirements taken from Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan.

4 Habitat requirements taken from DeGraaf et al. 1991.

Big Game Forage to Cover Ratio

The big game habitat changes caused by the alternatives are found under the “Elk and Mule 

Deer” section (page 140).

Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

As described in this section, the amendment proposed as part of alternative B would have

beneficial effects to the long-term condition of the wildlife habitat in the project area.

Effects of alternative C, which allows for the even-aged emphasis, are also described in this 

section. In summary, this amendment would result in a less resilient forest that is more prone to 

insect/disease as well as uncharacteristic fire. Stands would be less open, providing less 

herbaceous ground cover for a shorter period of time. This places much of the project area’s 

wildlife habitat at risk of the effects of fire within 10 to 15 years of treatment.

Aquatics Species

This section summarizes the key conclusions and effects from the aquatics specialist report 

(McMillan 2011) which is located in the project record and the forests’ Web site. See the report 

for more information on law, regulation, policy, methodology, surveys, descriptions, etc. 

For direct and indirect effects to aquatic species and habitats, the analysis includes all of the 

actual project area and 15 miles downstream from the project boundary, along project area 

drainages. For cumulative effects to species and habitats, the analysis area includes all 6th HUC 

watersheds (see the “Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds” section page 

192). The analysis area includes all areas where project-related effects to aquatic threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive (TES) species and aquatic management indicator species (MIS) or 

occupied/potential habitats could occur. Beyond this area, potential impacts from the proposed 

activities that could affect the species or its habitat would be unlikely and so are not considered.

A description of the affected environment is located in the “Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, 

Riparian, Noxious Weeds” section (page 192), as well as impacts expected to water quality, which 

is closely related to the effects to aquatic species impacts.

The following description of effects of alternatives applies to all aquatic species, with specific 

discussion for each species following.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

172 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

General Aquatic Species Effects

Alternative A

For aquatic species being analyzed, indirect sedimentation effects to suitable and potential 

habitats would not occur under this alternative because the proposed actions would not take place

so that these effects would be avoided. In the long term (5+ years after treatment), alternative A 

would not reduce fire hazard. An elevated risk to aquatic species would remain as the existing 

FRCC 3 remains for 100 percent of the project area. Retention of FRCC 3 maintains a high fire 

threat to the project area. Potential wildfire effects on aquatic habitats include altering water 

quality through short-term inputs of sediment and ash as surface runoff increases, post fire.

Increased runoff can also affect stream morphology and habitat by unnaturally elevating peak 

runoffs that may excessively scour and disconnect channels from flood plains.

Retention of FRCC 3 keeps the fire hazard threat high in the project area. Wildfire effects on 

aquatic habitats include altering water quality through short-term inputs of sediment and ash as

surface runoff increases, post fire. Increased runoff can also affect stream morphology by 

unnaturally elevating peak runoffs that may excessively scour and abruptly reshape channels.

Because attaining FRCC 1 ratings is desired for the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation 

types in the project area to maintain fire regimes within historical range and diminish fire 

severity, this alternative is the least desirable as compared to alternatives B and C, in limiting 

potential for unnaturally intense wildfire.

Alternative B

Indirect sediment effects to suitable and potential habitats, including Willow and Chevelon 

Creeks could occur but these effects should be minimal and primarily short term. Habitats may be 

indirectly affected by elevated sediment delivery from increased surface erosion generated by 

ground-disturbing activities such as road maintenance and reconstruction, mechanical harvesting 

activities, pile burning and broadcast burning throughout the Upper Willow Creek/Gentry and 

Chevelon Creek Headwaters watersheds. Mitigation measures including best management 

practices for road building and mechanical harvest are included in the alternative to minimize 

these impacts.

Without mitigation measures, these activities could indirectly affect aquatic habitat through 

increased sediment delivery, which would add to existing substrate embeddedness and increase 

stream temperatures. The majority of stream reaches sampled fall within the desired rating of less 

than 20 percent substrate embeddedness, although reaches immediately below the reservoirs are 

elevated at 52–60 percent. High embeddedness levels immediately below the lakes would be 

expected given the documented influence of reservoir dams on the diminished ability of streams 

to distribute their sediment load in a natural manner.

An important habitat component for aquatic species includes an ample food supply. Since many

species are dependent upon aquatic macroinvertebrates for a major portion of their diet, potential 

effects are relevant to these habitats. Aquatic macroinvertebrates would be indirectly affected by 

project activities that result in increased sediment loading within their habitats. Increased 

sediment deposition would likely alter aquatic macroinvertebrate production, although not 

significantly.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 173

Riparian condition—which includes streambank soil and vegetative stability—should not be 

significantly affected with implementation of the proposed action. Best management practices, 

including streamside management zone (SMZ) guidelines, would be implemented to retain the 

integrity of riparian habitats in the Willow and Chevelon Creek drainages as sediment buffer 

zones.

Since Willow Creek and Chevelon Creek and their tributaries have been given some of the most 

restrictive SMZ classifications in order to protect downstream aquatic habitat, sedimentation 

effects will be minimized to the greatest extent possible while still allowing the watersheds to be 

treated. The effectiveness of these buffer strips would be enhanced with the staging of timber 

treatments and prescribed burns in multiple year phases.

It is unlikely that changes in water quality, including temperature, would occur with the 

implementation of the proposed action. Available stream temperature data, taken from perennial 

streams such as Woods Canyon, Willow Springs Canyon, and Chevelon Canyon, indicate that 

stream temperatures appear to be within forest plan standards of ≤ 68 °F and less than the 88.7  ̊F 

maximum temperature tolerated by some species of concern (e.g. Chiricahua leopard frog

embryos). Implementation of SMZ restrictions, designed to protect streams and provide for 

retention of existing riparian cover in perennial drainages, should prevent any measurable 

deterioration of water temperatures in the perennial systems. 

There may be indirect short-term impacts from increased sediment movement into streams.

However, many aquatic species adapted to the project area are tolerant to a variety of habitat 

conditions and these impacts would be of short duration (within 1–2 years after treatment 

completed) and are not likely to modify potential or suitable habitats to the degree that habitats 

are no longer suitable or potentially suitable.

Sedimentation effects are expected to occur for up to 2 years following mechanical treatments for 

each area treated and after prescribed burning treatments. Since project activities would likely 

take over a decade or more to complete, and the treatment areas would be spread out over the 

watersheds in smaller treatment blocks, the effects would be lessened as compared to all 

treatments occurring within a shorter time period.

Additionally, BMPs address retention of SMZs to act as filters for upland sediment and ash and 

should minimize impacts to aquatic habitat. Any short-term or long-term increases in sediment 

delivery to streams would not prevent future reintroduction of species such as the spinedace into 

Willow and Chevelon Creeks.

In the long term (5+ years after treatment), this project would be beneficial to aquatic species

with the reduction in fire hazard, resulting in decreased risk to the species from unnatural fire 

effects in the watershed. This alternative moves the FRCC rating to 54 percent FRCC 1. Fuel 

reduction treatments which lower the FRCC rating to class 1 would benefit all aquatic species and 

their habitats in the analysis area, as the chances for severe wildfires are decreased in those areas.

Wildfire effects on aquatic habitats include altering water quality through short-term inputs of 

sediment and ash as surface runoff increases, post fire. Increased runoff can also affect stream 

morphology by unnaturally elevating peak runoffs that may excessively scour and abruptly 

reshape channels. Since attaining FRCC 1 ratings are desired for the ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer vegetation types in the project area to maintain fire regimes within historical range and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

174 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

diminish fire severity, this alternative is more desirable than alternatives A and C in limiting 

potential for unnaturally intense wildfire.

Alternative C 

The direct and indirect effects to aquatic species described for alternative B are also applicable to 

Alternative C with one exception. 

In the long term (5+ years after treatment), this project would be beneficial to aquatic species

with the reduction in fire hazard, resulting in decreased risk to the species from unnatural fire 

effects in the watershed. This alternative moves the FRCC rating to 14 percent FRCC 1. This 

alternative is more desirable than alternative A in limiting potential for unnaturally intense 

wildfire, but less desirable than alternative B which moves the area to 54 percent FRCC class 1.

Cumulative Effects to Aquatic Species

Alternative A

Since there are no direct/indirect effects from alternative A, there would be no cumulative effects 

from this “no action” alternative.

Alternatives B/C

The EDA (see page 206) calculated in Upper Willow Creek is 10.5 percent post treatment (see 

“Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds” section, page 192), which is below 

the level of concern of 15 percent. The Upper Chevelon Creek Headwaters post treatment EDA is 

16.7 percent. The EDA effects analysis assumed that all treatments would occur in 1 year, and 

these percentages reflect that assumption. In actuality, treatments including thinning and burning 

and other associated disturbance activities such as road reconstruction would occur over a 10-year 

period, and EDA levels are expected to be less than described in the analysis.

Furthermore, the “Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds” section indicates

that site-specific BMPs, which include staging of treatments combined with treatment 

refinements, would result in an EDA below 15 percent for the Upper Chevelon Creek 

Headwaters.

Cumulative effects on aquatic species suitable habitats from increased sedimentation resulting 

from the proposed action when combined with the ongoing grazing and recreation activities 

combined with activities considered in the EDA analysis, are not likely to drastically diminish the 

suitability or potential suitability of habitats in the analysis area.

Most of the livestock allotments in the analysis area have been analyzed within the past 15 years,

and necessary adjustments were made to meet management objectives as stated in the ApacheSitgreaves forest plan including management concerns for TES species. Livestock numbers were 

reduced to allotment capacity, allowable use standards were implemented to meet the 

physiological needs of range plants, and range improvement structures were developed to better 

distribute livestock across the allotments. Current management of these allotments further reduces 

impacts to aquatic species and their habitats from previous management practices.

Cumulative effects are not likely to drastically diminish the suitability or potential suitability of 

habitats in the analysis area for aquatic species potential and suitable habitats. Greatest potential 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 175

is from increased sedimentation resulting from the proposed action when combined with the 

ongoing grazing and recreation activities combined with activities considered in the EDA 

analysis. Over both the short term (<5 years after treatment) and long term (5+ years after 

treatment), above natural levels of sedimentation would likely occur with implementation of the 

proposed action or alternatives. Ongoing ground-disturbing actions would continue, as well as 

those additional past and future foreseeable activities evaluated in the EDA analysis. However, as 

mitigated, these combined actions would not result in losses of species or habitats for species as 

described in the following sections.

Federally Listed Aquatic Species

A list of endangered, threatened, and proposed species was compiled by the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests with concurrence by the Phoenix Endangered Species Office of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. The USFWS approved species list for the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests was reviewed for endangered, threatened, and proposed aquatic species and their critical 

habitat that may occur in the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project area.

The threatened (T) aquatic species described below in table 74 may occur or have potential 

habitat within the analysis area. None of the species described below are known to occur in the 

project area.

Table 74. Aquatic species designated as threatened 

Common 

Name Scientific Status

Critical 

Habitat 

Designated?

Critical 

Habitat in 

AA?

Species 

Known to 

Occur 

Historically?

Species 

Known to 

Occur 

Currently?

Suitable 

or 

Potential 

Habitat 

in AA?

Little 

Colorado 

spinedace

Lepidomeda 

vittata

T1 Yes No Yes No Yes

Chiricahua 

leopard frog

Lithobates 

chiricahuensis

T No2 No Yes No Yes

1Based on a 5-year review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Little Colorado spinedace is recommended for 

reclassifying to endangered status primarily due to dewatering of habitat and interactions with nonnative fish and

crayfish (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2008).

2 The USFWS proposed critical habitat designation for the Chiricahua leopard frog on March 15, 2011 (U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 2011).

Little Colorado Spinedace 

This species is not present in the project area but may be present in downstream habitats. 

Potential/suitable habitat is present in the analysis area.

The Little Colorado spinedace historically occurred throughout the upper portions of the Little 

Colorado River drainage, but is now found only in portions of East Clear, Chevelon, Silver, and 

Nutrioso Creeks and the Little Colorado River in Coconino, Navajo, and Apache Counties, 

Arizona. The closest spinedace population is in Chevelon Creek, below Chevelon Canyon Lake, 

68 river miles from the project boundary, near the confluence of Rock Tank Canyon (Lopez et al.,

1998b). Critical habitat has been designated in East Clear Creek, Chevelon Creek, and Nutrioso 

Creek. The nearest critical habitat is in Chevelon Creek, approximately 74 miles from the project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

176 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

boundary beginning in the section of stream at Bell Cow Canyon confluence, downstream to the 

confluence with the Little Colorado River. Lands in this area are privately owned, with the 

exception of a small portion, which is owned by Arizona Game and Fish Department (U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1987).

Within the analysis area, the species was historically found in Willow Creek, approximately 2.5 

miles downstream from the project area. For the purposes of this analysis, it would be assumed 

that the likelihood of species presence in its historic habitat within Willow Creek is low given the 

lack of documentation since the 1960s, and Willow Creek will be considered to be suitable or 

potential habitat.

With the goal of protecting existing spinedace populations, the “Little Colorado Spinedace 

Recovery Plan” (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998) identifies upper Chevelon Creek, above 

Chevelon Canyon Lake, as a refugia site to be considered for spinedace recovery. The section of 

Chevelon Creek described above as a possible refugia site for spinedace occurs approximately 15 

miles below the project boundary and is considered to be suitable or potential habitat.

Environmental Effects

Alternative A

There would be no direct effects to the species with implementation of this alternative since the 

species is not present in the project area.

The forest plan directs that the forest improve habitats for listed threatened, endangered, or 

sensitive species of plants and animals, and to work toward the recovery and declassification of 

species. This alternative does not increase fire resiliency of watersheds containing Little Colorado 

spinedace suitable and potential habitat, leaving these habitats vulnerable to degradation from 

potential wildfire effects. 

Alternatives B/C

There would be no direct effects to the species with implementation of either alternative since the 

species is not present in the project area.

Effects are described in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section, page 171.

Cumulative Effects to Potential and Suitable Habitats

With alternative A, since there are no direct/indirect effects from alternative A, there would be no 

cumulative effects from this “no action” alternative. For alternatives B and C, although the 

species is likely not present in the analysis area, Willow Creek is a likely reintroduction site for 

spinedace, 12 miles below the project boundary. Arizona Game and Fish Department is planning 

for Willow Creek spinedace reintroduction within the next few years (Mike Lopez, AGFD, 

personal communication 2011).

Potential or suitable habitats for Little Colorado spinedace are present in the analysis area and are 

affected by past, present or future foreseeable management activities or natural events that have 

occurred, or are currently occurring in the analysis area. Watersheds in the project area that 

encompass stream habitats identified as possible future reintroduction sites include Upper Willow 

Creek and Chevelon Creek Headwaters.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 177

Timing of treatments would serve to keep the EDA within levels to avoid concerns.

Cumulative effects are the same for Little Colorado spinedace as described in the “General 

Aquatic Species Effects” section, page 171.

Spinedace, if reintroduced in the next few years, should be able to utilize the habitats in the 

analysis area. Most of the livestock allotments in the analysis area have been analyzed within the 

past 15 years and necessary adjustments were made to meet management objectives as stated in 

the Apache-Sitgreaves forest plan including management concerns for TES species. Livestock 

numbers were reduced to allotment capacity, allowable use standards were implemented to meet 

the physiological needs of range plants, and range improvement structures were developed to 

better distribute livestock across the allotments. Current management of these allotments further 

reduces impacts to aquatic species and their habitats from previous management practices.

Determination of Effects

Alternative A

Based on the above discussion, lack of occupied habitat in the project area and considering past, 

present, and future foreseeable impacts, alternative A would not affect Little Colorado spinedace.

There would be no effect to designated critical habitat.

Alternatives B/C

Based on the above discussion, alternative B or C may affect, but are not likely to adversely affect 

Little Colorado Spinedace. There would be no effect to designated critical habitat.

Chiricahua Leopard Frog 

This species is not present in the analysis area but potential/suitable habitat is present. Critical 

habitat has been proposed.

The Chiricahua leopard frog is considered to have been extirpated from the Little Colorado River 

watershed (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2002) but at one time existed in Chevelon, Leonard, 

and Clear Creeks. All three historic locations are outside the analysis area for this project. All of 

the extant populations described in the specialist report are not in the analysis area and are in 6th

HUC watersheds not affected by Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project, although the historic 

habitat in Tonto Creek is in the analysis area.

The closest proposed critical habitat also occurs in Cherry, Crouch, and Ellison Creeks and the 

Buckskin Hills area. All of the extant populations and proposed critical habitats described above 

are not in the analysis area.

Based upon the criteria described in the specialist report, the surveys conducted to date, the 

stocking of nonnative sport fish, and the observed crayfish numbers, the lake habitat that occurs 

in the project area is not likely to be occupied.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

178 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative A

There would be no direct effects to the species with implementation of this alternative since the 

species is not present in the project area. Indirect sediment effects to suitable and potential 

habitats would not occur under this alternative.

The forest plan directs that we improve habitats for listed threatened, endangered, or sensitive 

species of plants and animals, and to work toward the recovery and declassification of species. 

This alternative does not increase fire resiliency of watersheds containing Chiricahua leopard frog 

suitable and potential habitat, leaving these habitats vulnerable to degradation from potential 

wildfire effects. 

Alternatives B/C

There would be no direct effects to the species with implementation of either alternative since the 

species is likely not present in the project area. Based upon known distribution and survey 

information, Chiricahua leopard frogs are not present in the project area and likely not present in

the analysis area.

Suitable or potential habitats, primarily occurring in Upper Willow Creek/Gentry and Chevelon 

Creek Headwaters watersheds where most of the perennial habitats occur, may be impacted from 

sediment as described in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section page 171.

Cumulative Effects

Alternative A

There would be no cumulative effects from this “no action” alternative. The species is likely not 

present in the analysis area, therefore, there are no past, present, or reasonably foreseeable future 

actions by Federal, State, or tribal agencies or private groups or individuals identified within the 

analysis area that would affect current populations of Chiricahua leopard frogs. Potential or 

suitable habitats for Chiricahua leopard frog are present in the analysis area and are affected by 

past and present management activities or natural events that have occurred, or are currently 

occurring in the analysis area.

Alternatives B/C

Direct and indirect cumulative effects on Chiricahua leopard frog potential and suitable habitats 

are similar to those described in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section.

Dredging of potential and suitable stock pond habitats would improve habitat quality by 

increasing the ability of ponds to hold more water for longer periods, which would benefit 

currently unoccupied potential or suitable leopard frog habitats.

Determination of Effects

Alternative A

Based on the above discussion, it is my determination that the proposed would not affect 

Chiricahua leopard frog. The proposed action would have no effect on proposed critical habitat. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 179

Alternatives B/C

Based on the above discussion, it is my determination that the action alternatives may affect, but 

are not likely to adversely affect Chiricahua leopard frog. Alternative B or alternative C would 

have no effect on proposed critical habitat. 

Table 75. Sensitive aquatic species in the analysis area 

Common Name 

(Scientific) Status

Species 

Known to 

Occur 

Historically?

Species 

Known to 

Occur 

Currently?

Suitable or 

Potential 

Habitat in 

Alt. A?

Effects 

Determination 

Alt. B or C

Little Colorado sucker 

(Catostomus sp. 3) S Yes Yes Yes

Individuals may 

be impacted but 

these impacts 

would not result 

in a trend toward 

listing or loss of 

viability.

Bluehead sucker (Catostomus

discobolus discobolus) S Yes Yes Yes

Roundtail chub (Gila robusta) S, C Yes Yes Yes

California floater (Anodonta 

californiensis) S Yes No Yes

Northern leopard frog (Rana 

pipiens) S Yes No Yes

Southwestern toad (Bufo 

microscaphus Microscaphus) S Yes Yes Yes

Forest Service Sensitive Species—Aquatic

The Region 3 Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species List, dated September 21, 2007, was utilized 

to identify aquatic species which occur or could occur in the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration 

Project area. Sensitive species (S) described in table 75 may occur or have potential habitat in the 

analysis area.

Environmental Effects to Sensitive Species

Alternative A – All Sensitive Aquatic Species

Species to which this applies includes: Little Colorado sucker, bluehead sucker, roundtail chub, 

southwestern toad, northern leopard frog, and California floater. Sensitive aquatic species known 

to be present in the analysis area include the Little Colorado sucker, bluehead sucker, roundtail 

chub, and southwestern toad. Potential habitats for sensitive species such as California floater and 

northern leopard frog also occur in the analysis area drainages, tanks, and reservoirs. 

Effects are described in “General Aquatic Species Effects” section on page 171.

Little Colorado Sucker

The species does not occur in the project area, but is known to occur in the Little Colorado River, 

near St. Johns. Little Colorado sucker are also found in other major tributaries to the Little 

Colorado River including the Clear Creek drainage, Chevelon Creek, and Silver Creek.

Additionally, the species has been introduced into the Salt River watershed.

Within Willow Creek, tributary to Clear Creek, the species was visually observed in upper 

reaches in 1994 (Young et al., 2001) and may still occur. Both upper Willow Creek and Woods 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

180 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Canyon Creek are within the analysis area. Willow Creek is likely occupied habitat and Woods 

Canyon is suitable or potential habitat for the species.

Bluehead Sucker

The species is not present in the project area, but has recently been found in Willow Creek, 

beginning approximately 6 miles below the project boundary at the Willow Creek and Gentry 

Creek confluence downstream to Wiggins Crossing (Arizona Department of Game and Fish 

2006). Potential and suitable habitat occurs within all perennial streams in the project area, 

including Woods Canyon and Chevelon Creek.

Effects: Little Colorado Sucker/Bluehead Sucker

No direct effects to these suckers would occur with implementation of the proposed action since 

these species are not present in the project area.

Indirect effects to Little Colorado sucker and bluehead sucker could occur since the bluehead has 

been confirmed in Willow Creek (2006) while the Little Colorado sucker is likely present based 

on distribution in the 1990s. Suitable or potential habitat occurs in Woods Canyon and Chevelon 

Creeks.

Short-term effects to potential and suitable habitat are the same as described for aquatic species

(page 171). Measureable water quality declines are unlikely. Any short-term increases in sediment 

levels would not impact species viability. 

In the long term (5+ years after treatment), this project would be beneficial to Little Colorado and 

bluehead suckers with the reduction in fire hazard.

The effects described for alternative C are the same as alternative B, except the benefits of 

alternative C do not last as long as those from alternative B.

Cumulative Effects

Occupied habitats and potential/suitable habitats for Little Colorado and bluehead suckers are 

present in the analysis area and are affected by past, present, or future foreseeable management 

activities or natural events that have occurred, or are currently occurring in the analysis area.

Watersheds in the project area that encompass stream habitats identified as occupied or possible 

future reintroduction sites include Upper Willow Creek and Chevelon Creek Headwaters. As 

disclosed in the “Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis,” past and future foreseeable 

disturbances include timber harvest activities, road and trail construction/maintenance, and areas 

affected by wildfire.

As noted in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section, the EDA concerns would be mitigated 

by dispersing treatments across several watersheds. Other aquatic effects are described in that 

section.

Continued water impoundment within the analysis area drainages would likely continue to affect 

the suitability of habitats in the analysis area by diminishing the amount of habitat that is 

available for the species and altering flow patterns downstream. With the exception of continued 

water impoundment, there are no State, tribal or private actions known that would affect the 

analysis area.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 181

Determination of Effects

Based on the above discussion, alternative A would have no impact on Little Colorado sucker, 

bluehead sucker, roundtail chub, southwestern toad, northern leopard frog, and California floater.

Based upon the above discussion, for either alternative B or alternative C individuals may be 

impacted, but the anticipated impacts would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability of the Little Colorado and bluehead suckers. 

Roundtail Chub

The species is not present in the project area. Occupied habitat occurs in Gordon Creek, Tonto 

Creek (Voeltz 2002), Haigler Creek, and Marsh Creeks (Arizona Game and Fish Department 

1992), Tonto National Forest. Headwaters of these drainages are present in the project area but 

they are limited to less than 5 miles in total length. Roundtail chub were historically present in 

Canyon Creek off of the forest, with the last documented occurrence in 1967, so may no longer 

occur in this drainage. Approximately 15 miles of headwater tributaries to Canyon Creek occur in 

the project area. All of the drainages mentioned above including Gordon Creek, Tonto Creek, 

Canyon Creek, and upper Chevelon Canyon Creek occur within the analysis area.

Alternative B or C

No direct effects to roundtail chub would occur with implementation of the proposed action since 

the species is not present in the project area. Indirect effects to roundtail chub could occur since 

the species is likely present in several drainages on the Tonto National Forest. Indirect effects to 

potential reintroduction sites—such as Chevelon Creek—could also occur. These are described in 

the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section (page 171).

Alternative B or C Cumulative Effects to Roundtail Chub

Occupied habitats and potential/suitable habitats for roundtail chub are present in the analysis 

area and are affected by past, present, or future foreseeable management activities or natural 

events that have occurred, or are currently occurring in the analysis area. Watersheds in the 

project area that encompass stream habitats identified as occupied or possible future 

reintroduction sites include Upper Willow Creek and Chevelon Creek Headwaters.

As disclosed in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section, the proposed action when 

combined with non-EDA activities described in the analysis and combined with activities 

considered in the EDA analysis, are not likely to drastically diminish the suitability or potential 

suitability of habitats in the analysis area. Continued water impoundment within the analysis area

drainages would likely continue to affect the suitability of habitats in the analysis area, but not to 

a measureable amount.

In the Tonto Creek drainage, the project area only contains 737 acres or 4 percent of the total 6th

HUC watershed and was not modeled. The EDA calculated in Gordon/Haigler is 11.6 percent, 

post treatment, which is below the threshold of 15 percent.

Based upon the above discussion, for either alternative B or alternative C, individuals may be 

impacted, but the anticipated impacts would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability of the roundtail chub. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

182 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

California Floater

This species is not present in the analysis area. Hulen (1988) indicates the presence of California 

floater in Chevelon Creek based upon surveys by Landye in 1988 as well as other surveys 

conducted in 1956 and 1970. Both Hulen (1988) and AGFD (1994) indicate that a population may 

still be extant in this drainage. Lopez et al. (1998) indicates the species is documented below 

Chevelon Canyon Lake during surveys conducted in 1996. Based upon available information 

collected by Lopez et al. (1998), extant populations are present below Chevelon Canyon Lake 

over 15 miles downstream and outside of the analysis area. Potential habitat may occur in 

Chevelon Creek above the reservoir.

Alternative B or C

No direct effects to California floater would occur with implementation of the proposed action 

since the species is not present in the project area.

There is a potential to affect suitable or potential habitat as described in the “General Aquatic 

Habitat Effects” section.

Since there is low likelihood that California floater is present in the analysis area, this species has 

a low likelihood of being affected, although the proposed treatments would likely alter instream 

habitat in the short term through increases in suspended sediment.

Alternatives B/C Cumulative Effects 

Potential/suitable habitats for California floaters are present in the analysis area and are affected 

by past, present, or future foreseeable management activities or natural events that have occurred, 

or are currently occurring in the analysis area. Watersheds in the project area that encompass 

stream habitats identified as potential habitats include Chevelon Creek Headwaters.

As described in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section, the proposed action when 

combined with activities considered in the EDA analysis, are not likely to drastically diminish the 

suitability or potential suitability of habitats in the analysis area.

Based upon the above discussion, for either alternative B or alternative C, individuals may be 

impacted, but the anticipated impacts would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability of the California floater.

Northern Leopard Frog

Species may be present in the project area. District records indicate that northern leopard frogs 

were historically documented in Clear Creek, several miles northwest and outside of the analysis 

area. They have also been documented in the project area within both Woods Canyon Lake (1968) 

and Willow Springs Lake (1996). The species has not been detected in recent surveys in either 

lake, and currently these lakes contains nonnative trout that are stocked annually, and appear to 

have such large crayfish populations that ranid frogs may be precluded from utilizing these 

habitats. These lakes likely provide potential habitat for the species. Although this species has not 

been recently documented in the analysis area, it is assumed that aquatic environments with dense 

riparian and emergent vegetation provide habitat for this species.

In 2007, approximately 8.5 miles (13,750 meters) of streams, 6.4 miles (10,290 meters) of three 

lakes, two cienegas and six tanks were surveyed in the Rim Lakes analysis area. Both Woods 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 183

Canyon and Willow Springs Lake were included in the 2007 survey sites. No ranid frogs were 

observed. Surveyors found that many of streams and all of the lakes were heavily infested with 

crayfish.

Alternatives B/C

Direct and indirect effects to the species are possible since there is a likelihood that the species is 

present in the analysis area. Although direct effects to the species are unlikely in perennial 

streams that are buffered by SMZs, they could occur in wetlands and stock tanks, as described in 

the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section (page 171).

Although there may be indirect short-term impacts from increased sediment movement into 

streams, ranid frogs are known to be tolerant to a variety of habitat conditions and these sediment 

impacts would be of short duration (within 1–2 years after treatment completed) in lotic systems 

and are not likely to modify lotic or lentic habitats to the degree that they are no longer suitable or 

potentially suitable.

Alternatives B/C Cumulative Effects 

The cumulative effects analysis for northern leopard frog is similar to the analysis for Chiricahua 

leopard frog. Both species are members of the Rana genus and have similar habitat requirements.

Also as described in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section, the proposed action when 

combined with activities considered in the EDA analysis, are not likely to drastically diminish the 

suitability or potential suitability of habitats in the analysis area. Continued water impoundment 

within the analysis area drainages would likely continue to affect the suitability of habitats in the 

analysis area. Both short-term and long-term impacts would affect both ranid frogs similarly.

Determination of Effects

Based upon the above discussion, for either alternative B or alternative C individuals may be 

impacted, but the anticipated impacts would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability of the northern leopard frog. 

Southwestern Toad

This species is not present in the project area, but has been documented in the action area. 

Southwestern toads have historically occupied sites in the Little Colorado River drainage and 

Gila and Salt River drainages on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Distribution on the 

forest within these drainages includes East Clear Creek, Bonita Creek, Eagle Creek, Blue River, 

Black River, and Luna Lake (Sullivan 1991).

Surveys of suitable habitats conducted in 2007 within the project area did not detect Southwestern 

toads but the species has been detected in previous USFS surveys, approximately 3 miles north of 

the project area in West Chevelon Creek in 2004. Also, based upon AGFD (1994) southwestern 

toads were historically documented in Tonto Creek approximately 2 miles south of the project 

area, on the Tonto National Forest near the Hwy. 260 crossing at Kohls Ranch in 1970.

Alternatives B/C

No direct effects to Southwestern toad would occur with implementation of the proposed action 

since the species is not present in the project area. Indirect effects to the species could occur since 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

184 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

the species is present in the analysis area. These effects are described in the “General Aquatic 

Species Effects” section (page 171).

Occupied habitat in the Upper West Chevelon Canyon watershed and historic habitat occuring in 

the Tonto Creek Headwaters watershed may be indirectly impacted from increased sediment 

loading into streams or lakes, but these impacts would be of short duration and are not likely to 

adversely modify habitats in the long term. Habitats should retain enough characteristics to 

support Southwestern toad in the long term.

Although there may be indirect short-term impacts from increased sediment movement into 

streams, ranid frogs are known to be tolerant to a variety of habitat conditions and these sediment 

impacts would be of short duration (within 1–2 years after treatment completed) in lotic systems 

and are not likely to modify lotic or lentic habitats to the degree that they are no longer suitable or

potentially suitable.

Cumulative Effects Alternatives B/C

The cumulative effects analysis for Southwestern toad is similar to that described in the “General 

Aquatic Species Effects” section. Occupied habitats are found in the Chevelon Creek and Tonto 

Creek watersheds. In the Tonto Creek drainage, the project area only contains 737 acres or 4 

percent of the total 6th HUC watershed and was not modeled. Otherwise, the EDA calculated 

values and effects are described in the “General Aquatic Species Effects” section. The proposed 

action when combined with activities considered in the EDA analysis, are not likely to drastically 

diminish the suitability or potential suitability of habitats in the action area. Continued water 

impoundment within the action area drainages would likely continue to affect the suitability of 

habitats in the action area. Both short-term and long-term impacts would affect both ranid frogs 

similarly.

Determination of Effects

Based upon the above discussion, for either alternative B or alternative C, individuals may be 

impacted, but the anticipated impacts would not result in a trend toward Federal listing or loss of 

viability of the Southwestern toad.

Management Indicator Species (Aquatic)

Aquatic Macroinvertebrates (Various Species)

The forest plan standards and guidelines for aquatic macroinvertebrates are to manage for and 

maintain at least an 80 percent biotic condition index (BCI) on all perennial streams (Forest Level 

Macroinvertebrate Status Summary 2005). The BCI score indicates as a percentage how close an 

aquatic ecosystem is to its own potential. The “Fisheries and Riparian Habitat Improvement for 

the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Implementation Plan” (forest riparian plan) provides the 

rationale and methods to be used and is discussed in the 2005 macroinvertebrate summary. 

Forest level trends in aquatic macroinvertebrate populations and habitats are estimated to be 

downward on 70 percent of the cold water streams on the forests (Forest Level Macroinvertebrate 

Status Summary (2005)).

Within the action area of the Rim Lakes Project, there were six macroinvertebrate samples 

collected from Willow Springs Creek and six samples collected from Woods Canyon Creek. No 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 185

other streams in the action area have been sampled. The results from these surveys are 

summarized in table 76.

Table 76. Macroinvertebrate data collected in the Rim Lakes Action Area

Stream Sample ID Sampling Date BCI/Rating

Willow Springs Creek Site 316 12/95 60/Poor

Willow Springs Creek Site 317 12/95 61/Poor

Willow Springs Creek Site 318 12/95 60/Poor

Willow Springs Creek Site 319 12/95 Not Calculated

Willow Springs Creek Site 320 12/95 Not Calculated

Willow Springs Creek Site 321 12/95 Not Calculated

Woods Canyon Creek Site 322 12/95 73/Fair

Woods Canyon Creek Site 323 12/95 65/Poor

Woods Canyon Creek Site 324 12/95 79/Fair

Woods Canyon Creek Site 325 12/95 69/Poor

Woods Canyon Creek Site 326 12/95 76/Fair

Woods Canyon Creek Site 327 12/95 75/Fair

None of the samples analyzed within the project area in the 2005 report meet the forest plan 

standard for BCI indices (80 percent). If these samples were taken immediately below their 

respective reservoirs, the substrate embeddedness in these reaches was also noted as high and 

could explain the low baseline BCI scores.

Aquatic Habitats 

The concern for aquatic species is to maintain high quality habitat. Indicators of aquatic habitat 

quality considered for this project include riparian condition, stream temperature, streambank 

stability, and fine sediment.

Sediment would be used as the measure of project effects on aquatic habitat and species.

All vegetation and soil disturbing land uses that reduce water infiltration rates or remove 

vegetative cover from sites can increase runoff and sediment from storm events. The amount and 

type of sediment within a stream system influences aquatic habitat quality and species diversity. 

For example, fine sediment accumulation in a gravel bed stream can affect ranid egg survival 

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Seevice 2002) and decrease the production of aquatic macroinvertebrates 

(Zwartjes et al., 2005). Relyea (2007) indicates that loss of refugia in the substrate is one of the 

most important mechanisms behind macroinvertebrate intolerance to fine sediment. Potential fine 

sediment sources may originate from treatments that disturb soils and from existing and new 

temporary roads.

Forest plan standards and guidelines (S&Gs) indicate that the forests would 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. Previous surveys indicate 

that Willow Creek, Woods Canyon Creek, Chevelon Creek, and Willow Springs Creek streams 

contain trout, and that both Willow and Chevelon Creeks contain habitat emphasized in other 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

186 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

plans for Little Colorado spinedace as refugia or reintroduction sites. A desired HCI index of 60 

percent is relevant for these drainages.

The forest plan also identifies Willow Creek, Woods Canyon Creek, Chevelon Creek, and Willow 

Springs Creek as priority streams in management area 3 with the following standards and 

guidelines:

1. Prevent siltation not to exceed 20 percent (85mm) in riffle areas.

2. Maintain 80 percent of the spawning gravel surface free of inorganic sediment.

3. Manage for stream temperatures not to exceed 68 °F, unless not technically feasible.

4. Manage and maintain or improve riparian areas to satisfactory riparian condition.

5. Manage for and maintain at least 80 percent of streambank total linear distances in stable 

condition.

Woods Canyon Creek

Woods Canyon Creek is a north-flowing tributary to Chevelon Creek in southeast Coconino 

County. It flows through ASNFs administered lands at elevations ranging from 7,800 feet at the 

upper headwaters to 7,000 feet at the confluence with Willow Springs Canyon. Below the 

confluence of Woods Canyon Creek and Willow Springs Canyon Creek is the beginning of 

Chevelon Creek. Woods Canyon Creek is a second order stream approximately 16 miles in length 

that originates in the northwest portion of the project area.

Approximately 11 miles of ephemeral/intermittent drainage occurs above Woods Canyon Lake 

and 6 miles of predominately perennial stream occurs below Woods Canyon Dam. Surface flow is 

dependent upon seasonal spills over Woods Canyon Dam and year-round dam seepage to provide 

for streamflow. The stream’s watershed contains primarily mixed conifer forest type and is 

approximately 16 square miles in size.

A search of district survey records indicate that the perennial reaches of Woods Canyon Creek 

were surveyed in 1995 by Lopez et al. (1998) utilizing GAWS survey methodologies. Fish 

population surveys were also conducted as part of the general aquatic wildlife survey (GAWS) 

protocol in 1995 and water quality monitoring was completed from 1995 to 1996. All of the 

surveyed reach miles are below Woods Canyon Dam and are within the action area. An estimated 

3 miles of surveyed reaches occur within the project boundary. This area includes all of reach 1 

and a portion of reach 2. All of the reaches occur within the action area.

Willow Springs Canyon

Willow Springs Canyon is a north-flowing tributary to Chevelon Creek in southeast Coconino 

County. It flows through ASNFs administered lands at elevations ranging from 7,600 feet at the 

upper headwaters to 7,000 feet at the confluence with Woods Canyon Creek. Below the 

confluence of Willow Springs Canyon and Woods Canyon Creek is the beginning of Chevelon 

Creek. Willow Springs Canyon is a second order stream approximately 8 miles in length that 

originates in the southern portion of the project area. Approximately 5 miles of intermittent 

drainage occurs above Willow Springs Lake and 3 miles of interrupted perennial stream occurs 

below Willow Springs Dam. Surface flow is dependent upon seasonal spills over Willow Springs 

Lake Dam and year-round dam seepage to provide for streamflow. The stream’s watershed 

contains primarily mixed conifer forest type and is approximately 8.9 square milesin size.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 187

A search of district survey records indicate that the perennial reaches of Willow Springs Creek 

were surveyed in 1995 by Lopez et al. (1998a) utilizing GAWS survey methodologies. Fish 

population surveys were also conducted as part of the GAWS protocol in 1995 and water quality 

monitoring was completed from 1995 to 1996. All of the survey reaches are below Willow Springs 

Dam and within the action area. Less than 0.5 mile of surveyed reaches occurs within the project 

area. This area includes the uppermost portion of reach 1. 

Chevelon Creek

Chevelon Creek is a north-flowing tributary to the Little Colorado River in southeast Coconino 

County. It flows through ASNFs administered lands in the action area at elevations ranging from 

7,000 feet at the upper limit to 6,400 feet at Chevelon Canyon Lake. Chevelon Creek is a seventh 

order stream approximately 79 miles in length that originates at the confluence of Woods Canyon 

and Willow Springs Canyon, north of the project area. The stream’s watershed is approximately 

371 mi2 in size and contains primarily mixed conifer forest type in the higher elevations and 

ponderosa pine/piñyon-juniper and grasslands at the lower elevations. 

A search of district survey records indicate that the section of Chevelon Creek found in the action 

area was surveyed in 1996 by Lopez et al. (1998b) utilizing GAWS survey methodologies. Fish 

population surveys were also conducted as part of the GAWS protocol in 1996 and water quality 

monitoring was completed from 1995 to 1996. Several reaches were surveyed, with only the 

uppermost reach included in the Rim Lakes action area. Reach 7, which originates at the 

confluence of Woods Canyon and Willow Springs Canyon and continues downstream for 11 

miles to Chevelon Canyon Lake, would be described below as part of the action area. No part of 

Chevelon Creek occurs within the project area, but the upper 13 miles of the drainage occurs in 

the action area.

Willow Creek

Willow Creek is a north-flowing tributary to Clear Creek in southeast Coconino County. It flows 

primarily through ASNFs administered lands, with some private inclusions (<5 percent of total), 

at elevations ranging from 7,655 feet at the upper headwaters to 6,010 feet at the confluence with 

Clear Creek. Willow Creek is a fourth order tributary to Clear Creek that is approximately 31 

miles in length and originates in the northwest portion of the project area. The stream’s watershed 

contains primarily mixed conifer forest type in the higher elevations and ponderosa pine/piñyonjuniper at the lower elevations and is approximately 90 square milesin size.

A search of district survey records indicate that Willow Creek was visually surveyed in 1997 by 

Lopez et al. (1999). Five reaches were visually surveyed from June to September. Approximately 

4 miles of upper Willow Creek occur within the project area. Reaches in the project area include:

upper 0.25 mile of reach 3 and all of reaches 4 and 5. These sections of stream area 

predominately dry with isolated pools. Reaches also included in the analysis area include reach 3 

and the upper section of reach 2 (to include the uppermost section of reach 2 downstream to 3

miles below Wiggins Crossing).

Bear Canyon Creek

No habitat surveys are available for the approximate 4 total miles of this drainage. In February 

2006, the Springerville Ranger District fisheries biologist conducted a field review of this 

drainage within the project area from Bear Canyon Lake Dam downstream to the project 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

188 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

boundary. The upper portion of this drainage was perennial due to dam seepage. Surface flow is 

dependent upon seasonal spills over Bear Canyon Lake Dam and year-round dam seepage to 

provide for streamflow. Vegetative bank cover was noted as insufficient to protect banks in 

sections of this reach. The channel was notably incised with little to no flood plain below the 

dam. The road on the west side of the channel below the dam was bermed and appeared to be 

unused. The road continued across the drainage and up the dam face and was channelizing flow 

off of the dam face directly into the creek. This section of stream adjacent to the road had raw 

banks that appeared to be recovering. Immediately below the dam was some PVC pipe litter 

strewn about the channel, likely from a dam maintenance project that was not completed at time 

of survey.

Species documented since 1991 include: Little Colorado sucker, cutthroat trout, rainbow trout, 

brook trout, speckled dace, arctic grayling, and bluehead sucker. AGFD management emphasis 

for this drainage is for native species and the desired fish species assemblage includes: speckled 

dace, bluehead sucker, and Little Colorado sucker (Young et al., 2001).

Canyon Creek and Tributaries 

An estimated 15 miles of upper headwater drainages to the Canyon Creek system occurs within 

the project area. Tributaries include Mule Creek, East Fork Canyon Creek, and other unnamed 

tributaries to the Canyon Creek drainage. Within the anticipated analysis area, the sections of 

Canyon Creek off of the forest occur on the Tonto National Forest and Fort Apache Indian 

Reservation. Canyon Creek and its tributary, Mule Creek, are the only perennial drainages in the 

upper Canyon Creek watershed; other drainages are intermittent. It should be noted that this 

watershed was affected by extreme wildfire during the Rodeo-Chediski Wildfire in 2002. Burn 

severity ranged from unburned to severely burned areas. 

Upper Canyon Creek watershed was severely impacted with approximately 84 percent of steep 

slopes at the upper end of Canyon Creek and Mule Creek burned at moderate (27 percent) or high 

(57 percent) severity levels (USFS 2003). Both drainages had severe sedimentation and debris 

flows during the subsequent monsoon season following the fire and are likely still experiencing 

high sedimentation levels. No habitat surveys are available for these drainages in the analysis 

area.

Upper Tonto Creek and Tributaries

This drainage includes headwater drainages to these systems on southern portion of the project 

area just above the rim: Christopher Creek, Hunter Creek, and Gordon Canyon. These drainages 

are tributaries to Tonto Creek on the Tonto National Forest. Less than 5 miles of upper headwater 

drainages to this system occurs within the project area. No habitat surveys are available for these 

drainages in the analysis area.

Chevelon Canyon Lake

This lake is not in the project area, but does occur in analysis area. This 200-acre cold water 

reservoir receives relatively high angler use and is managed by AGFD as a Blue Ribbon Fishery 

for rainbow trout and also as a wild brown trout fishery. Stocking regime includes stocking of 

50,000 to 100,000 rainbow trout fingerlings annually. Other species currently present include 

Little Colorado sucker AGFD management emphasis for this lake is for sportfish and the desired 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 189

fish species assemblage includes: rainbow trout, brown trout, and Little Colorado sucker (Young 

et al., 2001).

Bear Canyon Lake

This lake is in the project area. Species detected since 1991 include cutthroat trout, brown trout, 

arctic grayling, and rainbow trout (Young et al., 2001). Current species assemblage is thought to 

be limited to rainbow trout and fathead minnow (Mike Lopez, AGFD, personal communication 

2006). AGFD management emphasis for this lake is for sportfish and the desired fish species 

assemblage includes: rainbow trout and arctic grayling (Young et al., 2001).

Woods Canyon Lake

This lake is in the project area. This 52-acre cold water reservoir receives relatively high angler 

use and is managed by AGFD as a rainbow trout fishery. Stocking regime includes annual 

stocking of 75,000 rainbow trout. Other species currently present include both brook and brown 

trout, possibly golden shiner (Young et al., 2001), and fathead minnows (Mike Lopez, AGFD, 

personal communication 2006). AGFD management emphasis for this lake is for sportfish and the 

desired fish species assemblage includes rainbow trout (Young et al., 2001).

Willow Springs Lake

This lake is in the project area. This 158-acre cold water reservoir receives relatively high angler 

use and is managed by AGFD as a rainbow trout fishery. Stocking regime includes annual 

stocking of 50,000 to 100,000+ catchable and subcatchable rainbow trout. Other species currently 

present include largemouth bass, brook trout, brown trout (Young et al., 2001), smallmouth bass, 

green sunfish, and fathead minnow (Mike Lopez, AGFD, personal communication 2006). AGFD 

management emphasis for this lake is for sportfish and the desired fish species assemblage 

includes: rainbow trout (Young et al., 2001).

Method Used to Perform Cumulative 

Effects Analysis for Aquatic Species

The spatial and temporal bounds utilized for disclosing cumulative effects are described in the 

“Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds” section.

Environmental Effects

Alternative A

In the long term (5+ years after treatment), this project would not reduce fire hazard. An elevated 

risk to aquatic MIS species would remain from unnatural fire effects in the watershed. This 

alternative does not change the FRCC rating from 100 percent FRCC 3 existing condition.

Retention of FRCC 3 keeps the fire hazard threat high in the project area. Wildfire effects on 

aquatic habitats include altering water quality through short-term inputs of sediment and ash as 

surface runoff increases post fire. Increased runoff can also affect stream morphology by 

unnaturally elevating peak runoffs that may excessively scour and abruptly reshape channels.

Since attaining class 1 ratings are desired for the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation 

types in the project area to maintain fire regimes within historical range and diminish fire 

severity, this alternative is the least desirable as compared to alternatives B and C, in limiting 

potential for unnaturally intense wildfire. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

190 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Alternative B

Riparian condition, which includes streambank (or lakeside) soil and vegetative stability should 

not be significantly affected with implementation of the proposed action. Of the 105 miles of 

streams in the project area, less than 10 miles are perennial. These perennial stream segments and 

lake perimeters have the most restrictive BMPs, which generally allow for no mechanical 

treatments and a low intensity prescribed fire prescription.

Any potential effects to riparian vegetation would be short term, allowing for sufficient vegetative 

recovery by the next growing season, and provide for streambank protection and cover in the long

term. Best management practices, including SMZ guidelines, would be implemented to retain the 

integrity of riparian habitats in all perennial drainages within the project area.

Any potential changes to riparian habitats at the project level are not expected to be significant 

either in quantity or quality, and should not alter forestwide riparian habitat trends which were 

estimated to be downward. Any potential effects to riparian vegetation would be short term and 

not measureable in its affects across the landscape. Of the 1,000 perennial stream miles found 

forestwide, less than 10 miles are found in the project area. Of the 25 lakes across the forest, the 

Rim Lakes Project area contains 3. That represents <1 percent of perennial streams and 12

percent of perennial lakes on the forests.

In the long term (5+ years after treatment), this project would be beneficial to riparian habitats 

with the reduction in fire hazard, resulting in decreased risk to MIS from unnatural fire effects in 

the watershed. 

Alternative C is similar except the effectiveness and duration of the benefits of vegetation 

treatments would be smaller.

Cumulative Effects to Aquatic Macroinvertebrates

Alternative A

There would be no cumulative effects from this “no action” alternative.

Alternatives B/C

Occupied habitats and potential/suitable habitats for aquatic macroinvertebrates are present in the 

analysis area and are affected by past, present, or future foreseeable management activities or 

natural events that have occurred, or are currently occurring in the analysis area. All watersheds 

in the analysis area may have some perennial habitats within them, but Upper Willow Creek and 

Chevelon Creek Headwaters contain the most. As disclosed in the “General Aquatic Species 

Effects” section, past and future foreseeable disturbances include timber harvest activities, road 

and trail construction/maintenance, and areas affected by wildfire. As also disclosed, the EDAs 

calculated range from 10.5 percent to 17.8 percent post treatment. Canyon Creek Headwaters 

(15.5 percent, Chevelon Creek Headwaters (16.7 percent) and Christopher Creek (17.8 percent) 

all rate above the 15 percent threshold. However, the assumption within the EDA effects analysis 

was that all treatments would occur in 1 year and these percentages reflect that assumption. In 

actuality, treatments including thinning and burning and other associated disturbance activities 

such as road reconstruction would occur over a 10-year period, and EDA levels are expected to be 

less than disclosed in the analysis.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 191

Furthermore, site-specific BMPs, which include staging of treatments combined with treatment 

refinements would result in an EDA below 15 percent for the three watersheds of concern.

Over both short-term (<5 years after treatment) and long-term (5+ years after treatment) 

timeframes, maintenance of above natural levels of sedimentation would likely occur with 

implementation of the proposed action, continuation of the ongoing ground-disturbing actions not 

considered in the EDA analysis, as well as those additional past and future foreseeable activities 

evaluated in the EDA analysis.

Cumulatively, the described actions can indirectly affect aquatic macroinvertebrates by reducing 

available habitat and by contributing to substrate embeddedness. Continual sediment inputs from 

ongoing activities would persist, but sedimentation effects are not expected to be at a level to 

extensively affect the suitability of habitats for continued occupancy. Flow storage in area 

reservoirs would continue to limit the total available habitat downstream and alter the natural 

hydrograph of each affected stream. Reservoir impoundments would continue to measurably 

affect the total amount of available habitat downstream and alter how each system distributes its 

sediment load.

Determination of Effects

Alternative A: Forestwide trends in macroinvertebrate populations are estimated to be downward 

on 70 percent of the cold water streams on the forests. Based upon the “no action” project effects 

to the forestwide trend for riparian habitat, implementation of alternative A would contribute no 

effect to the forestwide aquatic macroinvertebrate population trend, although an elevated risk for 

wildfire impacts to riparian habitats would continue.

Alternative B: Based upon the anticipated project effect to the forestwide trend for riparian 

habitat, implementation of alternative B would contribute no effect to the forestwide aquatic 

macroinvertebrate population trend, although this alternative is more desirable than alternatives A 

and C, in limiting potential for unnaturally intense wildfire.

Alternative C: Based upon the anticipated project effect to the forestwide trend for riparian 

habitat, implementation of alternative C would contribute no effect to the forestwide aquatic 

macroinvertebrate population trend. Alterative C is more desirable than alternative A in limiting 

potential for unnaturally intense wildfire, but less desirable than alternative B which creates 54 

percent FRCC class 1.

Consistency with the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan

The forest plan provides for specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines for management 

activities on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Based on a review of the forest plan and the 

proposed alternatives, implementation of any of the alternatives proposed would be consistent 

with the “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan” regarding 

aquatic species requirements.

Wildlife Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

The effects to wildlife of the amendment proposed in alternative B are described in the “Wildlife”

sections above. As noted, this amendment would result in more openness as well as “groupy-
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

192 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

clumpy” habitat that favors the northern goshawk and its prey, many of which are also 

management indicator species for the forest. Similarly, effects of the amendment proposed in 

alternative C are described with the effects descriptions of alternative C. Favoring even-aged 

management would mean a benefit to some wildlife species that is shorter lived than that allowed 

with uneven-aged management systems. Species such as goshawk would be impacted long term 

by the loss of structural stage development because this alternative would remove much of the 

young trees in order to achieve density objectives.

Watershed, Water Quality, 

Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds

This section is a summary of the key effects and conclusions from the watershed specialist report 

(Nelson 2011) located in the project record. The report includes best management practices and 

mitigation measures designed to protect water quality and watershed values (appendix B of this 

EIS).

Analysis Area

The project area is contained within hydrologic units of varying orders of size as defined by the 

United States Geological Survey and delineated by Federal agencies including the U.S. Forest 

Service. These hydrologic units (HUCs) have been assigned code numbers ranging from two to 

eight digits reflecting the intensity of delineation. A “1st code” hydrologic unit is the broadest 

delineation and employs a two digit HUC. First code HUCs are progressively subdivided into 

“second,” “third,” and “fourth code” hydrologic units.

The Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project (Rim Lakes Project) is within four Fifth Code 

watersheds and eleven 6th HUC watersheds. The project is approximately 33,548 acres in size.

See table 78 for a summary of watershed acreage within the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration 

Project. There are 24 acres within this project area that are privately owned.

Table 77. Summary of soil and water effect by alternative

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Upland Soils No change – soil 

condition satisfactory 

except in riparian 

areas.

Satisfactory soil condition maintained and may 

improve in riparian areas.

Some short term soil loss and soil compaction 

expected. Monitor SDC during treatment to ensure soil 

impacts stay within soil condition guidelines.

Coarse woody debris meets soil quality guidelines.

Riparian Area and Stream 

Channel Condition

No riparian 

enhancement.

Reduces canopy in riparian areas to allow for improved 

vegetation condition 

Riparian Area and Stream 

Channel Condition

Increased potential for 

uncharacteristic crown 

fire and accompanying 

increase in riparian and

channel degradation.

Reduces potential for 

uncharacteristic crown fire 

and associated affects to 

riparian areas. 

Reduces potential for 

uncharacteristic crown 

fire and associated

affects to riparian areas.

Shorter duration 

benefits.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 193

Resource Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C

Mitigation of timing and treatments reduce risk of 

damaging streamflows caused by treatments in short 

term (CWE).

Water Quality and 

Quantity

No change from 

current. Water quality 

and stream condition 

on slow upward trend 

from past activities 

(grazing, roads).

Creates a greater 

vegetative grass 

component than 

alternative A and 

alternative C, thereby 

improving retention, 

storage, and filtering 

functions. SMZs and 

BMPs provide protection 

from sediment to riparian 

and stream channels.

Similar to alternative B. 

however vegetative 

grass component 

transitions fewer acres 

and is shorter lived than 

B.

Opportunity to increase long term water yield.

Roads Potential for improved road conditions within project 

area.

Cumulative Effects (EDA) No cumulative effects No measureable cumulative effects as BMPs for timing 

and other mitigation are implemented.

FRCC and Return to Stable 

Historic Conditions

Much of the area has 

low forage production 

due to 100 percent 

conifer needle litter 

layer.

Decreases in canopy closure and stand densities result 

in shift to herbaceous understory.

FRCC 1 on 54% of 

project area. Openings last 

for up to 30 years 

FRCC 1 on up to 14% 

of project area for a 

more limited time (up to 

15 years).

Table 78. Watershed classifications: fifth and sixth code watersheds

Fifth Code HUC 

Name Sixth Code HUC Watershed Acres

Project 

Area Acres

Proportional 

Extent (percent)

Canyon Creek 203,228 6,161 3

Canyon Creek Headwaters 19,016 6,161 32

Haigler Creek-Tonto 

Creek

143,378 4,981 3

Christopher Creek 18,773 2,057 11

Concord Canyon/ Naegelin 14,630 106 1

Haigler Creek/ Gordon 18,505 2,080 11

Tonto Creek Headwaters 17,252 737 4

Upper Chevelon 

Canyon

173,901 15,895 9

Alder Creek 15,629 233 1

Chevelon Creek Headwaters 19,226 15,004 78

Chevelon Creek/ Long Tom/ 

Horse Trap 18,695 436 2

Upper West Chevelon Canyon 16,722 222 1

Upper Clear Creek 203,012 6,511 3

Middle Willow Creek 20,154 2 <0.01
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

194 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Fifth Code HUC 

Name Sixth Code HUC Watershed Acres

Project 

Area Acres

Proportional 

Extent (percent)

Upper Willow Creek 21,993 6,509 30

Total 33,548

Roads

Road mileage by watershed is given in table 79. Watersheds Upper Willow Creek/Gentry (232 

miles) and Middle Willow Creek (155 miles) have the most road miles of watersheds analyzed.

The least road miles amongst watersheds are found in Haigler Creek/Gordon (57 miles) and 

Tonto Creek Headwaters (53 miles).

Table 79. Road mileage by watershed and project area

Sixth Code Watershed Watershed 

Road Miles

Project Area 

Road Miles

Proportional 

Extent (percent)

Alder Creek 89 2.0 2.2

Canyon Creek Headwaters 102 33.6 33.0

Chevelon Creek Headwaters/ 

Woods/Willow Springs 142 118.8 83.6

Chevelon Creek/Long Tom/ 

Horse Trap 103 4.8 4.7

Christopher Creek 80 23.9 29.8

Concord Canyon/Naegelin 68 1.4 2.0

Haigler Creek/Gordon 57 16.9 29.8

Middle Willow Creek 155 0.4 0.3

Tonto Creek Headwaters 53 7.4 14.0

Upper West Chevelon Canyon 88 2.9 3.3

Upper Willow Creek 232 71.0 30.7

Totals 1,010 283.2 28.0

Table 80. Roads and stream density (miles per square mile area) by watershed and project 

area

Sixth Code Watershed Watershed 

Stream Density

Project Area 

Stream Density

Watershed 

Road Density

Project Area 

Road 

Density

Alder Creek 2.33 0.61 3.65 5.42

Canyon Creek Headwaters 1.81 1.30 3.42 3.49

Chevelon Creek Headwaters/ 

Woods/Willow Springs 2.57 2.62 4.73 5.07

Chevelon Creek/Long Tom/ 

Horse Trap 2.15 0 3.52 7.11

Christopher Creek 3.03 0.17 2.73 7.43

Concord Canyon/Naegelin 2.31 0 2.99 8.30
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 195

Sixth Code Watershed Watershed 

Stream Density

Project Area 

Stream Density

Watershed 

Road Density

Project Area 

Road 

Density

Haigler Creek/Gordon 3.02 1.38 1.96 5.20

Middle Willow Creek 2.48 0 4.94 1.33

Tonto Creek Headwaters 2.19 0 1.96 6.39

Upper West Chevelon Canyon 2.31 2.60 3.36 8.39

Upper Willow Creek/Gentry 2.34 2.44 6.74 6.99

Totals 2.40 2.00 2.97 5.40

Stream density (miles per square mile) is a measure of drainage efficiency of a watershed. A 

watershed with a higher stream density more effectively drains water and sediment from 

headwater to higher order streams.

Road density is an indicator of existing watershed effects because it takes into account the size of 

a watershed when examining road miles. Table 80 displays a comparison of both stream and road 

density per watershed in the project area.

Christopher Creek and Haigler Creek/Gordon have the highest stream densities at 3.03 and 3.02, 

respectively. This suggests an ability to effectively transport sediments to higher order streams 

during rain and runoff events. Canyon Creek Headwaters and Chevelon Creek/Long Tom/Horse 

Trap have the lowest stream densities at 1.81 and 2.15, respectively.

The watersheds with the highest road densities are Upper Willow Creek/Gentry at 6.74 and 

Middle Willow Creek at 4.94. This means that Upper Willow Creek/Gentry has almost three 

times the length of road than naturally occurring stream channels. This suggests that the drainage 

network in Upper Willow Creek/Gentry has been extended as roads essentially act as stream 

channels, being conduits for sediment and capturing water from both snowmelt runoff and rain 

events. These roads additionally act as sediment sources in many of these watersheds.

The watersheds with the lowest road densities are Haigler Creek/Gordon and Tonto Creek 

Headwaters, both at 1.96. It should be noted that Christopher Creek, Haigler Creek/Gordon, and 

Tonto Creek Headwaters are the only watersheds with higher stream than road densities. The high 

road-to-stream density ratio in most of these watersheds suggests higher runoff rates and induced 

sediment inputs.

Project area road density for all watersheds is greater than watershed area road density. This 

suggests that roads are concentrated more heavily within the project area boundary than in the 

remainder of the watersheds. The project area has more roads because it contains proportionally 

fewer steep slopes.

Environmental Effects from Roads

No new system roads are proposed for construction in any alternative. Therefore, forestwide road 

density would not change. Alternatives B and C include opening and minor maintenance of about 

186 miles of maintenance level 1 (ML1), which are closed roads. This amounts to about 64 

percent of the miles of ML 1 roads that are available for use. All ML1 would be closed when the 

mechanical fuel treatment is completed. Construction of 2.6 miles of temporary roads are 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

196 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

proposed in both alternatives and they would be decommissioned after completion of treatments.

The short-term impacts to water quality from sediment from roads opened during harvest 

operations are mitigated by best management practices (BMPs). BMP monitoring across the 

forests shows that BMPs are effective in preventing sediment from reaching streams when strictly 

followed.

Considering use of BMPs, water quality is not expected to change from existing conditions with 

implementation of alternative B or C from road impacts. Implications of road densities are 

included in the watershed cumulative effects section. Mitgation measures are found in appendix B 

and are based in part on road densities as calculated for equivalent disturbed area (EDA).

Soils

Soil condition is generally satisfactory throughout the planning area. Gully erosion and 

accelerated soil loss is occurring along a few open and closed roads where road drainage 

structures are not functioning or absent. Ground cover conditions are generally improving within 

these areas, but are still a source of sediment to streams. Existing soil and watershed conditions 

were assessed using the “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National 

Forests” (TES) (Lainge et al., 1987) in conjunction with field observations taken in 2006 and 

2009. 

Region 3 Soil Condition Guidelines (FSH 2509.18) indicate when soil impairment begins. These 

are not standards, but indicators of where management change may need to occur. A qualitative 

analysis of the effects of implementing ground treatments would affect soil resources using the 

guidance shown in table 81. 

Table 82 describes the terrestrial ecosystem unit inventory mapping units and selected 

interpretations.

Table 81. Soil condition guidelines for selected indicators of soil hydrologic function*

Index Satisfactory Impaired Unsatisfactory

Bulk Density* Slight Increase (1–5%) Moderate Increase

(5–15%) Significant Increase (>15%)

Infiltration* Slight Decrease (1–10%) Moderate Decrease

(10–50%) Significant Decrease

(>50%)

Penetration 

Resistance*

Slight Increase (1–10%) Moderate Increase (10–

50%)

Significant Increase 

(>50%)

Aerial Extent Slight Disturbance

(1–5 percent) Moderate Disturbance

(5–20 percent) Significant Disturbance

(>20 percent)

*Excerpt from R3 Supplement FSH 2509.18
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 197

Table 82. Terrestrial ecosystem unit survey (TES), proportional extent, characteristics, 

and management implications*

TES 

Map 

Unit

Acres 

by 

Map 

Unit

Soil Classification 

(Family)

Vegetation 

Taxonomic Unit

MU 

Slope 

Class

Soil 

Condition 

Rating

Soil 

Erosion 

Hazard

192 896 Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, fine, mixed, h. ppt.

Udic Haplustalfs, clayeyskeletal, LSC 5, 0, mixed, 

h. ppt.

Pipos/Quga

Pipos/Quga

16–40 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Severe

Moderate

193 1,964 Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, fine, mixed, h.ppt

Lithic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, clayey, mixed, h. ppt.

Pipos/Quga

Pipos/Quga

0–15 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Slight

Slight

196 151 Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, fine, mixed, h. ppt

Pipos/Quga 0–15 Satisfactory Slight

197 13,833 Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, clayey-skeletal, mixed

Lithic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, clayey-skeletal, mixed

Pipos/Quga

Pipos/Quga

0–15 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Slight

Slight

199 374 Udic Haplustalfs, LSC 5, 

0, fine, mixed

Pipos/Quga 16–40 Satisfactory Severe

201 1,986 Typic Hapludalfs, LSC 6, 

0, fine, mixed

Typic Hapludalfs, LSC 6, 

0, clayey-skeletal, mixed

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos

/Pist

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos/

Pist

0–15 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Slight

Slight

202 333 Typic Hapludalfs, LSC 6, 

0, fine, mixed

Typic Hapludalfs, LSC 6, 

0, clayey-skeletal, mixed

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos

/Pist

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos/

Pist

16–40 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Severe

Severe

203 887 Typic Hapludalfs, LSC 6, 

0, fine, mixed

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos

/Pist

16–40 Satisfactory Severe

206 1,001 Udic Ustochrepts LSC 6

Typic Ustochrepts, LSC 5

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos

/Pist

Pipos/Quga

41–120 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Severe

Severe

207 841 Lithic Dystrochrepts, LSC 

6, 0, loamy-skeletal, 

mixed, frigid

Typic Hapludalfs, LSC 6, 

0, loamy-skeletal mixed

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos

/Pist

Abco/Psmeg/Pipos/

Pist

0–15 Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Slight

Slight

208 166 Cumulic Udic 

Haplustolls,LSC 6,0, fineloamy, mixed

Cumulic Haplsutolls, LSC 

5, 0, mixed

Popr

Popr

0–5% Impaired

Impaired

Slight

Slight

* From “Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey Report for the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests” (1987)
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

198 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Effects to Soils

Alternative A 

The existing conditions and trends of upland soils would continue under this alternative. Organic 

soil carbon would accumulate at potential rates. Soil fertility would slowly improve 

commensurate with the accumulation of organic carbon. Where ground cover is well developed 

and intact, infiltration rates would be near potential as surface runoff is minimized. Erosion would

remain a concern in those areas recovering from past disturbance, both natural and anthropogenic, 

but should reduce as ground cover is reestablished.

This alternative would not affect soil condition directly. However, because alternative A would

retain the 100 percent of acreage in FRCC 3 land within the project area, conditions remain so a 

greater extent of area under ponderosa pine and mixed conifer stands would likely experience 

moderate to high soil burn severity in a wildfire. The loss of canopy cover, ground cover, and 

organic debris on the soil surface, together with the possible occurrence of hydrophobic soil 

layers in these areas and instances, would likely lead to dramatic increases in soil erosion and loss 

of soil organic matter and soil fertility. More erodible soils would likely reach soil erosion rates 

that result in loss of productivity.

Soils in grasslands would probably not be affected to the same degree since burn severities would 

likely be lower. Wildfire in these areas may also tend to stimulate more vigorous growth of grass 

and forb vegetation leading to overall improvements in ground cover. 

Alternative B 

Alternative B would not have long-term impacts to soil productivity with implementation and 

monitoring of mitigating BMPs as prescribed in appendix B. Short-term increases in soil loss are 

expected, but are minimized through prescribed BMPs for logging activities that have shown to 

be effective (ASNFs 2007, 2010). 

A recent administrative study of soil disturbances by logging equipment implementing treatments 

similar to those proposed in alternative B (and C) (Sitko and Hurteau 2010) was initiated in 2007 

to help the forest determine initial soil compaction or soil bulk density and resistance to 

penetration from fuel reduction treatments near Greer, Arizona.

Correlations between soil disturbance classes (SDC) as described in “Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol” (Page-Dumroese, et al., 2009) and change in soil condition (R3 Supplement 

FSH 2509.18) due to compaction were established in this study. In the study, 81 percent of the 

area showed no reductions in soil condition class. However, 19 percent were either impaired or 

unsatisfactory. Based on this initial study, reductions in soil condition were detected in SDC 2 and 

3, but no reductions in soil quality were detected in SDC 0 and 1. The Greer study showed that 

soil condition was impacted in severity class 2 and 3.

Table 83 shows an example of the visual indicators and management activities that may be found 

with the proposed thinning treatments. For more information, see the soil disturbance monitoring 

protocol in the project record.

Table 83. Example of soil visual indicators of soil disturbance and management activities*

Disturbance Type Severity Class
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 199

0 1 2 3

Past operation None Dispersed Faint Obvious

Wheel tracks or 

depressions

None Faint wheel tracks or 

slight depressions 

evident (<5cm deep)

Wheel tracks or 

depressions are >5 

cm deep.

Wheel tracks or 

depressions highly evident 

with a depth being >10 cm.

Equipment trails from 

more than 2 passes

None Faintly evident Evident, but not 

heavily trafficked.

Main trails that are heavily 

used.

Excavated and bladed 

trails

None None None Present

* From Page-Dumroese, et al., 2009, “Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring Protocol.” 

Other Western U.S. studies (Page-Dumroese, et al., 2006 and 2009) (ERI, 2003) also describe 

initial effects of thinning operations and report that once compacted, soil bulk density may take 

many years to recover to pretreatment conditions. Therefore, methods to limit initial compaction 

are most desirable and effective. BMPs prescribed in appendix B are effective in helping limit the 

extent and number of trips of the machinery or the compacting force, avoiding the times of year 

or soil moisture conditions that are more susceptible to compaction, and avoiding the soils most 

susceptible to damage provide the best defense to loss of soil productivity.

Where mechanical harvesting/thinning is practiced, short-term increases in erosion related to 

ground cover disturbance are minimized by BMPs (appendix B) that retain slash and limit 

disturbance and soil displacement. Subsequent slash disposal activities would extend the time of 

or temporarily reinitiate ground cover disturbance and its related erosion.

Finer textured soils and soils without high rock fragment content would have more potential for 

compaction. Implementation of BMPs that restrict mechanized treatment activities during periods 

of wet soil conditions would avoid serious compaction issues in most of the upland soils. In areas 

with extensive development of biotic soil crusts, mechanical harvesting would also cause a shortterm increase in erosion as the soil crust is disturbed. This impact can be reduced to some extent 

by limiting mechanical entry to times when biotic soil crusts are least susceptible to disruption 

(such as very dry periods).

Long term positive effects would occur in areas where production of grass cover is stimulated by 

prescribed burning and by opening of the canopy cover through thinning operations. This effect 

would be most visible in grassland restoration treatments and in open areas where group selection 

cuts are made. Increases in ground cover where slash is lopped and scattered would also lead to 

positive impacts on soil fertility as well as a quick reduction of erosion from harvest activities.

An objective of the Rim Lakes Project is to reduce the occurrence of hazardous fuels—both 

standing and on the forest floor. Reducing these categories of hazardous fuels necessarily leads to 

a lower input of organic soil carbon to the soil layers. However, implementation of Region 3 

guidelines to leave needed levels of large organic material on the forest floor, both in thinning and 

prescribed burning operations, should maintain current soil fertility levels in the long term.

Prescribed fires can reduce the level of organic debris available for soil fertility maintenance, 

particularly where they reach moderate to high severity levels.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

200 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Although prescribed fires can limit the severity of the impact to soil resources, a complete 

elimination of potential impacts is not possible. Where both mechanical and prescribed fire occur 

on the same land, the activities must be coordinated such that the minimum levels of residual 

coarse woody debris identified in the BMPs would remain (except in areas where risk to human 

life and property from wildfire is high).

Since the severity of subsequent wildfires would likely be reduced by implementation of the 

proposed action, the area that would likely experience moderate to high soil burn severity in a 

wildfire is reduced significantly. With uncharacteristic wildfire, the loss of canopy cover, ground 

cover, and organic debris on the soil surface, together with the possible occurrence of 

hydrophobic soil layers in these areas and instances, would likely lead to dramatic increases in 

soil erosion and loss of soil organic matter and soil fertility.

No long-term effects to soil productivity are expected with implementation of this alternative 

with the implementation of soil and water conservation practices (or BMPs).

Alternative C 

The effects of implementation for upland soils described above in alternative C are similar to the 

effects of implementation in alternative B. However, alternative C moves only 14 percent of the 

project area to FRCC 1.

Due to the small size of created openings and the current spacing of trees greater than 16 inches 

d.b.h., most treated areas under alternative C would eventually develop interlocking or nearly 

interlocking crowns within a relatively short timespan following this treatment (10 to 15 years), 

based on resulting density and average growth rates (Ronco et al., 1985) ( Nicolet 2011). 

Water Quality

The recent State of Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) biannual report on the 

status of surface water quality (ADEQ 2009 ) which lists impaired and nonattaining water bodies 

for the state along with management recommendations for improvements was used in assessing 

the potential impacts from proposed activities. ADEQ recently released the latest integrated 

305(b) assessment and 303(d) listing report in conjunction with the EPA. This assessment on 

streams and lakes is categorized as meeting all designated uses, impaired, inconclusive, or 

attaining some uses (ADEQ, 2009). Examples of designated uses include aquatic and wildlife 

(cold), full body contact, drinking water standards, etc.

One water body in the examined area was listed in the current ADEQ report. Bear Canyon Lake is 

a 55-acre lake in the Upper Willow Creek watershed. This lake is listed as category 5 – impaired.

The ADEQ has placed the lake on its planning list used to prioritize future monitoring due to low 

dissolved oxygen, chronic selenium exceedance, and missing core parameters: Escherichia coli

and dissolved metals (copper, cadmium, and zinc). This lake is also listed on the 303(d) List by 

the EPA for exceedance on pH measurements. This implies a potential chronic sediment problem 

with Bear Canyon Lake, and measures for sediment reduction should take place when planning 

activities around the headwaters of Bear Canyon Lake.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 201

Environmental Effects

Alternative A 

This alternative is not anticipated to produce any changes to existing water quality trends in the 

streams, springs, and surface water bodies in or downstream of the project area. Open roads and 

any “closed” roads still being used for motorized travel would continue to discharge runoff and 

sediment to project area streams, especially where the roads are poorly located in stream bottoms, 

have inadequate drainage structures, and are hydrologically connected to the stream network. 

This alternative would not provide for reduced vegetative conditions that are more resistant to 

uncharacteristic wildfire. This alternative would retain 100 percent of acres in FRCC 3 and move 

none of those acres toward a higher FRCC (1 or 2). Therefore, the likely effects to water quality 

and quantity in the case of wildfires resulting in high soil burn severity are well documented and 

result in heavy sediment and ash inputs to streams, as well as increased risk of damaging flows to 

streams, riparian areas, and downstream structures. It is likely that under any condition, a wildfire 

entering these untreated watersheds under alternative A would have considerably greater impacts 

to water quality and channel stability than wildfire occurring after implementation of alternative

B or C.

This alternative would not improve—or improve slowly—water quality. Water quantity would

continue to decline as overstory conditions close even more than current conditions.

Alternative B 

Principal water quality impacts of the actions proposed in this alternative would include increased 

short-term inputs of ash and sediment to stream channels and impoundments in the project area 

and, to a lesser extent, downstream of the area. Implementation of BMPs (especially those that 

focus on streamside management zones or SMZs) would retain the filtering capacity of SMZs and 

so minimize this ash input to streams. SMZs combined with burn prescriptions that reduce 

severity of burns keep the input of ash to levels that cannot be measured.

The principal source of increased sediment to streams would likely be reopened or improved 

roads in the project area. Level 1 roads that are reopened would be closed again after the project 

objectives have been completed in the area. Thus, the sediment generated on their surfaces would 

likely decrease over time. However, it is likely that chronic sediment inputs to area streams would

increase since it may be necessary to upgrade roads and increase the size and number of landings 

to accommodate chip vans or other equipment used for treatments. 

A second source of increased sediment input to streams would be from areas where ground cover 

has been reduced or eliminated due to harvest, thinning, and prescribed fire activities. Skid trail 

locations are not generally designated prior to harvest and have the potential to compact and 

expose bare mineral soils to erosive agents.

The mechanical harvesting techniques proposed for some areas of this project, such as the use of 

feller-bunchers, can reduce the degree of soil gouging with positive benefits to preventing soil 

erosion. However, they still tend to disturb existing ground cover and expose bare mineral soils 

and do so over higher percentages of the treatment area than conventional logging activities.

BMPs would be implemented to maintain the sediment filtering capacity of streamside buffer 

strips. It is particularly important that the filtering capacity of the strips be maintained during the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

202 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

periods when adjacent side slopes are in a disturbed situation (i.e., ground cover reduced by 

management activity). Specific BMPs for streamside management zones are included in appendix 

B. Implementation of BMPs designed to protect water quality is effective in preventing long-term 

deterioration of water quality from sediment. 

Sediment is a potential source of further reducing the pH and could be derived from treatment and 

road activities within the Bear Canyon Lake watershed. Sediment delivery would be mitigated by 

implementation of project BMPs under alternative B or C. Streams within the watershed are 

designated on the streamside buffer map and are identified as needing site-specific restrictions.

Further monitoring by the ADEQ has been identified as a need for characterizing water quality in 

Bear Canyon Lake. Until a total maximum daily load analysis has been completed, it is unknown 

whether the water quality standards that have not been met are a result of natural conditions or 

anthropogenic activities. The objective of the study is to determine the sources of impairment and 

to recommend remediation if necessary. BMPs would be implemented to prevent this project 

from contributing to that condition.

Fuel reduction treatments in forested watersheds would probably have long term detectable 

increases in water yields either onsite or downstream (Brewer 2008, Bosch and Hewlet 1982, 

Hornbeck and others 1997, Troendle and others 2003, 2007). Prescriptions that cover most of the 

project area are likely to remove greater than 20 percent of basal area that is needed to generate a 

detectable change in flow. Twenty percent of the treatments prescribed in alternative B are 

regeneration cuts with very small patches and groups, which allow more snow collection in 

openings, resulting in more potential onsite water storage and yield. The hydrologic effect would 

be that the area would provide longer periods of flow in intermittent streams within and 

downstream of the project area.

Bosch and Hewlet (1982) concluded and subsequent data (Hornbeck and others 1997) and 

modeling (Troendleand and others 2003, 2007) support that removing less than 20 percent of the 

basal area may also result in a change in flow, but this change would not be detectable. In cases 

where there is a detectable hydrologic response to fuel management treatments, the observed 

response would be greatest in wet years and smallest or nondetectable in dry years. Prescribed 

fires, when designed and used as a fuel reduction tool alone, are probably less likely to influence 

water yield than mechanical treatments or burning with mechanical treatments because of the 

smaller reduction in basal area and lack of ground disturbance by heavy machinery. 

Measures taken to reduce the potential impact of increased peak flows and runoff are described in 

the following “Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis” section. 

Alternative B would have the highest herbaceous understory response and greatest understory 

plant diversity. This increase in a vegetative grass component would improve the ability of 

watershed to intercept and retain water inputs (precipitation and snowmelt).

Alternative C 

The conditions and trends for water quality and quantity described under the existing conditions

would continue under this alternative. Both alternative B and alternative C reduce canopy 

coverage and disturbed soil to an equivalent level. This alternative, however, is not expected to 

maintain open canopy cover conditions as long as alternative B. The effects of mechanical 

treatments would provide increases to water yield similar to alternative B, however, they would 

be much shorter lived, as forest canopies are expected to close much faster, as soon as 15 years 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 203

and only 14 percent of the area is expected to return to historic open conditions where periodic 

fire can maintain the open conditions. Regeneration cuts with small patches are not prescribed in 

alternative C and would probably result in less water yield increase as well.

Expected increases in forage production and basal area ground cover would diminish quickly 

over time. Alternative C would have less understory plant diversity than alternative B, but greater 

than alternative A. The diameter limit leaves more trees in the upper canopy resulting in a slightly 

lower production of herbaceous understory than alternative B. Understory production would be of 

short duration as the canopy would close in within 15 years.

Riparian/Stream Condition

A Hydro Science report (Haynes 1993) explored the conditions of the Upper Willow Creek and 

Middle Willow Creek watersheds. This report found the upland conditions to be acceptable, but 

stream reaches in the upper and middle portions of the Upper Willow Creek watershed as well as 

the main stem of Willow Creek were evaluated to have unacceptable conditions with active gully 

erosion. Hydro Science attributed the declining riparian area condition to historic overgrazing.

They found that timber harvests have done little to degrade riparian areas.

Riparian areas were assessed in 1998 and 1999 within the project area using proper functioning 

condition (PFC) surveys (Pritchard et al., 1993). This survey technique is used throughout the 

Western United States by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management to assess 

conditions of riparian areas. The protocol for this qualitative survey technique requires 

professional judgment by a team of resource specialists on 17 items. The result of this survey is a 

riparian reach that is either in proper functioning condition (PFC), functioning at risk (FAR), or 

nonfunctional (NF).

A summary of these results by sixth code watershed is displayed in table 84. Of the 36.3 miles of 

stream surveyed, 5.9 miles were rated as proper functioning condition (satisfactory), 4.1 miles 

were determined to be nonriparian, and the remaining 26.3 miles were unsatisfactory, rated as 

either functional at risk (22.5 miles) or nonfunctional (3.8 miles).

Peak flows have increased in these watersheds over the last century due to impacts from heavy 

ungulate grazing and other actions, and have changed the ability to return to satisfactory 

conditions for a long time (Haynes 1993). Meadow areas in headwater reaches have lost riparian 

species and have been invaded by upland species due to incised streams and lowered water tables.

Table 84. Proper functioning condition ratings by 6th code watershed

Sixth Code Watershed PFC Rating Miles

Canyon Creek Headwaters FAR 1.8

Chevelon Creek Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs FAR 12.7

Upper Willow Creek/Gentry FAR 8.0

FAR Total 22.5

Chevelon Creek Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs NF 2.3

Upper Willow Creek/Gentry NF 1.5

NF Total 3.8

Upper Willow Creek/Gentry NR 4.1

NR Total 4.1
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

204 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Canyon Creek Headwaters PFC 2.5

Chevelon Creek Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs PFC 3.3

PFC Total 5.9

Total Surveyed 36.3

PFC – Proper Functioning Condition – Satisfactory Riparian Condition

FAR – Functioning at Risk – Unsatisfactory Riparian Condition

NF – Non-Functional – Unsatisfactory Riparian Condition

NR – Non-Riparian

Table 85. Stream mileage by watershed and project area

Sixth Code Watershed Watershed 

Stream Miles

Project Area 

Stream Miles

Proportional 

Extent (percent)

Alder Creek 57 0.2 0.4

Canyon Creek Headwaters 54 12.5 23.3

Chevelon Creek Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs 77 61.4 79.6

Chevelon Creek/Long Tom/Horse Trap 63 0 0

Christopher Creek 89 0.5 0.6

Concord Canyon/Naegelin 53 0 0

Haigler Creek/Gordon 87 4.5 5.1

Middle Willow Creek 78 0 0

Tonto Creek Headwaters 59 0 0

Upper West Chevelon Canyon 60 0.9 1.5

Upper Willow Creek/Gentry 80 24.8 30.8

Totals 816 104.9 12.9

Stream mileage by watershed is given in table 85. The majority of streams are either intermittent 

or ephemeral within the project area. Chevelon Creek Headwaters (61.4 miles), Upper Willow 

Creek (24.8 miles), and Canyon Creek Headwaters (12.5 miles) have the most stream miles 

contained within the project area. These three watersheds, therefore, have the highest probability 

of management actions directly affecting stream channels. Four watersheds have no intermittent 

or perennial streams within the project area.

Environmental Effects

Alternative A 

Under alternative A, current trends in condition of riparian areas within the Rim Lakes Project

area would be expected to continue. Tree density and canopy closure within the riparian areas 

would increase. Current levels of large woody debris would be available to the stream channel 

both from the riparian and adjacent upland zones. Areas where deciduous woody riparian 

vegetation is being shaded out by invading conifers would remain in that condition. 

Little changes to stream water temperatures would occur. Sedimentation from uplands would be 

expected to be lowest under alternative A as ground cover remains high and infiltration rates 

would remain unaltered. Most level 1 roads are currently stable and not contributing sediment.

Channel and streambank conditions functioning at risk would be expected to remain in a slowly 

improving upward trend (ASNFs PFC Summaries 1999).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 205

This alternative would allow riparian condition improvement at a slower rate than alternatives B 

or C, as there would be no direct reduction to conifer overstory to allow riparian vegetation to 

increase and improve riparian functions. 

Alternative B 

Under the proposed action alternative, thinning and burning operations can occur both on 

adjacent side slopes and within riparian/streamside zones. Site specific streamside management 

zones (SMZs) have been delineated for stream channels in the project area. The SMZs would also 

be managed under guidelines described in best management practices (BMPs) in appendix B.

The width of the SMZs, types of treatments allowed, and guidelines for implementation of those 

treatments vary depending on the aquatic resource values to be protected and the potential risks 

for deleterious impacts related to soil erosion (see ASNFs 2006a for description of SMZ 

guidelines). Treatments within the SMZs would be regulated both in space and time to achieve 

multiple resource management objectives. Treatments within SMZs, in combination with those on 

surrounding upland areas, should reduce the risk of significant damage to riparian communities 

and stream channel integrity due to the occurrence of any future wildfires in the project area.

The treatments would have beneficial impacts on riparian area vegetation composition and 

structure. This is particularly the case within the special riparian enhancement treatment areas in 

Woods Canyon, East Fork Woods Canyon, and Willow Springs Canyon. These treatments are 

specifically designed to reduce the conifer canopy cover in those riparian zones to stimulate the 

development of the underlying deciduous woody riparian vegetation (e.g., aspens, willows, and 

cottonwoods). This desired change in riparian vegetation would likely have a positive impact on 

stream channel stability and improve unsatisfactory riparian condition to properly functioning 

condition more quickly than alternative A.

Harvest/thinning operations that occur within the streamside management zones would reduce the 

canopy cover in riparian areas and would cause a potential short term warming effect on stream 

temperatures. However, as most stream channels within the project area are generally dry during 

May, June, and much of July, stream temperatures would not be influenced significantly by 

overstory thinning.

Prescribed fire treatments in the SMZs would likely have little potential to reduce canopy cover 

in riparian areas and would not result in further loss of shade. Proposed treatments across the 

entire project area would have the potential to cause a long-term reduction in the amount of large 

woody debris available for future input to stream channels. Since the majority of woody debris in 

the affected streams is generated within the streamside riparian zones, BMPs designed to provide 

for future large woody debris and other BMPs should limit the extent and severity of this 

potential impact and prevent loss of channel stability or structural diversity related to large wood.

Strict application of BMPs designed to maintain ground cover and large woody materials on the 

soil surface within the riparian buffer zones would reduce the amount of sediment reaching the 

channels from harvested and burned upland slopes and prevent excessive levels of sedimentation 

in stream reaches. 

This alternative would improve riparian condition at a faster rate than alternative A or C. FRCC 1 

is the desired vegetation condition for optimum soil and water resources. It is a condition that 

allows for desired hydrologic condition and function. FRCC 2 and FRCC 3 are conditions that do
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

206 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

not allow for an upward or improving trend of hydrologic function. Currently, the entire project 

area is classified as being in FRCC class “3.”

This alternative would decrease FRCC 3 to 13 percent by moving 54 percent of the project area 

toward FRCC 1 or historic conditions, and moving 32 percent to FRCC 2. Reductions in upland 

tree density and the long-term maintenance of open stands and forest openings should respond 

with increased streamflow and water yield (Brewer, 2008), which in turn would provide longer

periods of intermittent streamflow. These increases are more prevalent in the project area as they 

are in some of the highest precipitation zones found for ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer on 

the forests, a result of the orographic lifting effect of the Mogollon Rim. 

Alternative C 

To the extent possible, Rim Lakes would be managed to promote the spatial distribution of 

vegetation structural stages and canopy fuel heterogeneity while being restricted to not cutting 

any tree over 16 inches d.b.h.. Aspen and hard wood species would be promoted as much as 

possible. Activity slash and burning would be managed as in alternative B. 

Effects of treatments in alternative C are similar to alternative B. However, there would be less 

opportunity for created openings and less long-term improvement in additional water yield to 

enhance streamflow and riparian conditions due to a more rapid canopy closure predicted.

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis

A cumulative watershed effects analysis is based upon an “equivalent disturbed area” model 

described in “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis 

Procedure” (Lovely 1991, 2004). The model used in this analysis calculates the runoff 

inducement potential of various treatments and indexes them to the runoff potential of open 

roads. Thus, the EDA figure represents the percent of the watershed area which would have 

runoff related disturbance levels equivalent to that of being in a roaded condition.

When the cumulative EDA for past, present, and foreseeable future activities reaches 15 percent 

for a 6th code watershed, the situation raises a “red flag” that the total ground cover disturbing and 

runoff inducing activity in the watershed may be reaching levels that could signal potential 

deleterious impacts to watershed resources, particularly stream channel stability and water 

quality.

The application of this type of analysis has been a standard practice on the Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forests since the early 1990s (Lovely, 1991). The ASNFs model was adapted to fit local 

conditions of cumulative watershed effects (CWE) models developed in Region 5 of the Forest 

Service. These types of CWE models are in common use in the western United States although 

some incorporate data on watershed, soils, and stream channel characteristics to develop 

threshold of concern values specific to a watershed.

The level of watershed data collection and analysis needed to perform that type of extension of 

the model is not yet available on the forests. Cumulative watershed impacts were analyzed using 

the EDA model which assumes all projects occur in 1 year even though they could not.

20

 20 Probst, Jim. 2008. “Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis: Rim Lakes Forest Health Project.” Revised by Chris 

Nelson, 2010.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 207

Although CEQ regulations for implementing NEPA do not require a “worst case” scenario, this 

method was selected in order to account for the widest range of possible implementation 

strategies.

Cumulative watershed effects were considered on a watershed basis (see table 85). The nature of 

the activities and anticipated impacts from this project are most appropriately analyzed at the 6th

code watershed level. On the ASNFs, these watersheds are generally in the range of 10,000 to 

20,000 acres in size.

An equivalent disturbed area (EDA) analysis was used to compare the impacts of past, current, 

proposed, and reasonably foreseeable future activities both on the forests and on private land 

within the five 6th code watersheds containing most of the project area. Most of the project area is 

within 6th code watersheds in the Little Colorado River basin above the Mogollon Rim. But 

enough acreage was contained in two 6th code watersheds below the rim (which are primarily on 

the Tonto National Forest) to indicate a need for modeling cumulative effects there.

For this project, an initial analysis was performed to determine if there is any potential to reach 

the threshold level under a “worst case” scenario. Under this scenario, the disturbances related to 

past, present, proposed, and foreseeable activities were calculated to the year 2013. It was 

assumed that both alternatives B and C were relatively equal in cumulative effects, therefore only 

comparisons between no action and action were completed.

The effects of past activities lessen or recover as time passes and are based on the severity and 

type of treatment implemented. The “worst case” analysis results (summarized in table 86 below) 

indicate that when the effects of past and present activities, combined with proposed and 

foreseeable future projects, are compressed in time to all occur in 2013, three of the five analyzed 

watersheds in the Rim Lakes Project area (Canyon Creek Headwaters, Chevelon Creek 

Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs, and Christopher Creek) would be above the “red flag” 

threshold level of 15 percent equivalent disturbed area.

Further analysis of resulting equivalent disturbed areas under staging and treatment scenarios was 

used to develop project- and watershed-specific best management practices (BMPs) to alter, 

delay, or stage the elements of the proposed action alternative of the Rim Lakes Project so as to 

remain below the “red flag” threshold EDA level. By implementing the BMPs, it is unlikely that 

deleterious impacts to the watershed would occur due to the cumulative impacts of this project 

with those of past, present, and foreseeable future projects.

Table 86. EDA analysis results

6th Code Watershed

Canyon 

Creek 

Headwaters

Chevelon 

Creek 

Headwaters

Christopher 

Creek

Haigler 

Creek/ 

Gordon

Upper 

Willow 

Creek/Gentry

Total existing EDA (acres) 2,204 512.6 610.2 581.4 646.6

As percent of watershed 11.6 2.7 3.3 3.1 2.9

Total EDA in no action 

alternative (acres) 2,274.5 597.7 2,767.5 1,636 953

As percent of watershed 

(including TNF existing 

and projected treatments)

12.0 3.1 14.7 8.8 6.8
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

208 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

6th Code Watershed

Canyon 

Creek 

Headwaters

Chevelon 

Creek 

Headwaters

Christopher 

Creek

Haigler 

Creek/ 

Gordon

Upper 

Willow 

Creek/Gentry

Total EDA in action 

alternative (acres) 2,953 3,185.7 3,338.4 2,138.2 2,303.3

As percent of watershed 15.5 16.7 17.8 11.6 10.5

Watershed size (acres) 19,015 19,225 18,773 18,504 21,993

For the Canyon Creek watershed, it is estimated that hydrologic recovery from the RodeoChedeski Fire and previous management activities allowed the watershed to fall below the 15 

percent EDA threshold value in 2010. Only slight timing adjustments are needed to stay below 

that level as prescribed in the BMPs.

The Christopher Creek watershed would be slightly below the threshold EDA level (14.7 percent 

of watershed in 2013) without the proposed treatments. The Rim Lakes Project would treat only 

11 percent of the watershed area. Combined with ongoing Tonto National Forest projects, delay 

of some treatments has been incorporated into the project as mitigation.

The Chevelon Creek Headwaters/Woods/Willow Springs watershed is currently well below the 

threshold EDA level (3.1 percent of watershed estimated at project implementation in 2013). If all 

treatments were implemented in year 1 of the project, the estimated EDA would exceed the 

ASNFs threshold level by 1.7 percent. Therefore, timing and staging as well as modification of 

fuels treatments were incorporated into the project through site-specific BMPs. 

The worst case analyses for Upper Willow Creek/Gentry and Haigler/Gordon watersheds show 

that the threshold level for EDA would not be reached even if all proposed and foreseeable future 

activities were implemented in a single year. Timing and extent of the proposed and foreseeable 

projects in these two watersheds does not pose a cumulative effects threat to watershed resources.

It must be noted that the calculation of percent of watershed in EDA should not be considered an 

absolute indication that a watershed will or will not be negatively impacted by a proposed action. 

It is also unlikely that all treatments in any watershed would be implemented in a single year, 

therefore, the analysis has built in a conservative estimate of effects. 

The resulting EDA figures require professional judgment for adequate interpretation. They are 

meant to assess the hazard of the scale and the duration dimensions of disturbance in a watershed.

As such they indicate where changes in scale, duration, nature, or timing of project activities may 

require adjustment. They do not address the site-specific hazards of activities on various 

watershed functions.

Addressing these hazards would require strict adherence to BMPs developed for the project and, 

in some cases such as treatments in riparian zones, further onsite development of treatment 

prescriptions and mitigating measures by resource specialists before and during project 

implementation.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 209

Noxious Weeds 

Environmental Effects to Alternatives A, B, and C

Noxious weeds can pose a threat to forest and rangeland ecosystems. Identification, containment, 

and control of noxious weeds is important to prevent further spread. Prior to initiation of the Rim 

Lakes Project, there were no known populations of noxious weeds within the project area (list of 

prohibited, regulated, and restricted noxious weeds for the State of Arizona and Federal noxious 

weed list with Hughes 2011). After initiation of the project, a survey of the Rim Lakes Project

area was conducted by the district noxious weed coordinator and no noxious weeds were found. 

Best management practices and mitigation measures have been developed for the project to 

identify, contain, and control noxious weeds should they be found and are located in the project 

record (Hughes 2011).

With no known noxious weed populations and no noxious weeds identified during surveys, along 

with the BMPs and mitigation measures developed for the project, the risk rating for any of the 

alternatives is low. If weed populations are found, treatments would be delayed until the weeds 

can be controlled or the area would be avoided, however, it is assumed that the area would be less 

than a quarter acre. 

Therefore, there are no direct, indirect, or cumulative effects from noxious weeds expected from 

any alternative. 

Watershed Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

The effects to watersheds, water quality and soils of the amendment proposed in alternative B are 

described in the “Watershed” and “Soils” sections above. As noted, this amendment would result 

in more openness and diversity, thus benefiting the hydrologic condition. Because alternative B 

also reduces the risk of the effects of an uncharacteristic wildfire over a longer period, the 

benefits to watershed would be longer lasting. Effects of the amendment proposed in alternative 

C are described with the effects descriptions of alternative C. Favoring even-aged management 

would mean less watershed benefit over a shorter duration.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

210 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Figure 20. Streamside management zones and ephemeral streams
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 211

Recreation and Lands

This section describes key effects and conclusions from the recreation and lands specialist report 

(Dykstra 2011) located in the project record. Readers may refer to it for more information on law, 

regulation, policy, and more detailed descriptions of the activities and resources. The area of the 

analysis for recreation and lands resources is within the Rim Lakes Project area perimeter.

The White Mountains and Mogollon Rim are destinations for outdoor recreation and climatic 

relief from summer temperatures in the Phoenix and Tucson metropolitan areas. Popular 

recreational activities include hiking, mountain biking, off-highway vehicle (OHV) use, fishing, 

picnicking, camping, horseback riding, big game hunting, firewood gathering, wildlife and 

scenery viewing, and driving for pleasure. The White Mountains and Mogollon Rim provide 

some of the few winter sports opportunities in the State of Arizona. With adequate snowfall, 

snowmobiling and cross-country skiing are popular in the Forest Lakes area. Visitor use levels are 

moderate to high for most of the summer with peaks associated with the three summer holiday 

weekends and fall big game hunts. The majority of visitors are from the Phoenix metropolitan 

area (Dykstra 2011). The recreation and lands specialist report has a list of recreation facilities 

within the Rim Lakes Project area.

Forest Road 300 and State Highway 260 are corridors that provide for scenic viewing and access 

to developed and dispersed areas. Dispersed use can be found throughout the analysis area, 

including hiking, fishing, and “car camping.” Although there are no congressionally designated 

wilderness areas within the analysis area, there are some primitive areas—such as the Palomino 

Lake area—where a person could stay for days without seeing another person. Developed use can 

be seen at the campgrounds, boating sites, and Mogollon Rim Visitor Center.

While there are several ROS classes in the classification system, there are four that apply to the 

Rim Lakes Project area (see figure 21).

Number of acres of each ROS class:

1. Rural: 2,170 acres (FR 105 corridor, rim edge from VC to WCL, Forest Lakes area)

2. Roaded Modified: 2,911 acres (FR 84, FR 208, area south of Forest Lakes)

3. Roaded Natural: 15,193 acres (Majority of project area)

4. Semiprimitive Motorized: 2,373 acres (northern boundary of project area from Willow 

Springs Lake to Woods Canyon Lake)

Several areas within the project area are popular for overflow from the Rim Lakes Recreation 

Area and for visitors that prefer less development and fewer regulations.

The Rim Lakes Recreation Area (RLRA) within the boundary of the Rim Lakes Project area

includes the most developed recreation facilities and infrastructure on the Black Mesa Ranger 

District. Facilities include several lakes, day-use areas, developed campgrounds, hiking trails—

including the General Crook National Recreation Trail—the Rim Visitor Center, boat ramps, and 

a marina with a privately-owned store.

The Rim Lakes are reservoirs, constructed by Arizona Department of Game and Fish in the early 

1960s. The lakes were built to provide recreational boating and fishing opportunities. Woods 

Canyon Lake and Willow Springs Lake have small marinas that allow visitors to launch boats and 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

212 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

park their vehicles and trailers. The visitor use level at the Woods Canyon Lake marina area is 

very high during the summer months and parking becomes scarce throughout the weekends. 

Vehicle access to the Woods Canyon Lake complex is through National Forest System road 

(NFSR) 105 only. Traffic congestion in key areas such as NFSR 105, Woods Canyon Lake Store, 

NFSR 149, and Willow Springs boat ramp delay emergency response vehicles, and cause traffic 

backups and general agitation for forest visitors. 

Figure 21. Project area ROS classifications

Black Mesa Ranger District manages five designated dispersed camping areas in the rim analysis 

area. The term “designated dispersed” is used by the Black Mesa Ranger District to describe 

camping sites in several popular areas. These sites are found along several National Forest 

System roads that are in close proximity to the Mogollon Rim and Woods Canyon Lake area.

There are 11 areas that the Black Mesa Ranger District identifies as “concentrated use areas” 

(CUAs). These areas, with no developed facilities, are traditionally used by large groups, 

typically a family reunion or civic organization, that camp overnight for several days. Groups 

provide their potable water and portable toilets. Group size can range from 75 to over 200.

The 1987 “Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan” (LRMP) 

recommended the “scenic” classification for 29.9 miles of Chevelon Canyon from the confluence 

of Woods Canyon and Willow Canyon to the forest boundary. The two streams within the analysis 

area, Willow Springs Canyon and Woods Canyon, were found eligible and suitable for “wild” or 

“scenic” status under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. The “scenic” classification is defined as 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 213

“Those rivers or sections of rivers that are free of impoundments, with shorelines or watersheds 

still largely primitive and shorelines largely undeveloped, but accessible in places by roads” 

(Wild and Scenic Rivers Act).

In 2009, the forest supervisor signed an updated eligibility report for the National Wild and 

Scenic Rivers System (ASNFs 2009). The 2009 eligibility report found Willow Springs Canyon 

was no longer eligible because there were no outstanding remarkable values (ORVs) when 

compared to other rivers in the designated area of comparison (ASNFs 2009). Woods Canyon and 

Chevelon Creek were combined into one evaluation because they are within the same drainage 

basin and their values were found to be complementary and still retain eligible and suitable status.

Chevelon Creek itself does not lie within the project area, but portions of its quarter-mile 

management buffer lie within the project area boundary. This includes 4 miles of segment 1 and a 

portion of the 12.8 segment 2, recommended for “wild” classification (ASNFs 2009). Both of 

these segments are evaluated as “wild.” The “wild” classification is defined as “Those rivers or 

sections of rivers that are free of impoundments and generally inaccessible except by trail, with 

watersheds or shorelines essentially primitive and waters unpolluted. These represent vestiges of 

primitive America” (Wild and Scenic Rivers Act).

The corridor is a major drainage of the Mogollon Rim. Chevelon Creek cuts a scenic, steep, and 

twisting canyon through terrain covered with a mosaic of vegetation. Chevelon Canyon provides 

a canyon ecosystem relatively undistributed by human intrusion. It is a unique aquatic habitat in a 

relatively arid region with high semiprimitive recreation and wildlife values. Management 

guidelines for eligible or suitable rivers are described in Forest Service Handbook 1909.12 82.51, 

9:

• Wild. Cutting of trees and other vegetation is not permitted except when needed in 

association with a primitive recreation experience such as to clear trails or to protect users 

or the environment, including wildfire suppression. Prescribed fire and wildland fire use 

may be used to restore or maintain habitat for threatened, endangered, or sensitive species 

and/or restore the historic range of variability.

A portion of Chevelon Canyon (225 acres) was identified as an inventoried roadless area (IRA) 

(Dykstra 2011, appendix H) in the November 2000 roadless area conservation FEIS. Protecting 

air and water quality, biodiversity, and opportunities for personal renewal are highly valued 

qualities of inventoried roadless areas. No roads are proposed for construction in the Chevelon 

IRA.

Off-highway vehicle (OHV) use is noticeably low in the project area in most of the Rim Lakes 

Recreation Area, but high adjacent to Bear Canyon Lake. Motorized travel is restricted to open, 

numbered roads, and cross-country motorized travel is prohibited. All open roads in the RLRA 

are level 3 or higher, so all vehicles and operators must be licensed.

Several areas within the project area are closed to motorized use. Special forest order number 01-

402 is in effect for the Beaver Turkey Ridge Special Management Area (SMA) and the Willow 

Springs Horse Trap SMA. Carr Lake Wildlife Habitat Area (WHA) and Palomino/Deer Lake 

WHA, were effectively created by administrative road closures in the late 1980s (see table 87).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

214 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 87. Existing special management areas and wildlife habitat areas 

Beaver Turkey 

Ridge SMA

Willow Springs 

Horse Trap SMA Carr Lake WHA Palomino/Deer Lake WHA

Total number of acres 2,924 8,602 2,270 10,405

Number of acres within 

Rim Lakes Project area 220 602 2,270 7,714

There are no motorized trail systems authorized within the analysis area, with the exception of a 

designated snowmobile trail system. There are two informal snowplay areas near SR 260, and a 

cross-country ski trail system near Forest Lakes which are not maintained. Nonmotorized forest 

system trails and trail systems exist in the analysis area, including the General Crook National 

Recreation Trail, Carr Lake Trail system, and Rim Lakes Vista Trail 622. Rim Lakes Vista Trail 

622 meanders along the Mogollon Rim for 3.5 miles and provides spectacular views overlooking 

the rim. 

The General Crook National Recreation Trail was designated in 1979 and crosses through the 

analysis area east to west along the Mogollon Rim. The entire trail is 138 miles long, from Fort 

Verde to west of Cottonwood Wash and follows a route created by General George Crook in the 

1870s. Original blazes can still be seen on the ponderosa pines lining the trail, as well as 

occasional traces of homesteads. Although the trail is nonmotorized, portions of the marked route 

follow or cross Forest System roads. The General Crook National Recreation Trail is also 

designated as an Arizona State Historic Trail.

AGFD game management units 3C, 4A, and 4B fall within the project area. Many big game and 

small game species are found within the analysis area. Hunting season increases use levels within 

the CUAs and general forest areas, but does little to increase use levels at developed recreation 

sites.

Land uses permitted under special uses authorizations within or immediately adjacent to the 

project area include an APS 345 KV transmission line, an SRP dual 500 KV transmission line, 

and a developed parcel of private land. The power transmission lines are critical utility corridors 

within the western United States power grid, primarily feeding the Phoenix metropolitan area, but 

also feeds locally to the Rim Lakes Recreation Area concessionaire and Woods Canyon Lake 

Store.

Rancho Allegre subdivision, also known as Homestead Entry Survey (HES) 185, is a 23.7-acre 

parcel of private land within the project area, surrounded on all sides by National Forest System

lands. A decision notice and finding of no significant impact was signed in 2006 to issue a Federal 

Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) road easement for access to Rancho Allegre. The 

decision notice also provided for additional access points, emergency access, road construction, 

and decommissioning (Dykstra 2011, appendix H).

Environmental Effects

Alternative A 

Implementation of Alternative A would have no short-term effects to recreation resources.

Existing recreation opportunities would continue to be available. Number of acres in each ROS 

class would not change. Forest visitation would continue under this alternative. There would be 

no change in the status of the Chevelon Creek segments that are eligibility and suitability for wild 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 215

or scenic rivers and Chevelon Canyon segments identified as an inventory roadless area with the 

no action alternative. Motorized vehicle use would be maintained according to the existing 

restrictions described in the “Rim Lakes Management Plan.”

Motorized vehicle use outside the Rim Lakes Recreation Area would be maintained according to 

current Forest Service and forestwide regulations, rules, and management objectives. Hiking and 

mountain biking use throughout the analysis area would be maintained as status quo. There would 

be no change in the status of the General Crook National Recreation Trail. There would be no 

change in the status of other nonmotorized trails. There would be no change in the authorization 

or administration of the APS and SRP utility corridors serving the Phoenix metropolitan area.

Status of authorized access to private land within and adjacent to the project area would not 

change.

Long-term effects would be based on the forest health in the project area. Over time, the heavy 

fuels would accumulate (see “Fuels and Fire Potential” section page 63) in the project area and 

subject the existing facilities, infrastructure, and private land to a higher probability of 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire, including stand-replacing fires. Heavy fuel loading would 

continue to be within close proximity of areas with the highest visitor use which increases the 

likelihood of human-caused fire. Heavy fuel loading would continue to be adjacent to the APS 

and SRP utility corridors. Although both utility companies follow federally mandated standards 

for line clearing and vegetation removal, they are authorized and only held responsible for 

clearing within their permitted right-of-way.

Uncharacteristically severe wildfire, including stand-replacing fires, would result in changes to 

the landscape and its character, reduce or essentially eliminate the quality of recreational settings 

and experiences that are desirable in the Rim Lakes Project area. Loss of recreation facilities and 

infrastructure would result in closed or limited facilities, displacement of forest visitors, and loss 

of revenue to the local store owner and campground concessionaire operator.

Some impacts of an uncharacteristically severe wildfire would be temporary while others would 

be long term. Immediately after the Rodeo-Chediski Fire in 2002, the Black Mesa Ranger District 

closed areas to public entry for public health and safety. Many areas had hazardous trees, 

potential for flash flooding, and soils that had become highly erosive or sensitive to compaction. 

Within 2 years, most hazards had been mitigated and the area closures were lifted. The district 

found immediately after the fire that the public did not camp or attempt to camp in traditionally 

used areas. Forest visitors moved to other places on the district, mostly outside of the area burned 

by the Rodeo-Chediski. Many maintenance level 1 roads (closed to motor vehicle use) within the 

Rodeo-Chediski burn area had previously been covered by vegetation, thus effectively closing the 

roads. Once the vegetation was consumed by the fire, many of the level 1 roads became apparent 

to the forest visitor and were used. Similar effects are anticipated to occur in the Rim Lakes area 

in the event of a stand-replacing fire.

Wild and scenic river eligibility and suitability for Chevelon Creek may be lessened or 

temporarily impacted by an uncharacteristically severe wildfire. The ORVs for Chevelon Creek 

are scenery, geology, fish, wildlife, and vegetation/ecology. Each of these ORVs may in some 

way be impacted by an uncharacteristically severe wildfire and/or the immediate suppression 

activity. Postfire hydrological changes, e.g., introduction of heavy sedimentation loading

(watershed specialist report), may degrade the diversity of native fish species which include 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

216 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

roundtail chub, Little Colorado sucker, and bluehead sucker (fisheries specialist report) and 

terrestrial wildlife populations or habitat or a combination of these conditions (wildlife specialist 

report). The scenery ORV for Chevelon Creek is related to its exemplary example of 

sandstone/limestone canyon on the Sitgreaves portion of the ASNFs and the lush undergrowth 

and towering tree canopy. Vegetation consumption from an uncharacteristically severe wildfire 

may change the undergrowth and tree canopy. 

Impacts to hiking trails, including the General Crook National Recreation Trail, would be 

temporary. Trails would be closed until hazards were mitigated. Some trails may be rerouted to 

lessen soil erosion where drainage flows were increased.

Impacts of an uncharacteristically severe wildfire to the APS and SRP utility lines would be 

immediate and temporary. These lines transmit electricity to the Phoenix metropolitan area. Line 

outages, however temporary, can impact customers during the hottest time of the year and 

endanger those customers reliant on electricity for health reasons, including air conditioning. 

Alternatives B and Alternative C – Similarities

Both action alternatives reduce the likelihood of an uncharacteristically severe fire behavior 

immediately post treatment. Treatments would reduce the existing fuel loading and increase 

canopy openings allowing for more frequent surface fires rather than canopy fires (see “Fuels and 

Fire Potential” section page 63). Recreation facility investments, private land development and 

power line corridors, and forest visitors would be better protected from an uncharacteristically 

severe fire.

Number of acres in each ROS class would not change. During treatments, unnatural appearing 

slash piles would be near recreation sites temporarily. The piles would not be outside the ROS 

roaded natural objective, which would have no manmade facilities visible in the area.

In order to access treatment areas, 186 miles of currently closed forest roads would be opened and 

2.6 miles of temporary haul roads would be built (see “Engineering and Transportation” section

page 231). These roads would be closed after the project was completed. Maintenance would be 

required to restore the road for use during project implementation. The extent of maintenance 

needed would depend on the condition of the road, how long it was closed, and the extent of 

revegetation that had occurred. These roads would be open only for project implementation and 

considered open for administrative use, not public use.

Portions of the General Crook National Recreation Trail which coincide with Forest System 

Roads, 0.86 miles (where motorized vehicle use is allowed), would be used during project 

implementation.

With the initial reduction in the likelihood of an uncharacteristically severe fire, there would be 

no change in the status of the Chevelon Creek wild and scenic river eligibility and suitability or 

the inventoried roadless area. Recreation management and use would continue throughout the 

analysis area. There would be no change in the authorization or administration of the APS and 

SRP utility corridors. Status of authorized access to private land within and adjacent to the project 

area would not change.

In the short term, implementing either alternative B or C would not deter recreational activities 

throughout the entire project area at any one time. Effects of project implementation on recreation 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 217

use would be localized and coordinated to provide for the least conflict between visitors and 

treatment activities.

At times, planned maintenance burns would generate smoke that could pose health risks to the 

recreating public, but following Arizona Smoke Management procedures would minimize those 

impacts and keep them within appropriate standards.

Trail and dispersed camping area closures would only be in the immediate area and only for the 

duration of the treatment in close proximity. Temporary closure of trails and dispersed camping 

areas would displace forest users. Displaced forest visitors may impact other nearby forest areas 

that do not have the infrastructure to support public health and sanitation needs. 

Treatment implementation would cause heavy commercial traffic, traffic delays, and reroutes.

Traffic would also create dust during project activity on forest system roads. Rerouting traffic, 

restricting haul timing, and restricting haul routes would lessen the conflict between visitors and 

treatment activities, but affect traffic flow for forest visitors. Otherwise, motorized vehicle use 

would be according to the existing Forest Service and forestwide regulations, rules, and 

management objectives.

Alternative B and Alternative C – Differences

Both action alternatives reduce the likelihood of an uncharacteristically severe wildfire 

immediately post treatment. However, there is a distinct difference in the longevity of the 

treatment between alternatives B and C. Based upon proposed treatments in alternative B, the 

desirable forest conditions of mosaic patterns and open, uneven-aged forest character would 

persist for 30 years or longer following the initial treatment. Stand data outputs determined that 

54 percent of the entire Rim Lakes area treated with uneven-aged management (alternative B) 

would move to fire regime condition class (FRCC) 1 where it could be maintained as such with

prescribed fire for at least the next 20 years. 

In alternative C, only 14 percent of the area would move toward FRCC 1. Treated areas in 

alternative C would quickly develop interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns within a relatively 

short timespan (less than 10 years). Model results support that alternative C provides a reduction 

in crown fire but continues to have large areas with potential for a passive crown fire (fire and 

fuels specialist report).

In the long term, under alternative C, fuels would accumulate in the Rim Lakes Project area and 

subject the existing facilities, infrastructure, and private land to a higher probability of 

uncharacteristically severe wildfire, including stand-replacing fires. The effects to resources and 

infrastructure would be close to the long-term effects discussed under alternative A.

Cumulative Effects Common to Both Action Alternatives

Past and present (ongoing) activities that have occurred over the last 10 years were evaluated 

within the Rim Lakes Project area (table 9). Activities that created the current conditions include:

timber harvest; fire suppression; broadcast burning; improvements and maintenance to recreation 

facilities to meet the needs of the forest visitor and provide for public health and safety, and 

resource protection; maintenance of utility corridors; and improvements to private land 

inholdings. About 200 acres within the utility corridor have been cleared of vegetation in 2010 

and 2011. Slash piles from hand thinning in the Woods Canyon Lake area were burned in the fall 

of 2010, so their effects no longer exist. 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

218 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include vegetation maintenance along utility corridors in 

the project area. This effect would be limited to the permitted easement. Similarly, hazard tree 

management along FR 300 and proposed construction upgrade to this road would be limited in 

scope. Changes to the Rancho Allegre subdivision would include construction of a new access 

road and decommissioning of an existing road (Dykstra 201). Further development or change in 

ownership of the private land subdivision surrounded by the project area is not within the control 

of the Forest Service; however, no changes are currently planned.

Currently the forest is in the process of analyzing changes to travel management in conformance 

with the Travel Management Rule (TMR), including prohibiting motor vehicle use off designated 

National Forest System roads, trails, and areas. However, a decision has not yet been made so it is 

too early to predict the changes that would occur from that decision. Because the TMR requires 

this prohibition (with exceptions), changes to recreation off-road driving can be expected. 

The effects associated with this project combined with effects from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not have a measurable cumulative effect on the recreation 

resources or lands activities. Effects associated with vegetation management activities in the 

power line corridor would be limited to the immediate area being treated and would not 

cumulatively affect the recreation resources or lands activities.

Recreation Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

The effects to recreation resources of the amendment proposed in alternative B are described in 

the “Recreation” section above. As noted, this amendment would result in reduced likelihood of 

an uncharacteristically severe fire behavior immediately post treatment. Alternative B would 

maintain this condition longer. Treatments in alternative B would reduce the existing fuel loading,

and increase canopy openings allowing for more frequent surface fires rather than canopy fires 

(see “Fuels and Fire Potential” section page 63). Recreation facility investments, private land 

development and power line corridors, and forest visitors would be better protected from an 

uncharacteristically severe fire. Effects of the amendment proposed in alternative C are described 

with the effects descriptions of alternative C. Favoring even-aged management would mean 

similar, but shorter duration benefits.

Scenic Resources

This section summarizes key conclusions and effects from the scenic resources specialist report 

(Doyle 2011) located in the project record. The report includes detail on law, regulation, and 

policy.

The project area lies within Management Areas (MA) 1, 3, and 16. Management emphases related 

to visuals include dispersed recreation (MA 1) and protecting high scenic values (MA 16). MA 11 

is also included within the analysis area, but proposed treatments do not apply.

Currently, the scenery resources of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests (ASNFs) are managed 

through the application of the Visual Management System (VMS), adopted by the Forest Service 

in 1974. Under the VMS, visual quality objectives (VQOs) have been prescribed in the forest 

plan for all lands within the ASNFs. VQOs are measurable standards for the management of 

visual resources and refer to the degree of acceptable alterations of the characteristic landscape 

based on the importance of aesthetics. The characteristic landscape is the naturally established 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 219

landscape being viewed. The VQO classifications range from preservation, retention, partial 

retention, and modification to maximum modification.

To meet specific resource management objectives, the following visual quality objectives 

variations are allowed for a management area (forestwide S&Gs, p. 36):

• Preservation: no change 

• Retention: +/-2 percent foreground, +/-5 percent background, middle ground. 

• Partial Retention: +/-5 percent foreground, +10/- percent back and middle ground 

• Modification/maximum modification: +10/- percent in all zones 

One classification movement downward is all that would be allowed, although acceptable 

variations must be coordinated through the forest landscape architect to mitigate the variation 

when possible.

Distance zones are divisions of a particular landscape and are used to describe the part of a 

characteristic landscape that is being evaluated. The three distance zones are foreground, middle

ground and background. The foreground is defined as the detailed landscape found within 0 to 

about a half mile from the observer. Middle ground is the area located from a half mile to 3–5 

miles from the viewer. Background is the distant part of the landscape that provides harmony or 

contrast; it is located from 3 to 5 miles to as far as the viewer can see.

According to the forest plan, visual resource values on the ASNFs are to be maintained and 

enhanced by including VQOs in resource planning and management activities (USDA 1987). The 

prescribed VQOs for the project area include retention (approximately 31,400 acres) and partial 

retention (approximately 2,100 acres). Retention provides for management activities which are 

not visually evident. Partial retention includes activities that must remain visually subordinate to 

the characteristic landscape. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or texture common to the 

characteristic landscape, but changes in their qualities of size, amount, intensity, direction, 

pattern, etc., remain visually subordinate to the characteristic landscape.

The Rim Lakes Project area is a highly desirable year-round recreation destination, and scenic 

quality is important to visitors and residents alike (see “Recreation and Lands” section, page 211).

People are drawn to the area for climatic relief afforded by the forested, high elevation slopes 

(7,200–7,900 feet above sea level) and cold water lakes. The major scenic attraction is the 

Mogollon Rim, which extends 200 miles from Flagstaff, Arizona, into western New Mexico.

From the Mogollon Rim’s 7,600-foot elevation, numerous vista points and the Mogollon Rim 

Visitor Center provide spectacular views into the canyon and to lowlands to the south.

Primary scenic corridors in the project area include State Highway 260, National Forest System 

Roads (NFSRs) 300, 169, 100, 34, and the General George Crook National Recreation Trail. In 

addition to the Mogollon Rim, important and valued scenic elements within the project area 

include Woods Canyon, Willow Springs, and Bear Canyon Lakes. The project area also includes 

225 acres of the Chevelon Canyon Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) and 173 acres of the Woods 

Canyon/Chevelon Creek eligible wild and scenic river, which is eligible at “wild” status.

Scenery contributes indirectly to the local quality of life, tourism, and economic vitality and to 

the area’s sense of place. Results from the 2007 National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey (USDA 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

220 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

2009) for the ASNFs show that more than 80 percent of those who participated in the study 

identified recreation as the purpose of their visit.

The existing landscape character of the project area has been shaped by natural processes and 

human activities. The influences include beetle and mistletoe infestations, wildfires—in particular 

the 2002 Rodeo-Chediski Fire—as well as residential and recreation developments, grazing, fire 

suppression, and timber management.

As described in the “Vegetation” section (page 41), the project area includes heavily stocked, 

even-aged stands with closed canopy and suppressed understory to more open stands featuring 

some large trees (>24 inches in diameter), depending on slope, aspect, topography, previous fuel 

treatments and fire. Two power lines, operated under special use permit and defined by a 200- to 

300-foot-wide corridor cleared of most vegetation, are located within the project area. The 

straight lines and hard edges of the corridor are a contrast with naturally occurring shapes in the 

landscape. They are potential focal points and detract from views along SH 260 and FR 300 but 

have a minor impact on the overall scenic quality of the project area.

The resulting landscape appears natural and unaltered to the casual forest observer and meets the 

VQOs of retention and partial retention. However, the existing condition falls short of the 

potential scenic quality inherent in the historic ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests which 

exhibited more diversity of spatial distribution, size, and age class. In addition, the current forest 

conditions are at much higher risk of high intensity fire which could further degrade the scenic 

quality. 

Environmental Effects

Alternative A 

No vegetation management activities would be proposed under alternative A. There would be no 

impacts to the scenic resources associated with opening closed roads, burning, and mechanical 

treatments since these actions would not be implemented.

The VQOs of retention and partial retention would be met in the project area; however, the 

overall scenic quality of the project area would decline over time. The existing trend of even-aged 

stands of mixed conifers would continue, the canopy would continue to close, and visual diversity 

would decrease. Views into the project area from roads, trails, recreation sites, and residential 

areas would be reduced due to the overstocked condition of the stands, and the grass–forb–shrub

understory component would continue to be crowded out.

Under this alternative, there would be no opportunities to enhance and improve scenic resources 

or achieve the desired condition described in chapter 1 since there would be no thinning or other 

treatments.

Because stands would not be thinned, the risk of stand-replacing fire would continue to be of 

concern to the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests and residents of the surrounding communities.

In the event of a high-severity wildfire—such as the Rodeo-Chediski Fire—the existing landscape 

character would be suddenly altered with little opportunity to slow or control the change. The 

VQOs in the project area would be met because fire is considered a natural part of the ecosystem; 

however, a high intensity, large-scale wildfire would redefine and reshape the existing landscape 

character. The appearance and character of the area would shift from densely forested to patchy 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 221

and open. The overstory component and green canopy would be absent or drastically reduced, 

depending on the severity of the fire. For several years the landscape would be dominated by 

blackened, dead standing trees; if allowed to come down on their own, the trees would likely fall 

in a dense, jack-straw pattern. 

For two to three growing seasons, the blackened, exposed ground surfaces would be highly 

visible due to lack of vegetation. Sedimentation and erosion would increase, raveling soils that 

would take a long time to revegetate. Eventually these areas would be covered with scattered 

invasive plants and other spotty vegetation until native material became established. These 

changes would be visible throughout the project area in the foreground of forest roads and trails, 

and as middle ground and background views from Forest Lakes, Rancho Allegre, and developed 

recreation sites. If the fire were not contained within the project boundary, scenic quality of the 

Chevelon Canyon IRA and eligible Chevelon Creek WSR corridor would be at risk. The changes 

would contrast with the natural appearance of the landscape and degrade the scenic quality.

Initial public reaction to a large-scale fire tends to be negative, as many people do not consider 

extensive, blackened landscapes to be natural or beneficial (Ryan 2005). These effects are often 

perceived by local residents as devastating to their community and way of life; nonlocal forest 

visitors may regard the effects of a catastrophic fire as interesting and something “to be seen” but 

also as a degradation nonetheless of the scenic quality. In addition, emergency fire suppression 

actions such as fire lines and emergency postfire rehabilitation treatments could result in 

unnatural scars on the landscape. 

With mitigation measures, the immediate impacts of the suppression and emergency treatments 

should not be evident to the casual forest visitor within 2 to 3 years of completion as grasses, 

wildflowers, shrubs, and forbs moved in, although effects from the fire itself would remain 

visible much longer. Within 5 years, the effects of the fire would begin to be viewed in a 

somewhat more positive light as the shrubby understory, seedlings, and saplings became more 

abundant. However, the presence of dead standing trees would remain a dominant and somewhat 

negative visual reminder for many years.

Alternative B 

Effects from generalized prescriptions, treatment types, and associated actions described in 

chapter 2 (page 18 through 20) are discussed below.

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Protected Habitat Areas (309 acres): This prescription would be 

implemented with the objective of reducing stand density and fire hazard. It would result in 

stands appearing slightly more open and more diverse over time when compared to the existing 

condition, although the difference may not be noticeable to the casual forest visitor, particularly 

when driving along roads.

MSO Restricted Habitat (5,512 acres): This prescription would move treated areas toward 

uneven-aged stands with a balance of age classes present. Small to moderate sized openings 

would be created over 20–40 percent of the area. This prescription would move treated areas 

toward uneven-aged stands with a balance of age classes present, which would increase visual 

diversity and enhance scenic quality. These stands would appear more open than the MSO 

protected habitat areas.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

222 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

MSO Restricted Habitat – Threshold and Target Threshold (766 acres): Stands would appear 

quite dense, and no openings would be created. To the casual visitor, treated stands would appear 

essentially unchanged from existing conditions.

Goshawk Foraging and PFA Habitat Stands (16,835 acres): Stands treated under this 

prescription would be more open than in MSO habitat areas and would be managed for unevenaged characteristics. Treated stands would appear more visually and spatially diverse when 

compared to existing conditions.

Grassland and Wetland Meadow Enhancement (193 acres): Natural meadows would be 

restored and are located in areas with a VQO of retention and most are located with the 

foreground and middle ground of trails and roads. This treatment would reintroduce a valued 

scenic element back into the landscape and sustain it over time. 

Aspen Exclosures/Regeneration: There would be a slight, localized visual impact from the 

fence line that would be maintained to exclude elk from aspen and oak regeneration while it is in 

place. This impact would be offset by the restoration of the aspens, an important visual element 

particularly for fall foliage viewing. 

Road Maintenance: Maintenance required to open 186 miles of roads could have slight to 

moderate effects on scenic quality that would last throughout the duration of the project until the 

roads were closed. If the closed road had not revegetated and needed very minor work to be 

functional, then impacts on the scenic quality would be a minimal change from the current 

condition. However, if the road had time to revegetate and needed more work to accommodate 

project activities, then impacts to the scenic quality would be more pronounced. The 2.6 miles of 

temporary road built to avoid the General Crook Trail would be decommissioned after the project 

is completed. The impacts would be similar to opening closed roads that require more 

maintenance to be functional. Effects would be very noticeable through the duration of the project 

in the immediate foreground and would diminish after the roads are decommissioned. 

Mechanical Treatments: There would be a slight to moderate effect on scenic quality during and 

immediately following treatments. Contract specifications call for stumps to be left no more than 

6 inches high, although typically stumps are cut flush unless prevented by rocks or other natural 

features. 

The presence of skid trails, landings, and piled or scattered slash would also result in a moderate 

reduction of the scenic quality for the duration of the project. The effects in these areas would not 

be long term since skid trails would be rehabilitated, and activity generated slash would be 

removed within 1 year of project completion. The ground disturbance resulting from using 

machines to pile slash would be noticeable for up to 1 year after project completion, depending 

on how quickly the areas were rehabilitated and vegetation regenerated.

Broadcast Burning: Depending on fire severity, effects would include charred soil and 

vegetation immediately following meadow burning, charred bark up to 10 feet from the ground, 

needle and leaf scorch typically less than 20 feet from the ground, and loss of understory trees, 

trees with old scars, or trees with large accumulations of dead fuels at their base. This treatment 

method would likely result in short-term reduction in scenic quality. The presence of charred 

surface vegetation and red or black trees would present a contrast to the otherwise green 

surroundings. These contrasts would soften and become less noticeable within two or three 

growing seasons after project completion as the understory component (e.g., grass, aspen and oak 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 223

seedlings, etc.) moved in, as singed but not dead trees recovered and greened up, and as dead 

standing trees fell down.

The VQOs of retention and partial retention would be met under this alternative. Scenic quality 

would be enhanced to a greater extent and for a longer period than under alternatives A and C as 

the diversity of tree species, size, and spatial distribution increased. Throughout much of the 

project area, stand density would be reduced. The views along State Highway 260, Forest Road

300, and General Crook Trail in particular would be more diverse. Natural meadows would be 

restored and aspen stands regenerated, which would increase visual diversity and place more 

emphasis on these valued scenic features.

Alternative C 

This alternative is similar to alternative B but would limit the cutting of trees up to 16 inches 

d.b.h.. Uneven-aged selection cutting, meadow restoration, and aspen regeneration would be 

implemented to the extent possible under the diameter limit constraints.

Effects related to Chevelon Canyon IRA and the eligible Chevelon Creek WSR, MSO protected 

habitat areas, MSO restricted habitat threshold and target threshold areas would be as described 

under alternative B, although target threshold areas may appear slightly more open under 

alternative B. Effects from associated project activities (road maintenance, etc.) would be as 

discussed under alternative B.

The difference between alternatives B and C would be most noticeable in goshawk foraging and 

PFA habitat stands. As a result of implementing the 16-inch-diameter limit, existing uneven-aged 

stands would become more homogenous. A greater number of smaller trees (<16 inches d.b.h.) 

would need to be removed to meet the basal area objectives so that only one or two age classes 

would be represented.

The VQOs of retention and partial retention would be met under this alternative. Overall, scenic 

quality would be enhanced to a greater extent under this alternative than under alternative A but 

less than under alternative B. The constraints imposed by the 16-inch-diameter limit would make 

it difficult to create breaks in the canopy and would limit the size and placement of openings; 

visitors traveling along SH 260, FR 300, and General Crook Trail would likely not notice any 

variation in the canopy.

Some stands would reflect even-aged management, and trees would be more uniformly spaced, 

with less grouping and clumping. The diameter limit would also restrict the ability to create 

openings of adequate size for aspen regeneration. Natural meadows and aspen stands would be 

restored when compared to alternative A, but the diameter cap would reduce the effectiveness and 

extent of restoration when compared to alternative B. The understory component would improve 

in number, diversity, and vigor but less than under alternative B. In addition, repeated entries to 

treat the same areas in relatively short intervals (+/- 10 years) would degrade the scenic quality 

because the treated areas would not have sufficient time to recover between treatment entries. 

Cumulative Effects

The boundary for determining cumulative effects is the project area itself. Past and present 

activities that created the current conditions include grazing, the evolving forest management 

practices related to timber harvest and fire suppression, drought, disease and insect infestations, 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

224 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

developed and dispersed recreational use and associated developments, and private land 

inholdings. 

Reasonably foreseeable future actions include 200 acres of vegetation maintenance along utility 

corridors in the project area. This effect would be limited to the permitted easement. Similarly, 

hazard tree management along FR 300 and proposed construction upgrade to this road would be 

limited in scope.

The effects associated with this project combined with effects from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable future actions would not have a measurable cumulative effect on scenic resources. 

The slash piles in Woods Canyon Lake Campground would be burned before any burning 

associated with this project would begin. Effects associated with vegetation management 

activities in the power line corridor would be limited to the immediate area being treated and 

would not cumulatively affect the visual resource.

Scenery Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments

The effects to scenery resources of the amendment proposed in alternative B and alternative C are 

described in the “Scenic Resources” section above. As noted, the amendment for alternative B 

would result in more openness and diversity in the stands. Alternative B would also maintain this 

condition longer. With alternative C. many stands would reflect even-aged management, and trees

would be more uniformly spaced with less grouping and clumping. The diameter limit would also 

restrict the ability to create openings of adequate size for aspen regeneration, which would reduce 

diversity.

Cultural Resources

This section documents compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act 

for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project. It is based on the cultural resources specialist report 

(Schroeder 2011) located in the project record. See the specialist’s report for more information on 

law, regulation, policy, history, methodology, etc., regarding cultural resources management.

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.

Methodology Used for Data Collection and Analysis

The analysis used the ASNFs heritage site and survey GIS layers, Forest Service INFRA 

database, and review of existing site records stored at the supervisor’s office. The most recent 

listings of the National Register of Historic Places were consulted. In addition to consulting 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 225

interested tribes, ethnographic documents and studies were reviewed to assist in identifying 

traditional cultural properties (TCPs) in the project area. Draft GIS maps were created to examine 

spatial information and to determine the site density per terrestrial ecosystem unit. Additional 

indepth archival record searches (i.e. GLO maps, land plats) may be conducted pursuant to 

appendix J of the programmatic agreement for each phase of the cultural resource inventory 

surveys.

The criteria used for establishing the area of potential effect (APE) for cultural resources was 

based on the boundaries of the proposed Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project. Applicable maps 

were generated through geographic information system (GIS) analysis to determine the areas 

surveyed and sites within the APE. A total of 105 project surveys are represented in the GIS 

heritage survey database. A total of 21 archaeological resources have been located in the APE.

Existing site records were reviewed to identify the current condition and any known previous 

impacts. In addition to archaeological resources, three sites that may be considered traditional 

cultural properties or important places were identified by the White Mountain Apache and Zuni 

through ethnographic studies (Krall and Randall 2009, Ferguson n.d.). Site types identified as 

being fire sensitive per appendix J may 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. A total of six historic sites that are either combustible or contain 

combustible materials are known within the APE.

Since 1979, 107 cultural resource surveys were completed within the Rim Lakes Project area 

(Schroeder 2011, appendix A). Most of the surveys were conducted for timber sales implemented 

during the mid-1980s through 1990s. Seventy-seven of the projects were intensive pedestrian 

surveys (100 percent coverage). Approximately 3,000 acres or 10 percent of the entire project 

area has been intensively surveyed. Thirty of the surveys were sample-based, covering 

approximately 26,500 acres of the project area (approximately 80 percent of the project). The 

sample surveys consisted of intensively surveying 10 percent or 20 percent of the timber cutting 

unit using random transects and surveying all identified proposed roads and landings. A few of 

the sample inventories were conducted as reconnaissance surveys that do not meet professional 

standards and many others do not adequately cover the area to identify fire-sensitive sites and/or 

meet the requirements for inventory surveys for intensive ground-disturbing activities. 

One hundred twenty-three terrestrial ecosystem map units were recognized on the ASNFs defined 

by differences of topography, soils, vegetation, precipitation, and frost-free days (USDA 1989). 

The project area encompasses 11 map units. Most of the project area is located within areas of 

low site density. Based on existing data from previous surveys conducted forestwide and 

terrestrial ecosystem units, approximately 19,966 acres of the project area has an estimated site 

density of 1 site per 591 acres and reaches a low of 1 site per 1,055 acres within an area of 1,550 

acres (see table 88).

Results from previous cultural resource surveys within the project area identified a total of 21 

archaeological resources (table 89). The Promontory Lookout Tower is listed on the National 

Register (AR-03-01-02-3591) and one site is designated as a state historic trail and as a national 

recreation trail (AR-03-01-02-835/AZ:P:9:1). Six sites are eligible for the NRHP and three sites 

were previously determined not eligible for the NRHP with SHPO concurrence. The eligibility 

status of 10 sites remains unevaluated. The majority of resources consist of historic sites, such as 

historic habitation structures, roads/trails, corrals, dendroglyphs, and fire lookouts. Additional 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

226 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

historic sites (corrals, dendroglyphs) have been noted but not recorded near Carr Lake, Lake One,

and Hole in the Ground. Four sites date to the prehistoric period and/or protohistoric period.

Table 88. Potential site densities based* 

Map 

Unit Dominate Vegetation Acres within Project Area

No. of Surveyed 

Acres per Site

0192 Ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 896.7 122

0193 Ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 1,964.1 68

0196 Ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 501.4 988

0197 Ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 19,966.5 591

0199 Ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 462.0 218

0201 White fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine 3,390.4 601

0202 White fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine 333.2 150

0203 White fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine 1,550.9 1,055

0206 Ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 2,039.1 142

0207 White fir, Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, Gambel oak 1,849.7 Unknown

0208 Kentucky blue grass 253.4 21

* Note total acres within project area will not match total project area acres. Acres comprised of water bodies were 

excluded.

Table 89. Previously recorded sites and their current NRHP status 

FS Site No.

AR-03-01-

02-xxx

Site Type

Cultural or 

Archaeological 

Affilation

NRHP Eligibility

835 General Crook State Historic Trail U.S. Government Eligible/Listed on 

State

1121 Historic whiskey still Euro-American Unevaluated

1122 Masonry Spring Box 1930s Euro-American Unevaluated

1123 Historic aspen dendroglyphs Euro-American Unevaluated

1124 Multi-component artifact scatter Anasazi/Hopi Unevaluated

1125 Historic Rhoten/Zane Grey Cabin Euro-American Unevaluated

1126 Historic homestead foundation Euro-American Unevaluated

1309 Lithic scatter Archaic Eligible

1624 Lithic scatter Unknown Not eligible

2875 One room masonry structure Anasazi Eligible

2892 Cairn Euro-American Unevaluated

2954 Corral Euro-American Not eligible

3027 Fire lookout/lag tree Euro-American Eligible

3451 Telephone line Euro-American Unevaluated

3452 Willow Springs Ranger Station remains (about

1912)

U.S. Government Eligible

3467 Historic trash dump Euro-American Unevaluated
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 227

FS Site No.

AR-03-01-

02-xxx

Site Type

Cultural or 

Archaeological 

Affilation

NRHP Eligibility

3493 Geological site fossils NA

3591 Promontory lookout tower U.S. Government Listed

Globe to Holbrook Road/Young to Heber Road

Forest Highway (FH) 12

U.S.Government Not eligible

Old Rim Road F.H. 40/FR 300 U.S. Government Unevaluated

Heber-Reno Sheep Driveway District Basque and EuroAmericanEligible

The best known historic site within the project area is the General George Crook Road/Trail, 

which runs 200 miles through the Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, and Prescott National Forests.

Portions of the original trail have been converted into Forest Road 300. The area has been 

extensively logged in the past and continued to be through the 1990s. Many segments of the trail 

only retain integrity of location and association. Some associated features may retain integrity of 

association, location, and materials (blazed trees, rock piles). Past management activities have 

adversely impacted the trail’s integrity of setting, feeling, and in some places location and 

materials.

Traditional Cultural Properties

Western Apache and Yavapai groups are known to have traditional ties to lands within the Rim 

Lakes Project area. A recent study of the Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of the 

Mogollon Rim revealed several significant Apache sites in the project area: See Canyon Trail, 

Hole in the Ground, and an Apache Ceremonial ground (Krall and Randall 2009:8). Eva Watt, a 

White Mountain Apache elder, identified the location of the ceremonial ground south of the 

intersection of FR 512 Heber to Young Road and SR 260, on the northern side of the junction of 

FR 512 and FR 181, just south of the diaphanous Aspen Lake. Apaches camped and participated 

in social dances at this location. The See Canyon Trail that runs along the eastern side of 

Promontory Butte was used by Apache rebels to flee the U.S. Calvary and Apache scouts. The 

trail may have also been used as a route up over the rim to reach Hole in the Ground. The Hole in 

the Ground site is located approximately 1 mile from the head of See Canyon Trail route and 

research indicates that it may have been used as a trading point for Hopis and Apaches (Krall and 

Randall 2009:28). 

A Zuni traditional plant collection area is documented within the project area in the vicinity of the 

Mogollon Rim and the head of Chevelon Canyon (Ferguson, no date). The Hopi are also known 

to traditionally collect resources on the ASNFs for religious purposes. The following tribes were 

consulted regarding the proposed action: White Mountain Apache Tribe, San Carlos Apache 

Tribe, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Yavapai-Prescott Tribe, Ft. McDowell 

Yavapai Indian Nation, Hopi Tribe, Navajo Nation, and Pueblo of Zuni. At present, no tribe has 

expressed concerns or identified that a TCP would be affected by project activities.

Environmental Effects

All Rim Lakes Project proposed treatments would be managed as having either “no effect” or “no 

adverse effect” to cultural resources. Under the regulations, an adverse effect is found when an 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

228 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a cultural resource that 

qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register. Consideration shall be given to all 

qualifying characteristics of a historic property, including those that may have been identified 

subsequent to the original evaluation of the property’s eligibility for the National Register. 

The project treatments and associated activities would be conducted in compliance with

applicable laws and regulations as outlined in the specialist report (Schroeder 2011). Forest plan 

standards and guidelines for cultural resources are stated under forestwide management areas.

These guidelines are found on pages 39–40 (USDA 1987). Specific standards and guidelines for 

the General Crook Trail are found on pages 37–38. Below are standards for the General Crook 

Trail that apply to the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project.

• General Crook National Trail: 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 200-foot-wide corridor to preserve evidences of historic roadway and landscape 

character, including related historic trees, markers, gravesites, and water holes. 

Most of the lands within the forests are located in a fire-adapted ecosystem. Generally, low 

intensity fires have not adversely impacted prehistoric sites that are not fire sensitive or composed 

of combustible material. Conversely, most historic sites are either combustible or include 

combustible cultural material. Adverse impacts from fire may include but are not limited to 

historic sites completely burned down, prehistoric rock structures spalling apart from exposure to 

very high temperatures, the refiring of ceramic material, melting obsidian artifacts (caused by 

high-intensity fire), accelerated erosion of site features caused by hydrophobic soils (caused from 

high intensity and long duration fires), killed trees falling and uprooting the ground surface 

displacing or damaging cultural features and structures, creation of burned stump holes that result 

in erosion, and denuding of the ground surface exposing cultural materials to increased erosion 

and visibility that increases the potential for theft. 

Alternative A

Under alternative A, no management actions would be taken to reduce the fuel loads in the 

project area. Failure to reduce accumulated fuel loads may increase the effects from high intensity 

and high severity wildfires, thereby increasing the potential for adverse effects to prehistoric and 

historic buildings, structures, and artifacts. The “no action” alternative would result in no direct 

effects to cultural resources, but may increase the potential of indirect effects from high intensity, 

high severity wildfires. This alternative would not affect traditional cultural properties.

Alternatives B and C

Removal of trees would reduce long term fuel continuity, fuel loading, and fire hazard which

would benefit cultural resources within the project area by decreasing the potential for adverse 

effects caused from high intensity, high severity wildfires. Alternative C’s diameter limit would

have no direct bearing on the impacts to cultural resources. Because alternative C reduces the fire 

hazard less effectively for a shorter duration, alternative B has more benefits to cultural resources.

No impacts to cultural resources are anticipated from road maintenance and temporary road 

construction activities because of mitigation measures. All proposed haul roads and temporary 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 229

road locations would be surveyed and cultural resources identified for avoidance, or mitigation 

measures would be used to minimize the impacts to the sites to result in no adverse effects. Based 

on previous survey data and the stipulations of appendix J of the programmatic agreement and the 

protection measures outlined in section II of appendix J are met, no adverse impacts to cultural 

resources are anticipated from mechanized and prescribed burn treatments.

Neither alternatives B nor C would result in unavoidable, irreversible, or irretrievable impacts to 

cultural resources in the project area. Neither alternative would affect traditional cultural 

properties.

Cumulative Effects

During the 1980s through the early 1990s, approximately 17,000 acres of the project area were 

harvested for timber. Based on the forests’ GIS databases, more than half of the project area has 

been harvested for timber and 6,450 acres have burned. Some of the cultural resource surveys 

conducted in the 1990s reported that the land area was heavily impacted by past timber harvesting 

activity. Records indicate that most of the roads constructed for the timber sales were surveyed 

for cultural resources. Some timber roads were never surveyed and unrecorded sites could have 

been impacted. The project area has also been grazed by cattle and sheep. A small portion of the 

northwest area (929 acres) of the project is within the Limestone allotment, and 11,540 acres of 

the southern end of the project area is within the Long Tom allotment. The Heber-Reno Historic 

Sheep Driveway crosses the project area at the southern end of the proposed treatment area (413 

acres). Sites within the grazing allotment may have been impacted by past intensive grazing 

activities that were allowed during the 1900s.

Most of the lands within the project area are located in a fire-adapted ecosystem. Evidence that 

prehistoric sites have been repeatedly burned (prior to active fire suppression) is demonstrated by 

fire scarred trees and thermally (fire) altered artifacts. Wildfires have burned approximately 6,475 

acres of the project area. Many of the areas that were harvested for timber have been treated with 

prescribed fire. 

Existing records indicate that past management activities have not caused adverse effects to 

known cultural resources within the project area, except for the General Crook Trail. Documents 

indicate that some historic blazed trees and features associated with the General Crook Trail may 

have been altered or destroyed due to lack of identification during project planning and 

implementation, public awareness, and intentional vandalism.

Three projects within the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests’ boundary are adjacent or in close 

proximity to the Rim Lakes Project area. The Nagel Forest Health Project area (north of Rim 

Lakes) and the Little Springs and Forest Lakes Project areas are located east of Rim Lakes.

Private landowners have made efforts and would foreseeably continue to make efforts in the area 

to treat for fuels reduction and restoration. These projects are not expected to have an adverse

effect to cultural resources.

Existing records indicate that previous management activities have generally resulted in no 

adverse impacts to cultural resources within the project area. Recent studies have identified the 

potential for combustible features associated with the Apache ceremonial site in the project area. 

These features may have been altered or destroyed by prior natural and management ignited fires.

Presently, prior to any actions or ground-disturbing activities that have the potential to affect the 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

230 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

character or use of cultural resources, the ASNFs ensures compliance with the NHPA by 

following the stipulations of the programmatic agreement. If cultural resources are located within 

the project areas, avoidance or appropriate mitigation measures are implemented to achieve a 

determination of no effect or no adverse effect to cultural resources.

The expected cumulative effects on cultural resources in the project area from alternative A would

be that the archaeological sites would continue to exist in their current condition. Alternatives B 

and C are not expected to have direct cumulative impacts to cultural resources since no direct or 

indirect effects are expected. Cultural resources would be avoided or protected as appropriate 

from project activities so the action would not have an adverse effect.

Effects of the Forest Plan Amendments to Cultural Resources

The effects to heritage resources of the amendment proposed in alternatives B and C would be the 

same as those described in the “Cultural Resource” section above. Because the treatments are 

managed to avoid effects in either action alternative, there would be no difference.

Contemporary American Indian Uses 

American Indian Tribes are sovereign nations. They are government entities with which the 

Forest Service establishes and maintains government-to-government relationships. Through 

statutes, the Federal Government has a trust responsibility to each tribal government. The Forest 

Service has certain legal responsibilities to American Indian Tribes. These legal responsibilities 

are clarified in statutes, executive orders, and case law enacted and interpreted for the protection 

and benefit of federally recognized American Indian Tribes. Some of those laws include the 

National Historic Preservation Act and subsequent amendments, Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act, American Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978, National Environmental Policy 

Act, and the National Forest Management Act. Executive Orders and Memorandum include, 1994 

Government-to-Government Relations with Native American Tribal Governments, E.O. 13007 

Accommodation of Sacred Sites, E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal 

Governments, and E.O. 12898 Environmental Justice. Forest Service Manual 1563 provides 

direction for establishing government relations with American Indian and Alaska Natives and 

procedural requirements and general guidelines for implementing the Forest Service tribal 

relations program.

In meeting these responsibilities, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests consults with tribes 

when proposed policies or management actions may affect their interests. The nine federally 

recognized tribal governments, representing five American Indian Tribes, have aboriginal 

territories and traditional ties to the lands now administered by the ASNFs were consulted for this 

project: the San Carlos Apache Tribe, White Mountain Apache Tribe, Pueblo of Zuni, Hopi Tribe, 

Navajo Nation, Tonto Apache Tribe, Yavapai-Apache Nation, Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation, 

and the Yavapai-Prescott Tribe. Responses were received from the Navajo Nation and Hopi Tribe. 

At present, the tribes have not expressed concerns that the alternatives would affect their use and 

access to forest resources, sacred places, traditional cultural areas and places. It should be noted 

that some tribes may not reveal specific locations of traditional use or sacred places to 

nonpractitioners because of cultural restrictions and/or religious beliefs unless that location is at 

risk of being adversely impacted by project activities.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 231

Environmental Effects of Alternatives A, B, and C

Since no concerns or issues were identified regarding the proposed alternatives to the access and 

use of forest resources, sacred places and traditional cultural areas, the alternatives are expected 

to have no effect to traditional and contemporary American Indian uses. If there are no direct and 

indirect effects, the alternatives do not have the potential to cause cumulative effects.

Engineering and Transportation

Successful implementation of the recommended treatments for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration

Project is dependent on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests road system. Although vegetation 

management is the focus of the project, motorized access would be necessary to treat certain 

areas. Mechanized treatments and product removal would require maintenance on the existing 

road system. Details are listed in the engineering specialist report (Johnson 2011).

Analysis of the existing transportation system was completed using on-the-ground reconnaissance 

and observations, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests map, maps produced from the forest 

GIS database (including GPS data collected), Infra Data (database of record for roads), sale area 

maps of previous timber sales, personal consultation with other forest employees who are familiar 

with the area, and professional judgment based on past experience. The specialist report in the 

project record provides information on methodology, law, regulation, and policy detailed in the 

specialist report (Johnson 2011). 

Engineering related actions in the Rim Lakes Project include opening approximately 184 miles of 

maintenance level 1 roads (currently closed), constructing 2.60 miles of temporary roads, and 

maintenance on the road system. Vegetation prescriptions involving biomass removal would

require access for log trucks, chip vans, chippers, grinders, loaders, skidders, and other 

equipment. Turnouts and landings would be constructed for these treatment areas. 

Work in the Chevelon Inventoried Roadless Area (IRA) is prescribed burning only. This action 

would not construct any roads. No mechanical treatments are proposed in the IRA.

Road maintenance items anticipated for identified system roads and temporary roads within the 

analysis area are described as follows:

• Spot Surfacing – Crushed aggregate would be placed at locations along the roadway to 

improve load bearing where rutting is evident.

• Spot Borrow – Pit-run rock borrow would be used to reestablish road templates, armor 

roadway shoulders, and construct drainage dips.

• Drainage Structures – This work would consist of installing and/or maintaining drainage 

features, sediment traps, and hardening natural crossings to handle expected increased 

runoff from treatment areas to protect roadbeds.

• Clearing – Trees would be removed and trimmed as needed to meet health and safety 

requirements for road width and vertical clearance (See Johnson, 2011, Appendix III for 

specifications).

• Dust Abatement – Water may be used on sections of roadway to reduce dust.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

232 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

The analysis area contains a number of National Forest System roads ranging from smooth 

gravel-surfaced roads to rough, primitive, and unsurfaced roads. These roads are classified as 

forest roads under the jurisdiction of the Forest Service and needed for long term motor vehicle 

access. Most of these system roads were planned and constructed during past commercial timber 

harvest activities and most are not considered to be all weather roads. Main forest system roads 

link with double-lane paved State highways to form a transportation system that provides access 

to National Forest System lands for a variety of uses from towns and communities in the 

surrounding area.

Forest system roads within the analysis area are managed in accordance with current management 

objectives that are based on a variety of needs for access and use of forest resources. This area 

contains roads that are operated and maintained for use by passenger cars, high-clearance 

vehicles, and nonmotorized uses such as hiking, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing.

According to the forest GIS database, there are a total of 385 miles of Forest Service system roads 

within the project area. In addition, there are an unknown number of unauthorized roads within 

the project area created by repeated cross-country travel as is currently allowed by the forest plan 

(USDA 1987, as amended). A summary of the roads can be found in table 90 and a list of the 

roads can be found in the specialist report (Johnson 2011, appendix 1).

As the table illustrates, the majority of the roads are maintenance level 1 (closed) and level 2

(high-clearance vehicles). Most of these roads were constructed during past timber harvest 

activities. Most level 1 roads are closed by physical barriers (gates, berms, logs, rocks, etc.) and

would require removal of those barriers to access the project area. Some level 1 roads are also 

used as nonmotorized trails and for snowmobiling, cross-country skiing, horseback riding, 

mountain biking, hiking, hunting, and camping (see “Recreation and Lands” section page 211).

Other uses of the road system within the area include access for firewood cutting, Christmas tree 

cutting, grazing permittees, fire suppression, and forest administration.

Table 90. Road analysis summary

Objective Maintenance Level Miles Total Area (mi^2)

52.50

1–Basic custodial care (closed) 291.58 Road Density (mi/mi^2)

2–High clearance 45.89 7.34

3–Suitable for passenger vehicles 25.68 Open Road Density (mi/mi^2)

4–Moderate degree of user comfort 10.77 1.78

5–High degree of user comfort 11.22

Total Roads 385.14

Total Open Roads 93.56

Forest plan direction for road density is specific to management of the transportation system.

Total road densities should average 3.5 miles per square mile or less of total forest area. Open 

road densities should average 2 miles per square mile or less (UDSA 1987). The open road 

density would not change due to the proposed treatments.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 233

The transportation system includes haul routes that go through 11.5 miles of dispersed camping 

areas. These roads are identified in table 91.

Table 91. Haul route roads located within 

dispersed camping areas in the project 

area.

Road 

Number Miles Maintenance Level

9350 0.98 2

9354 1.53 2

9512E 2.50 2

84 1.33 3

169 1.19 3

171 0.08 3

171 1.85 3

171 0.51 3

195 0.72 3

300 0.39 3

Environmental Effects

Alternative A

Under this alternative, no treatments would be performed and the existing road system density 

and maintenance levels within the Rim Lakes area would remain as it is currently. Road 

maintenance activities would be limited to regularly scheduled maintenance. There would be no 

road improvements related to the proposed project. Forest system roads that are currently closed 

would not be reopened, thus precluding any new soil erosion taking place within the area (see 

“Watershed, Water Quality, Soils, Riparian, Noxious Weeds” section page 196). There would be 

no effects to recreation-related travel in the area and no safety concerns regarding hauling from 

trucks.

Alternatives B and C

In either alternative B or C, different types of treatments would be performed in areas designated 

according to vegetation type, slope, and accessibility which would reduce the likelihood of an 

uncharacteristically severe fire behavior immediately post treatment. Treatments would reduce 

the existing fuel loading, and increase canopy openings allowing for more frequent surface fires 

rather than canopy fires. To gain access, approximately 184 miles of maintenance level 1 roads

would be opened which would include the removal of closure barriers already in place (dirt 

berms, boulders, and gates). Some level 1 roads would require clearing of vegetation grown in 

since the road was closed.

Approximately 2.6 miles of temporary roads would be necessary in order to access mechanical 

treatments and to protect portions of Crook Trail. No design standards are required by 

engineering other than to meet the BMPs. Temporary roads are authorized by contract, permit, 

lease, or other written authorization. They are not a forest system road and are not included in a 

forest transportation atlas (36 CFR 212.1, FSM 7705).
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

234 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

These temporary roads would be located on the ground prior to construction. Work could include 

minimum clearing and material spotting, locating them in areas where little to no resource 

damage can occur, filling in soft spots with pit run materials, spotting rough spots to 

accommodate haul vehicles, and limb removal for overhead clearances. There are no design 

standards required other than to meet the required BMPs. Temporary roads would be obliterated 

at the completion of project treatment activities accessed by that road.

Road maintenance would be in accordance to the BMPs listed in appendix B of this EIS. Specific 

project road specifications are found in the specialist report (Johnson 2011, appendix III and IV).

Surface replacement would be required to provide adequate surfacing, subgrade, embankment, 

and strengthening/armor material for project road maintenance.

Project traffic would affect the condition of Forest Road 300 from milepost 40.73 to milepost 

43.92. FR 300 is an arterial road that runs through the Rim Lakes Recreation Area. Increased 

traffic and heavy loads would cause potholes and degradation of the chip seal surfacing on this 

portion of the road. Condition of the road surface would affect the long-term suitably for 

passenger cars and the desired operation and maintenance level. Currently pothole repair is 

completed as needed through forest allocations. This need for repair would increase. However, 

the repairs would be undertaken as needed to maintain the road.

Public safety risks would be minimized by adhering to the mitigation measures, including 

seasonal haul restrictions. Also, signing would follow the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control 

Devices” (MUTCD). Speed limits would be appropriate to provide for public health and safety.

A list of roads identified to be used for the project are included in the specialist report (Johnson 

2011, appendix I). A summary of the roads used for this project is in table 92.

Table 92. Road use summary

Objective 

Maintenance Level

Current 

Miles

Miles to 

Use (or 

Open)

Miles to 

Construct

Miles 

Not 

Used

Miles to 

Close

Miles to 

Decommission

Final 

Miles

At End of Project Completion

1 – Basic custodial care 

(closed)

291.58 183.96 NA 107.62 183.96 0 291.58

2 – High clearance 45.89 38.20 NA 7.69 0 0 45.89

3 – Suitable for 

passenger vehicles

25.68 25.68 NA 0 0 0 25.68

4 – Moderate degree of 

user comfort

10.77 9.89 NA 0.89 0 0 10.77

5 – High degree of user 

comfort

11.22 1.32 NA 9.91 0 0 11.22

Subtotals 385.14 259.05 0 126.11 183.96 0 385.14

Temporary roads NA 2.60 2.60 NA NA 2.60 NA

Roads outside of project 1.57 1.57 NA 0 0 0 1.57

Totals 386.71 263.22 2.60 126.11 183.96 2.60 386.71
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 235

Figure 22. Transportation system
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

236 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Cumulative Effects 

Alternative A

There are no direct or indirect effects from implementing alternative A, so there are no 

contributions to cumulative effects. The forest is currently undergoing analysis of the Travel 

Management Rule, but no road changes are proposed in the Rim Lakes area. 

Alternatives B/C

There are other timber projects that are part of the White Mountain Stewardship Contract in the 

operation phase of hauling timber out Forest Road 300. Currently these operations account for 

anywhere from 20 to 55 loads a day being removed when they are in full operation. Coordination 

of these projects, road user conflict, and dust generated on the road system would increase under 

either alternative B or C.

Public safety risks would be minimized by adhering to the mitigation measures. Signing would 

follow the “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices” (MUTCD). Speed limits would be 

appropriate to provide for public health and safety.

The forest is currently undergoing analysis of the Travel Management Rule, but no road changes 

are proposed in the Rim Lakes area, therefore, no cumulative effects from that decision. The 

travel management analysis would amend the forest plan to prohibit driving off the designated 

road system, which would also not have cumulative effects to the Rim Lake Project’s effects. 

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared 

by Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and 

technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101).

Implementation of either of the action alternatives does not jeopardize the long-term productivity 

of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. As described throughout chapter 3, implementing 

either of the action alternatives would improve soil condition, watershed condition, forest 

sustainability, herbaceous plant growth, and others favorable conditions to productivity.

Unavoidable Adverse Impacts

Given the mitigation measures included with the action alternatives, implementing either of these 

alternatives would result in no long term adverse impacts to resources in the project area. Short 

term adverse impacts that cannot be avoided include sedimentation to streams, which is predicted 

to be minimal but unavoidable. Short term adverse impacts to recreation use would occur during 

implementation, but these would be of limited duration, with project design limiting conflicts by 

avoiding implementation during the heaviest recreation season.
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 237

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

An irreversible commitment of a resource is one that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species. An irretrievable commitment is one where the value of the resource is lost for a period 

of time, such as the loss of soil productivity. Based on analysis found in chapter 3 of this 

document, either action alternative would make no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of 

resources. Soil and watershed conditions would be improved (see page 188). Wildlife habitat 

would be improved for species such as goshawk that prefer open forests. Visual quality would 

become more diverse.

A likely result of the no action—alternative A—is an uncharacteristic wildfire. The effects of such 

a fire as described in chapter 3 would result in long-term changes to the landscape that would be 

both irreversible and irretrievable.

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” This environmental impact statement has been prepared in 

accordance with the National Historic Preservation Act, which governs ground disturbance in 

historical places, and the Endangered Species Act, which covers projects that have threatened or 

endangered species in its boundaries.

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 239

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, county, and local agencies, 

and tribes during development of this environmental impact statement.

Federal, State, and Local Agencies Consulted

Jon Cooley, Dave Dorum, Arizona Game and Fish Department

Shaula Hedwall, Ryan Gordon, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

State Historic Preservation Office

White Mountain Stewardship Monitoring Board

Natural Resources Working Group

Tribes Consulted

Fort McDowell Yavapai Nation

Pueblo of the Zuni

San Carlos Apache Tribe

The Hopi Tribe

The Navajo Nation

The Ramah Navajo Chapter

Tonto Apache Tribe

Yavapai – Apache Nation of the Camp Verde Indian Reservation

Yavapai – Prescott Tribe of the Yavapai Reservation

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Public Notification

Letters of notification of the proposed action were sent to the agencies, groups, and individuals 

listed on the Rim Lakes Forest Health Project scoping mailing list located in the project record.

The name of the project was changed to the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project after that initial 

scoping period.

Public announcements about the project and public meeting (January 26, 2008, Overgaard, AZ) 

were printed in the Mogollon Connection (January 16, 2008), The Pioneer (January 16, 2008) and 

in the White Mountain Independent (January 18, 2008) and were available on the ApacheSitgreaves NFs Web site newsroom.

In September 2011, notice was given that the environmental assessment was available for review 

following the HFRA objection process.

After considering the objection and other factors, the forest elected to prepare an environmental 

impact statement (EIS). Consequently, a notice of intent (NOI) to prepare an environmental 

impacts statement was published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2012. In addition, notice 

was given through scoping letters sent to more than 100 interested people and organizations, 

including members of the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) collaborative group. Notice of 

an April 2012 public meeting were also posted. 
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

240 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

List of Preparers

Name Position Contribution Education

Years of 

Relevant 

Experience

Brown, Lance Wildlife Biologist,

Clifton RD

Wildlife 

Analysis

BS Wildlife 

Management 17

Doyle, Ruth Regional Landscape 

Architect, R3 Regional 

Office

Scenery 

Specialist 

Report

Masters of Landscape 

Architecture 26

Dykstra, Brian Wildlife Biologist, 

Black Mesa RD

Wildlife 

Analysis

B.S. Forestry; M.S. 

Wildlife Biology 25

Dykstra, Elizabeth Recreation and Lands 

Staff, Black Mesa RD

Project Leader, 

EA IDT and 

Recreation/

Lands Analysis

BS – University of 

Wisconsin-Stevens 

Point, 1982

MA – University of 

New Mexico, 1992 

23

Hurlocker, Sandy District Ranger, Santa 

Fe National Forest

Project Leader, 

EIS

BS Science Education, 

MS Journalism 28

Johnson, Steven R. Civil Engineer, ApacheSitgreaves NFsTransportation 

Report

BS in Civil 

Engineering, University

of Arizona

10

McMillan, Kathy Fisheries Biologist, 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

Supervisors Office

Fisheries and 

Aquatic 

Analysis

B.S. Fishery Science, 

B.S. Wildlife Science 17

Nelson, Chris Forest Soil Scientist 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs

Soil and Water 

Specialist 

Report, 

Cumulative 

Effects Analysis

BS Watershed 

Management (Forestry), 

Graduate School

Primarily Soil Science

34.

Nicolet, Tessa Fire Ecologist, R3 

Regional Office

Fuels and Fire 

Specialist 

Report

B.S. Biology/Ecology, 

M.F. Fire Ecology 7

Richardson, Gayle Silviculturist, Black 

Mesa RD

Silvicultural 

Report

BS in Forestry from 

NAU 29

Richardson, Steve Geographic Information 

System, Black Mesa 

RD

Geospacial 

Analysis and 

Display

BS in Forestry from 

NAU, 1980 20

Schofer, Jeannie Archaeologist, Gila NF Heritage 

Resources

B.A. Ecological 

Anthropology, M.A. 

Anthropology

7

Snyder, Jim Forest Hydrologist, 

Apache-Sitgreaves NFs 

Supervisors Office

Hydrology and

Soils Update

B.S. Geology and

Mathematics 15

Schofer, Jeannie Archaeologist, Gila NF Heritage

Specialist

B.A. Ecological 

Anthropology, M.A. 

Anthropology

7

Youtz, James Silviculturist, R3

Regional Office

Coauthor, 

Silviculture 

Specialist 

Report 

BS Forestry, emphasis 

in forest management, 

1983 NAU 29
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 241

Others who contributed to this environmental impact statement include Lenda Quinn, Victoria 

Loewe, Melissa Schroeder, Parry Ryerse, Jim Probst, and Kendell Hughes. Dee Hines, district 

ranger at the Black Mesa Ranger District, has also been integral to the development of this 

document.

DEIS Distribution

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document. In addition, copies (paper or electronic) have been sent to 

appropriate Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and local governments, and 

organizations representing a wide range of views regarding this project.

The document is also available on the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Internet site.

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 243

References Cited

Abella, Scott R., Peter Z Fule, W. Wallace Covington. 2006. Diameter Caps for Thinning 

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: Viewpoints, Effects, and Tradeoffs. Journal of 

Forestry.

Allen, Craig D., Melissa Savage, Donald A. Falk, Kieran F. Suckling, Thomas W. Swetnam, Todd 

Schulke; Peter B. Stacey, Penelope Morgan, Martos Hoffman, Jon T. Klingel. 2002.

Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine. Ecological Applications. Vol. 

12(5):1418–1433.

Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests BMP Monitoring Report. 2007. 

—. Eligibility Report for the National Wild and Scenic River Systems. 2009. 

—. Management Indicator Species Assessment. 2006. 

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality 2006/2008, 2009. Status of Ambient Surface 

Water Quality in Arizona – Arizona’s Integrated 305(b) Assessment and 303(d) Listing 

Report.

Beier, Paul and Michael F. Ingraldi. 2012. There is no evidence that the Forest Service’s goshawk 

recommendations improve goshawk nest productivity. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 36. Vol. 

1.

Beier, Paul, Erik C. Rogan, Michael F. Ingraldi, Steven S. Rosenstock. 2008. Does forest structure 

affect reproduction of northern goshawks in ponderosa pine forests? Journal of Applied 

Ecology. 45:342-350.

Bosch, J.M. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation 

changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology. Vols. 55:2–23. 

Brewer, David. 2008. Fact Sheet: Accounting for Watershed and Other Resource Values –

Consideration in the NEPAAnalysis.

Bridges, Clay, Steve Leonard, Russ Krapf, Warren Hagenbuck. 1994. Riparian area management:

process for assessing proper functioning condition for lenthic riparian-wetland areas, TR 

1737–11.

Brown, Lance and Brian Dykstra. 2011. Wildlife and Rare Plants Specialist Report.

Clary, Warren P., 1975. Range Management and its Ecological Basis in the Ponderosa Pine type 

of Arizona: The Status of Our Knowledge.

Comer, P.D., R. Faber-Langendoen, S. Evans, C. Gawler, G Josse. S. Kittel, M. Menard, M. Pyne,

K. Reid, K. Schulz, 2003, Ecological Systems of the United States: A Working 

Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems.

Cooper, Charles F., 1960. Changes in Vegetation Structure and Growth of Southwestern Pine 

Forests Since White Settlement.

Covington, W. Wallace. 1993. Implications for Ponderosa Pine/Bunch grass Ecological Systems

in Sustainable Ecological Systems: Implementing an Ecological Approach to Land 

Management.

Dahms, Cathy W, and Brian W Geils. 1997. An assessment of forest ecosystem health in the 

Southwest.
References Cited

244 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Dykstra, Elizabeth P., 2011. Recreation and Lands Specialist Report.

Ecological Restoration Institute (ESRI). 2003. Limiting Damage to Forest Soils During 

Restoration.

Fairweather, Mary Lou. 2008. Dwarf Mistletoe and other Insect and Disease Activity in the Rim 

Lakes Forest Health Project Area.

Ferguson, T.J. (No Date), Zuni Settlement and Land Uses.

Fiedler, Carl E., Stephen F. Arno, Michael G Harrington. 1996. Flexible Silviculture and 

Prescribed Burning Approaches for Improving Health of Ponderosa Pine Forests.

Graham, Russell T., Sarah McCaffrey, Theresa B. Jain. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest 

Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity.

Grubb, Teryl G., Larry L. Pater, David K. Delaney. 1998. Logging Truck Noise Near Nesting 

Northern Goshawks, RMRS-RN-3.

Hann, Wendel J., and David L. Bunnel. 2001. Fire and land management planning and 

implementation across multiple scales, International Journal of Wildland Fire, 10:389–

403.

Hardy, Colin C., Kirsten M. Schmidt, James P. Menakis, R. Neil Sampson. 2001. Spatial data for 

national fire planning and fuel management. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 

10:353–372.

Haynes, Toby. 1993. Watershed Condition Assessment of the Kehl, Leonard Canyon and Upper 

Willow Creek Sub-Watershed of the East Clear Creek Watershed on the ApacheSitgreaves and Coconino NFs.

Helms, John A. 1998. The Dictionary of Forestry, Society of American Foresters.

Hornbeck, J.W. and C.W. Eagar. 1997. Summary of Water yield experiments at Hubbard Brook 

Experimental Forest, Canadian Journal of Forest Research. Vol. 27:2043–2052. 

Hughes, Kendell. 2011. Noxious Weed Report--Rim Lakes.

Johnson, Stephen R. 2011. Engineering Specialist Report.

Kaufmann, M.R., Russell T. Graham, Douglas A. Boyce Jr., William H. Moir, Lee Perry, Richard 

T. Reynolds, Richard L. Bassett, Patricia Mehlhop, Carleton B. Edminster, William M. 

Block, Paul Stephen Corn. 1994. An ecological basis of ecosystem management, RM246.

Kerns, Becky K., Margaret A. Moore, Michael E. Timpson, Stephen C. Hart. 2003. Soil 

Properties Associated with Vegetation Patches in a Pinus Ponderosa-Bunchgrass Mosaic,

Western North American Naturalist, Vol. 63(4):452–462.

Krall, Angie, and Vincent E. Randall. 2009. The Western Apache Homeland and Archaeology of 

the Mogollon Rim.

Laing, Larry, Norman Ambos, Tom Subirge, Christine McDonald, Chris Nelson, Wayne Robbie.

1987. Terrestrial Ecosystems Survey of the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests.
References Cited

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 245

Lovely, Collis. 1991. Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis Procedure. Apache-Sitgreaves 

National Forest.

Malmsheimer, Robert W., Patrick Heffernan, Steve Brink, Douglas Crandall, Fred Deneke, 

Christopher Galik, Edmund Gee, John A. Helms, Nathan McClure, Michael Mortimer, 

Steve Ruddell, Matthew Smith, John Stewart. 2008. Forest Management Solutions for 

Mitigating Climate Change in the United States. Journal of Forestry. April/May 2008. 

McMillon, Joel, 2004, Stand hazard rating for bark beetles attacking southwestern ponderosa 

pine. Unpublished paper, provided by the Forest Service Southwestern Region 

entomologist. 

Moore, Margaret M., W. Wallace Covington, Peter Z. Fule. 1999. Reference Conditions and 

Ecological Restoration.

Moore, Margaret M., David W. Huffman, Peter Z. Fule. 2004. Comparison of Historical and 

Contemporary Forest Structure and Composition on Permanent Plots in Southwestern 

Ponderosa Pine Forests. Fire Science. Vol. 50 (2).

Nelson, Chris. 2011. Watershed Specialist Report.

Nicolet, Tessa. 2011. Fuels Specialist Report.

Page-Dumroese, Deborah S. Ann M. Abbott, Thomas M. Rice. 2009. Forest Soil Disturbance 

Monitoring Protocol, GTR-WO-82a.

Page-Dumroese, Deborah S., Martin F. Jurgensen, Allan E. Tiarks, Felix Ponder, Jr., Felipe G. 

Sanchez, Robert L. Fleming, J. Marty Kranabetter, Robert F. Powers, Douglas M. Stone, 

John D. Elioff, D. Andrew Scott. 2006. Soil physical property changes at the North

American Long-Term Soil Productivity study sites: 1 and 5 years after compaction. 

Canada Journal of Forest Research. Vol. 36:551:564. 

Pritchard, Don. 1993. Process for Assessing Proper Functioning Condition.

Randall-Parker, Tammy and Richard Miller. 2002. Effects of Prescribed Fire in Ponderosa Pine 

on Key Wildlife Habitat Components: Preliminary Results and a Method for Monitoring, 

PSW-GTR-181:823–834.

Reynolds Richard T., Douglas A. Boyce., Russell T. Graham. 2012. Ponderosa Pine Forest 

Structure and Northern Goshawk Reproduction: Response to Beier et al., Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 36 Vol. 1.

Reynolds, Richard T., Russell T. Graham, M. Hildegard Reiser, Richard L. Bassett, Patricia L. 

Kennedy, Douglas A. Boyce, Jr., Greg Goodwin, Randall Smith, E. Leon Fisher. 1992.

Management Recommendations for the northern goshawk in the Southwestern United 

States. GTR RM-217.

Richardson, Gayle, and James A. Youtz. 2012. Silviculture Specialist Report.

Ronco, Frank Jr., Carleton B. Edminster, David P. Trujillo. 1985. Growth of Ponderosa Pine 

Thinned to Different Stocking Levels in Northern Arizona. RM-262.

Saab, Victoria, William Block, Robin Russell, John Lehmkuhl, Lisa Bate, Rachel White. 2007. 

Birds and Burns of the Interior West, PNW-GTR-712.
References Cited

246 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Saab, Victoria and William Block. 2006. Prescribed fire strategies to restore wildlife habitat in 

ponderosa pine forests of the Intermountain West.

Schroder, Melissa. 2011. Cultural Resources Specialist Report.

Scott, Joe H. and Elizabeth D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing Crown Fire Potential by Linking 

Models of Surface and Crown Fire Behavior, RMRS-RP-29.

Scott, Joe H. 2003. Canopy Fuel Treatment Standards for the Wildland-Urban Interface. USDA 

Forest Service, Fire, Fuel Treatments and Ecological Restoration (RMRS-P-29). pp. 29–

37. 

Sitko, Sue, and Sarah Hurteau. 2010. The First Five Years of the White Mountain Stewardship 

Project.

Smith, Ed. 2006. Historic Range of Variation and State and Transition Modeling of Historic and 

Current Landscape Conditions for Ponderosa Pine of the Southwest.

Triepke, F. Jack, B. J. Higgins, R.N. Weisz, J. A. Youtz, T. Nicolet. 2011. Diameter Caps and 

Forest Restoration: Evaluation of a 16-inch cut limit on achieving desired conditions, 

FR-R3-16-3.

Troendle, C.A., and R. M. King. 1987. The effect of partial cutting and clearcutting on the 

Deadhorse Creek watershed. Journal of Hydrology. Vol. 90:145–157. 

Troendle, C. A., J. M. Nankervis, A. Peavy. 2007. Impacts of vegetation management on water 

yield.

Troendle, C. A., Lee H. MacDonald, Charles H. Luce, I.J. Larsen, Fuel Management and Water 

Yield, 2010 in Cumulative Watershed Effects of Fuel Management in the Western United 

States RMRS-GTR-231:126–148.

O'Hara, Kevin L.[ed.]. 1995. Uneven-aged Management: Opportunities, Constraints and 

Methodologies, University of Montana. MFCES Miscellaneous Publication No. 56. p.29.

USDA Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests Land and Resource Management Plan, 1987

--- National Visitor Use Monitoring Results. 2009. 

USDI Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl. 1995. 

Van Wagner, C. E. 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown fire, Canada Journal of 

Forest Research, Vol. 7:23–34.

White, Alan S. 1985. Presettlement Regeneration Patterns in Southwestern Ponderosa Pine.

Wiedinmyer, Christine, and Matthew D Hurteau. 2010. Prescribed fire as a means of reducing 

forest carbon emissions in the Western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44:1926–

1932

William, H. Moir, Brian Geils, Mary Ann Benoit, and Dan Scurlock. 1997. Ecology of 

Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests: USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-GTR292.

Woosley, Theodore. 1911. Western Yellow Pine in Arizona and New Mexico.
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 247

Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

The following prescription parameters and mitigation measures apply to alternatives B and C. 

Mechanical Treatments: Mechanical treatments refer to a variety of possible “tools” to meet 

objectives. These include, but are not limited to: the use of chain saws or feller-bunchers to cut 

trees and lop slash, skidders to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile slash, and specialized 

equipment to cut, chop, break, lop, or in some way treat the fuels to meet objectives. The work 

would be accomplished in many ways including the use of Forest Service personnel and 

contractors. Some of the trees that are cut may be sold in personal use and commercial wood 

product sales. This would help to offset the total cost for treatments by reducing the cost of 

cutting trees and treating slash.

Meadow and Riparian Enhancement: All conifers would be removed and cleared where they 

have encroached into existing meadows and riparian areas favoring hardwood species. Trees that 

provide streambank stability would be maintained regardless of size. Slash would be removed 

from the drainage and hand piled or lopped to the ground. Three existing and potential snags 

would be left around meadows for wildlife. Alternative C would remove conifers up to 16 inches 

d.b.h..

Alternative B - No diameter limit.

Alternative C - No trees 16 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed. In some 

locations, this would result in incomplete attainment of objectives.

Aspen and Oak Exclosures: All encroaching conifers would be removed from areas previously 

fenced to exclude elk. Fences would continue to be maintained to exclude elk from aspen and oak 

regeneration. Alternative C would remove conifers up to 16 inches d.b.h..

Alternative B - No diameter limit.

Alternative C - No trees 16 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed. In some 

locations, this would result in incomplete attainment of objectives.

Mexican Spotted Owl Habitat (MSO) 

Pine-Oak and Mixed Conifer Proposed Treatments

MSO Protected Habitat Areas: Intermediate thinning21 would be used in stands with diameter 

limits of 9 inches d.b.h.. Thinning would promote health and vigor of the larger trees and reduce 

the fire hazard. Smaller trees would be cut maintaining the largest, healthiest trees (table 1, fig. 

4). Where areas are dominated by VSS 4-5-6, remove all trees < 9 inches d.b.h.. Where areas are 

dominated by VSS 3, retain 60–80 square feet of basal area (BA) 22. Where trees are dominated 

by VSS 1–2, retain trees at the rate of 200 trees per acre. Residual basal area would vary by stand. 

Where possible, early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) 

should be favored for retention and regeneration.

 21 Intermediate Treatment – also referred to here as intermediate thinning. The thinning or cutting of trees to improve 

the composition, structure, condition, health, and growth of remaining trees (SAF 1998).

22 Basal area (BA) – the cross-sectional area of a single tree stem, including bark, measured at breast height in square 

feet (SAF 1998).
Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

248 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

MSO Restricted Habitat (Other): Group selection23 would be used to regenerate ponderosa 

pine, white pine, and Douglas-fir in openings .25–4 acres in size over 20 percent of the area 

within excess VSS classes and/or diseased patches. Where necessary retain additional seed trees 

of desirable species and characteristics. The remaining matrix area would receive intermediate 

thinning, cutting smaller trees to leave the larger, healthier trees, increasing health and vigor of 

the remaining larger dominant24 and codominant25 trees and reducing fire hazard (fig. 4).

Southwest-facing slopes would be thinned to 60–80 BA and north-facing slopes 80–100 BA. No 

hardwood species would be removed. Stands with no large trees would be thinned from below 

with an intermediate thinning to promote health and vigor of the larger trees and reduce fire 

hazard. Smaller trees would be cut maintaining the largest, healthiest trees. Groups of trees 

smaller than 12 inches d.b.h. would be thinned to a lower density of 40–60 BA while trees in the 

larger size classes would be thinned to 60–80 BA. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, 

ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and regeneration. 

Where severe dwarf mistletoe infection centers are located; focus on removal of infected trees to 

establish new regeneration groups (VSS 1) or to favor existing regeneration. Where regeneration 

groups are not to be established, focus on reduction of severely infected trees (DMR = 3+) within 

the leave tree groups.

Small inclusions of aspen remnants within portions of ponderosa pine would be regenerated by 

removing all conifers in the immediate area, 1⁄2 to 1 chain from the clone, with some removal of 

aspen or site-disturbing activity such as ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen clone. The 

preferred method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to the clone, retaining all healthy 

aspens in the clone. Where aspen is present in mixed conifer it may be promoted through group 

selection described above with removal of all conifers, 1/2 to 1 chain from the aspen clone. Aspen 

clones would be evaluated and fenced as needed. Trees would be retained according to the 

diameter limit for specific stands.

Alternative B - No trees 24 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed.

Alternative C - No trees 16 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed. 

In many locations, this would result in no creation of functional regeneration group openings, or 

less of the area opened for regeneration than desired. It would also result in implementation 

tradeoffs between attainment of stand density/fuels management, and forest structure/forest health 

objectives. 

MSO Restricted Habitat (Threshold): All treatments in these stands would maintain 150–170 

BA where present. The remaining area would receive an intermediate treatment removing the 

smaller trees to reduce fire hazard. No hardwood species would be removed. No trees 24 inches 

d.b.h. or larger would be removed. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa pine, 

Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and regeneration.

 23 Group Selection – a cutting procedure which creates a new age class by removing trees in groups or patches to allow 

seedlings to become established in the new opening (SAF 1998).

24 Dominant – trees that receive full light from above the canopy and partially from the sides. Crowns extend above the 

general level of the canopy (USDA 2008).

25 Codominant – Tree crowns receive full light from above, but comparatively little from the sides (USDA 2008).
Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 249

Alternative B - No trees 24 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed.

Alternative C - No trees 16 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed. 

In many locations, this would result in no creation of functional regeneration group openings, or 

less of the area opened for regeneration than desired. It would also result in implementation 

tradeoffs between attainment of stand density/fuels management and forest structure/forest health 

objectives.

MSO Restricted Habitat (Target Threshold): Intermediate thinning would be used removing 

the smaller trees and leaving the larger, healthier trees, increasing health and vigor of the 

remaining larger dominant and codominant trees and reducing fire hazard. These stands would be 

thinned to reach a target BA of 150–170. No trees 24 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed.

No hardwood species would be removed. Early seral species (southwestern white pine, ponderosa 

pine, Douglas-fir, aspen) would be favored for retention and regeneration.

Alternative B - No trees 24 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed.

Alternative C - No trees 16 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed. 

In many locations, this would result in no creation of functional regeneration group openings, or 

less of the area opened for regeneration than desired. It would also result in implementation 

tradeoffs between attainment of stand density/fuels management and forest structure/forest health 

objectives.

Goshawk Habitat 

Ponderosa Pine Proposed Treatments

Goshawk Foraging FA and PFA Habitat Stands: Group selection would be used to regenerate 

ponderosa pine, white pine, and Douglas-fir in openings 1/10 to 4 acres in size over 20 percent of 

the area within excess VSS classes and/or diseased patches, figure 1. When openings exceed 1

acre in size, 5–10 desirable seed trees per acre would be retained, with 3–5 seed trees at least 15 

inches d.b.h. and larger. Where necessary, retain additional seed trees of desirable species and 

characteristics (fig. 4). Tree groups would be maintained by VSS class, ranging from .25–1 acre 

in size and generally in groups of 4–20 trees (1/10 acre basis). Strive to distribute percentages 

according to desired VSS percentages in the forest plan. Residual stand density would vary, but 

would average 50–70 square feet of basal area per acre in foraging areas, and would average 70–

80 square feet in PFA. Where stand structures are predominantly even-aged, thin the stand matrix 

in an irregular density fashion, striving to create groups and clumps of residual trees. Desirable 

dominant and codominant white pine and ponderosa pine would be left as single trees or groups 

throughout the area. See figures 2 and 3.

Where severe dwarf mistletoe infection centers are located; focus on removal of infected trees to 

establish new regeneration groups (VSS 1) or to favor existing regeneration. Where regeneration

groups are not to be established, focus on reduction of severely-infected trees (DMR = 3+) within 

the leave tree groups.
Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

250 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Figure 1. Illustration of desired spatial arrangement of leave groups (average of 40–60

percent canopy closure at the group level)

Small inclusions of aspen remnants within portions of ponderosa pine would be regenerated by 

removing all conifers in the immediate area, 1⁄2 to 1 chain from the clone, with some removal of 

aspen or site-disturbing activity such as ripping of aspen roots adjacent to large aspen clones. The 

preferred method is removal of all trees within and adjacent to the clone, retaining all healthy 

aspens in the clone. Where aspen is present in mixed conifer it may be promoted through group 

selection described above with removal of all conifers, 1/2 to 1 chain from the aspen clone. Aspen 

clones would be evaluated and fenced as needed. Trees would be retained according to the 

diameter limit for specific stands.

Alternative B - No diameter limit.

Alternative C - No trees 16 inches d.b.h. or larger would be removed. 

In many locations, this would result in no creation of functional regeneration group openings, or 

less of the area opened for regeneration than desired. It would also result in implementation 

tradeoffs between attainment of stand density/fuels management and forest structure/forest health 

objectives.
Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 251

Table 1. Goshawk habitat areas outside of PFAs (foraging areas)

Typical Number of Trees Per Group for 

Different Group Sizes 1

Typical Intra-Group (within 

group) Densities1 (All Group 

Acreage Sizes)

VSS D.B.H.

Range

1/10

Acre

Group

1⁄4 

Acre

Group

1⁄2

Acre

Group

3⁄4

Acre

Group

1 Acre

Group

Relative 

Spacing 

Range (feet)

Basal Area2

(ft2/acre)

1 & 2 0–4.9" 39 69 198 297 396 8–14 NA

3 5–11.9" 14 34 68 102 136 NA 50

4* 12–17.9" 5 12 23 35 46 NA 60

5* 18–23.9" 3 8 15 23 30 NA 70

6* 24"+ 2 5 11 16 21 NA 85

1 Center on these values 2 Rounded to nearest 10 square feet per acre

* Densities are equivalent to 40 percent canopy cover

Table 2. Goshawk PFA habitat areas 

Typical Number of Trees Per Group for 

Different Group Sizes1

Typical Intra-Group (withingroup) Densities1 (All Group 

Acreage Sizes)

VSS D.B.H. 

Range

1/10 

Acre 

Group

1⁄4 

Acre 

Group

1⁄2 

Acre 

Group

3⁄4 

Acre 

Group

1 Acre 

Group

Relative 

Spacing 

Range (feet)

Basal Area2

(ft2/acre)

1 & 2 0–4.9" 39 69 198 297 396 8 – 14 NA

3 5–11.9" 27 68 135 203 270 NA 50

4* 12–17.9" 14 34 69 104 138 NA 85

5** 18–23.9" 8 20 40 60 80 NA 90

6** 24"+ 6 14 30 43 55 NA 110

1 These are typical values for the desired condition; variation can occur and is desired. However, ranges should center 

on these values. 2 Rounded to nearest 10 square feet per acre

* Densities are equivalent to 55 percent canopy cover.

** Densities are equivalent to 50 percent canopy cover.
Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

252 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Table 3. Physical characteristics to consider when choosing leave trees (for ponderosa 

pine and Douglas-fir)

Leave trees must meet and possess all of either the desirable or acceptable physical characteristics. Trees with 

desirable characteristics should rarely be cut. Trees possessing acceptable characteristics may or may not be left.

Trees with nondesirable characteristics should rarely be designated as leave trees. Trees possessing acceptable 

characteristics would be the “pool” from which to choose to meet density management objectives. 

Evaluation 

Criteria

Desirable 

(usually leave) 

(Keene’s A)

Acceptable 

(maybe leave, maybe cut) 

(Keene’s B & C)

Nondesirable

(usually cut)

(Keene’s D)

Live Crown Ratio >40% for 

ponderosa pine

25–40% for ponderosa pine

35–50% for other species

Less than 25% for ponderosa 

pine

Less than 35% for other species

Crown Class Dominants Codominates and better 

intermediates

Suppressed/over-topped, poor 

form**

Insects, Animal, 

Fire, Misc. Disease 

(see next row for 

mistletoe)

None Minor insect or animal defoliation 

(< 25% live crown ratio). 

Barking of ponderosa pine or 

Douglas-fir < 50% of bole 

circumference. 

Fire kill of cambium < 50% of 

bole circumference or the scorch is 

on the lower two-thirds of the 

crown.

Any bark beetle attacks. 

Defoliation >25% of live crown. 

Barking of ponderosa pine or 

Douglas-fir > 50% of bole 

circumference. Any significant 

barking of other species. 

Any significant top killing. Fire 

kill of cambium >50% of bole 

circumference, or the scorch 

reaches into the upper third of 

the crown. Any conks on stem 

which indicate rot. 

Hawksworth Dwarf 

Mistletoe Rating—

DMR*

0 VSS 5 groups with trees 3 or 

lower (where VSS 5/6 is deficit), 

where not overtopping desired 

VSS 1, 2, and 3 groups.

VSS 6 groups with any DMR 

where VSS 6 is deficit.

All VSS 2-4 with any visible 

dwarf mistletoe

All VSS 5 groups with trees 

averaging 4 or greater DMR 

where overtopping desired VSS 

1, 2, and 3 groups.

Form Defects None MINOR (no significant 

weakening of the tree anticipated. 

Minor crooks, sweeps, and tight 

forks which are < 30% of total 

tree height are acceptable if the 

tree is dominant or codominant 

and otherwise has good vigor).

Major

(weakening of tree or multiple 

tops)

Soundness Defects None None Any

Reserve tree requirements are not subject to physical characteristics criteria for tree selection.

*This is example text and actual treatments for dwarf mistletoe would vary on a stand level basis.
Appendix A. Silviculture Treatment Details

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 253

Figure 2. Keen’s Classification of trees based on age and vigor

Keen’s tree classification taken from “Ponderosa Pine Tree Classes Redefined” (Keen 1943) 

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 255

Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

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:

○ 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 
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

256 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

unevaluated for the National Register Historic Places (NRHP) would be avoided or not 

adversely affected by 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: 

○ 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.

○ 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:

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 257

○ 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.

○ 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 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ Protect selected other sites from burning (optional): allow burning over nonfiresensitive sites provided no ignition points within site boundaries and no staging of 

equipment within site boundaries and no slash piles within site boundaries.

○ 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.

○ Materials removed from the site are removed by hand.

○ 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.
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

258 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

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 4th, and Labor Day, 

recreation use and associated traffic is high, including nonholiday 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.

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 
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 259

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 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 
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

260 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

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.

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 
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 261

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. 

○ 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.

○ 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. 

○ 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. 

○ Trees, in or on the banks of stream courses that are providing bank and stream 

channel stability are not to be removed. 

○ The authorized FS officer will identify exceptions where restoration or additional 

thinning is needed for resource concerns. 

○ 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.
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

262 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

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 longterm 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 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).
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 263

○ No road construction will be allowed in or immediately adjacent to ephemeral 

streams except at designated crossings (ephemeral channels).

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ 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.

○ Outslope roads/skid trails to minimize concentration of water/sediment into streams 

closer than 50 feet to channel.

○ 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).

○ 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).
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

264 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

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 semidecomposed 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 1 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 
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 265

be with one end of the log 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).
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

266 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

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).

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 1 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.
Appendix B. Mitigation Measures

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 267

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.

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 1 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.”

DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 269

Appendix C. Specialist Report List

Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project specialists’ reports that are summarized and 

incorporated by reference in the EIS

Brown, Lance. 2011

Wildlife Specialist Report

Appendix A – Maps

Appendix B – Apache-Sitgreaves National Forest Concurrence List from USFWS, 

2008

Appendix C – Best Management Practices

Appendix D – Summary of Northern Goshawk Activity in the EMA

Brown, Lance. 2012

Wildlife Specialist Report Addendum

Doyle, Ruth. 2011

Scenery Specialist Report

Dykstra, Elizabeth. 2011

Recreation and Lands Specialist Report

Appendix A – A Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Class definition 

Appendix B – Niche Statement: Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Appendix C – ROS classification within the Rim Lakes EMA.

Appendix D – List and map of recreation facilities within the Rim Lakes EMA.

Appendix E – Map of Chevelon Canyon segments eligible and suitable as Wild and 

Scenic River.

Appendix F – Eligibility Evaluations Woods Canyon/Chevelon Creek

Appendix G – DN, Rancho Allegre Access

Appendix H – Map of Chevelon Inventoried Roadless Area

Hughes, Kendell. 2011

Noxious Weeds Report

Johnson, Steven R. 2011

Engineering Specialist Report

Appendix I – Existing Transportation Road System & Proposed Haul Designation.

Appendix II – Maps

Appendix III – Road Maintenance Details

Appendix IV – R3 Standard Road Maintenance Specifications (T-specs)

McMillan, Kathryn. 2011

Aquatics Specialist Report

Nelson, Chris. 2011.

Watershed Specialist Report

Appendix A – Regulatory Requirements.

Appendix B – Best Management Practices

Appendix C – Possible Management Activities

Appendix D – Soil and Water Monitoring Plan for Watershed

Nicolet, Tessa. 2011.
Appendix C. Specialist Report List

270 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Fire and Fuels Specialist Report

Appendix A – Description of Models Used for Analysis

Appendix B – Burning Implementation Strategies

Appendix C – Monitoring and Maintenance Burning Recommendations

Probst, Jim. 2008 

Cumulative Watershed Effects Analysis (revised report in 2010 by Chris Nelson)

Richardson, Gayle; M. Manthei; J. Youtz. 2011. (revised 2012 by Richardson/Youtz)

Silviculture Specialist Report for the Rim Lakes Forest Health Project

Appendix A – Diagnosis, Data, Forest Vegetation Simulator, Economics

-Common Stand Exam and Forest Vegetation Simulator Data (CD)

-Table 1. Mechanical Thinning and Burning Activities

-Economics (CD)

-Diagnosis – initial stand data and diagnosis spreadsheets (CD)

Appendix B – Maps

Map 1 – Forest Plan Habitats (MSO and Goshawk forest habitats)

Map 2 – Old Growth Alternative A

Map 3 – Old Growth Alternatives B and C

Map 4 – Alternative B Proposed Treatments 

Map 5 – Alternative C Proposed Treatments 

Appendix C – Stand Density, Vegetative Structural Stage, and Dwarf Mistletoe

Appendix D – Descriptions for Treatments for Proposed Action

Appendix E – Old Growth Data (CD) 

Appendix F – Literature Reviewed and Considered

Appendix G – Hurteau, S. 2010. Preliminary Forest Spatial Structure Representation at 

Eagar South and Mineral. Draft data prepared by The Nature Conservancy. Flagstaff, 

AZ.

Schroeder, Melissa R. 2011

Cultural Resources Specialist Report

Appendix A – Previous Cultural Resource Surveys
DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project 271

Index

affected environment

cumulative effects.........................................39

defined ..........................................................37

vegetation .....................................................41

wildlife..........................................................77

Alternatives

Comparison of..............................................33

Considered in Detail.....................................15

Eliminated from detailed study.....................30

aquatic species................................................ See

effects .........................................................172

MIS macroinvertabrates .............................185

sensitive ......................................................179

bluehead sucker.............................................180

California floater...........................................182

Little Colorado sucker...................................180

northern leopard frog.....................................183

roundtail chub................................................181

southwestern toad..........................................184

threatened/endangered................................175

Chiricahua leopard frog.................................177

determination of effects............................179

Little Colorado spindace ...............................176

determination of effect .............................177

collaboration.......................................11, 12, 239

crown fire potential...................................65, 120

Decision Framework ........................................10

Desired Conditions

Fire Hazard .....................................................9

Forest Structure ..............................................8

General ...........................................................4

Insects and disease..........................................7

MSO ...............................................................8

Northern Goshawk..........................................8

Old Growth.....................................................8

Stand Density .................................................7

Effects

comparison ...................................................32

cumulative effects, defined...........................37

Fire Regime Condition Class

defined ..........................................................70

forest health ...iii, iv, 7, 16, 30, 47, 48, 50, 56, 59, 

62, 63, 88, 215

purpose and need ............................................3

Forest Plan Amendment

Alternative B ................................................15

Alternative C ................................................15

effects ...................46, 100, 192, 209, 218, 230

Effects.........................................................171

Proposed Action .................................v, 16, 25

effects......................................................45, 100

purpose and need ............................................4

Purpose and Need..........................................iv

Forest Plan Direction........................................10

Forest Structure ................................................52

Uneven-aged.................................................. 5

Fuels .................................................................63

General Crook National Recreation Trail..... 211, 

214, 215, 216, 222, 223

mitigation....................................................228

Issues................................................................12

Large tree retention...........................................57

Mexican spotted owl

consistency with biological opinion ...........103

critical habitat ...............................................85

cumulative effects......................................... 100

effects ............................................................. 98

treatment of..................................................... 89

cumulative effects.........................................97

effects ...........................................................91

ESA effects determination............................96

habitat .......................................................5, 56

protected ......................................................... 84

restricted

target threshold .......................................... 85

threshold .................................................... 85

restrictetd ........................................................ 85

treatments ................................................. 19, 20

monitoring ....................................................85

PACs.............................................................86

Purpose and Need .......................................... 3

recovery plan ................................................84

structure ........................................................87

mitigation..................................................29, 255

northern goshawk

habitat .............................................43, 56, 112

foraging areas(FA)........................................ 114

mid-scale ...................................................... 114

PFA/Nest ...................................................... 114

treatments ....................................................... 20

Purpose and Need .......................................... 3

three-scale analysis.....................................112

old growth

allocation ............................................9, 16, 59

purpose and need ........................................... 4

treatments

effects ............................................................. 53

Preferred Alternative ........................................ vi

proposed action..............................iv, 1, 9, 15, 16

old growth allocation ....................................10

Public Involvement...........................................11

Purpose and Need .............................................. 3

recovery plan ....iv, 18, 43, 84, 86, 87, 91, 94, 96, 

97, 266

consistency with .........................................176

sensitive aquatic species.................................179

Stand density ..................................................... 6

Summary........................................................... iii
Index

272 DEIS for the Rim Lakes Forest Restoration Project

Treatment longevity..........................................60

Tribal Consultation...........................................12

Understory vegetation ......................................60

Vegetation

environmental consequences........................45

Vegetation Structure Stages

defined ..........................................................78

Wallow Fire...133, 135, 136, 138, 140, 141, 147, 

150, 153, 155, 159, 166

wildlife

MIS.............................................................133

Abert's squirrel ..............................................158

cinnamon teal ................................................165

elk and deer...................................................140

hairy woodpecker ......................................... 147

Merriam's turkey........................................... 153

Mexican spotted owl..................................... 135

northern goshawk ......................................... 138

pygmy nuthatch ............................................ 155

red squirrel.................................................... 160

red-naped sapsucker ..................................... 150

yellow-breasted chat..................................... 163

sensitive terrestrial species .........................107

effects ........................................................... 128

Threatened/Endangered

New Mexico jumping mouse........................ 105

determination of effects ........................... 106

species not analyzed in detail.......................... 84