United States Department of Agriculture

Draft Record of Decision

Luna Restoration Project

Catron County, New Mexico

Forest Service Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

Quemado Ranger District Publication # MB-R3-06-14 April 2019
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations 

and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering 

USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender 

identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, 

income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights 

activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies 

and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident. 

Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (e.g., Braille, 

large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA’s 

TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY) or contact USDA through the Federal Relay Service at (800) 

877-8339. Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English. 

To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD3027, found online at http://www.ascr.usda.gov/complaint_filing_cust.html and at any USDA office or write a 

letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy 

of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992. Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) mail: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Washington, D.C. 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email: program.intake@usda.gov. 

USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer and lender.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

i

Contents

Introduction....................................................................................................................................... 1

General Location........................................................................................................................... 1

Decision and Reason for the Decision .............................................................................................. 4

Decision and Rationale ................................................................................................................. 4

Project-Specific Amendments and Rationale ............................................................................... 7

Introduction............................................................................................................................... 7

Providing Opportunities for Public Participation (219.4) and Providing Public Notice 

(219.16; 219.13(b)(2))............................................................................................................... 7

Amend Consistent with Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act Procedures 

(219.13(b)(3))............................................................................................................................ 7

Purpose and Format for Project-Specific Plan Amendments.................................................... 7

Compliance with the Planning Rule’s Applicable Substantive Provisions............................... 9

Permits, Licenses, and Authorizations Needed to Implement the Decision ............................... 10

Public Involvement ......................................................................................................................... 10

Tribal Consultation.......................................................................................................................... 11

Other Alternatives Considered........................................................................................................ 12

Alternative A – No Action.......................................................................................................... 12

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action ................................................................................ 12

Vegetation Treatments ............................................................................................................ 12

Prescribed Fire Treatments...................................................................................................... 13

Range Management................................................................................................................. 14

Motorized Transportation System........................................................................................... 14

Stream and Riparian Treatments............................................................................................. 14

Forest Plan Amendments ........................................................................................................ 15

Alternative C............................................................................................................................... 17

Vegetation Treatments – Herbicide Treatments...................................................................... 17

Alternative D............................................................................................................................... 17

Environmentally Preferred Alternative....................................................................................... 17

Findings Required by Other Laws and Regulations........................................................................ 18

National Forest Management Act ............................................................................................... 18

National Environmental Policy Act............................................................................................ 18

Endangered Species Act Consultation # 02ENNM00-2017-F-0491 .......................................... 19

Forest Service Sensitive Species................................................................................................. 20

Management Indicator Species................................................................................................... 21

Clean Air Act.............................................................................................................................. 21

Clean Water Act.......................................................................................................................... 21

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990 Floodplain and Wetlands Management............................. 22

National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................................. 22

Executive Order 11644, as Amended by Executive Order 11989 (Regulating Motorized OffRoad Travel) ............................................................................................................................... 23

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)........................................................................ 23

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule ..................................................................................... 23

Implementation ............................................................................................................................... 24

Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities........................................................................ 24

Contact Person ................................................................................................................................ 25

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

1

Introduction

In response to Congressional, agency, and regional emphasis on all-lands restoration level 

planning, the Gila and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests responded by proposing ecological 

restoration treatments across a large landscape encompassing portions of both national forests.

The purpose of the Luna Restoration Project is to create and maintain a healthy and resilient 

landscape and to have watersheds capable of delivering benefits to the public, including clean air 

and water, habitat for native fish and wildlife, forest products, and outdoor recreational 

opportunities.

Beginning in 2014, the Quemado Ranger District reached out to the public, county, state, and 

federal agencies inviting all to assist with the development of proposed activities within the 

planning area. Stakeholders identified areas of concern related to wildfire potential and 

community protection; location for motorized trails; maintenance needs for roads and trails; and 

maintenance needs for sediment control features and structures. Stakeholders also identified 

locations for vegetation restoration treatments, and locations and type of range, riparian, and 

wildlife improvements.

General Location

The Luna Restoration Project is located along the western portion of the Quemado Ranger 

District around the community of Luna, New Mexico (figure 1). The 185,586-acre Luna planning 

area is part of the larger Escudilla Landscape, a 279,470-acre landscape planning area that 

extends across both the Gila and Apache-Sitgreaves national forests (figure 2).

The project area consists of federal public lands managed and administered by the Gila National 

Forest in southwestern New Mexico, located entirely in Catron County, New Mexico. There are 

14,226 acres of private inholdings within the planning area. The project area lies within 

townships 2 through 7 south and ranges 19 through 21 west.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

2

Figure 1. Luna Restoration Project vicinity map and planning area boundary
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

3

Figure 2. Map displaying the Escudilla Landscape planning area boundary, which extends across 

both the Apache-Sitgreaves and Gila national forests
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

4

Decision and Reason for the Decision

Decision and Rationale

Based upon my review of the analysis of the four alternatives presented in the final environmental 

impact statement, the project record, design features, best management practices, monitoring, and 

consideration of public comments, I have decided to select and implement alternative C, with the 

following changes:

• Reopen National Forest System road 4127 W (0.2 mile in length). This road was found to 

be closed in error under the 2013 Travel Management Record of Decision. The ApacheSitgreaves National Forests has found that the connecting road on private land across the 

stateline has an existing right-of-way for forest and public through access. Based on this 

new information, the road will be reopened as a maintenance level 2 road open to all 

motor vehicles.

• Reduce the miles of decommissioning of roads by 3.17 miles. A review of comments 

received on the project identified the following roads as potentially being needed in the 

future for forest management purposes: National Forest System roads 4018 T, 4018 V, 

4018 W, 4018 X, 4019 H, and 4128 P. These roads would be maintained as their current 

status of closed until needed.

The changes listed above are within the range of effects described within the final environmental 

impact statement. These changes are not reflected in respective alternative C maps. The maps still 

show the symbology associated with alternative C as described in the final environmental impact 

statement.

Alternative C is fully described in chapter 2 of the final environmental impact statement. Design 

features and best management practices that apply to this decision are included in chapter 2 of the 

final environmental impact statement and the Escudilla Landscape Watershed Restoration Action 

Plan (2018). These features and measures are intended to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, 

eliminate and/or compensate for project impacts. These measures are an integral and required part 

of the project. Monitoring requirements will be implemented according to the final environmental 

impact statement, forest plan, watershed restoration action plan, and the biological opinion from 

the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Consultation # 02ENNM00-2017-F-0491). Implementation 

and effectiveness monitoring of activities will occur to help inform if resources are moving

toward desired conditions or modifications are needed. All practicable means to either avoid or 

minimize environmental impacts have been adopted as part of this decision.

Alternative C best meets the purpose and need of the project by identifying a suite of mechanical, 

prescribed fire, herbicide, and watershed treatments that affords the greatest opportunities to 

restore ecosystem structure and function and to increase forest resilience to undesirable, largescale disturbances. It also provides resource benefits by creating and maintaining a healthy 

resilient landscape and watersheds capable of delivering benefits to the public, including clean air 

and water, habitat for native fish and wildlife, forest products, and outdoor recreation 

opportunities. Also, the range of restoration activities including timber and other forest products

has the potential for providing various employment and economic opportunities for local 

individuals, contractors, or industries.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

5

There are minor differences between the alternatives. Additionally, public input on the proposed 

action questioned the effectiveness of the activities to treat and manage rabbitbrush and alligator 

juniper. Alternative C was developed to provide additional flexibility for vegetation treatment of 

rabbitbrush and alligator juniper by having the ability to use herbicides where appropriate and 

most effective.

My decision is also based on a review of the project record, which includes a thorough 

examination of relevant scientific information and acknowledgement of incomplete or 

unavailable information, scientific uncertainty, and risk. I have considered input from groups and 

individuals with opposing views and addressed their comments in the final environmental impact 

statement and response to comments.

Heavy road maintenance, road decommissioning, riparian planting, hardening of stream 

crossings, wildlife and range improvements, and installation of riparian exclosures will improve 

the watershed conditions and move streams toward meeting New Mexico State water quality 

standards. Stream, riparian, and erosion control treatments will restore areas where site conditions 

are degraded. Treatments will improve infiltration rates, stabilize stream banks, increase 

residence time of water in the system, control erosion, reduce sediment movement, and increase 

vegetation diversity along stream channels.

Road improvements, reroutes, and decommissioning activities are designed to improve the soil 

resource over the long term. Road improvements are planned in areas where current routes are 

leading to erosion and contributing to movement of sediment into stream systems. Approximately 

113 miles of roads will be decommissioned. Over time these treatments will return the road to its 

natural state and vegetation; and infiltration rates and soil stability will increase. Also, this will 

contribute to the reduction of habitat fragmentation benefitting wildlife.

Reopening approximately 13 miles of closed roads and adding approximately 4.2 miles of 

unauthorized roads to the National Forest System will enhance motorized recreational use. These 

roads will improve access into Arizona, provide “loop routes” for recreational travel, improve 

access to and from Luna, and provide access to scenic overlooks; compared to alternative D, 

which does not provide these opportunities. Reopening approximately 4.0 miles of road for 

administrative use or by written authorization will allow reasonable access for utility companies 

to important infrastructure. Reopening roads would result in long term continued negative 

impacts to the soil resource. Compaction, lack of infiltration, loss of soil productivity, and 

vegetation ground cover would persist long term.

Construction of 0.3 mile of motorized 4x4 trail (maximum 60 inches width) will provide a 

connector route to an open road system, enhancing the motorized recreational use opportunities.

However, constructing this route will result in approximately 0.2 acre of ground disturbance

including soil compaction, lack of infiltration, and loss of soil productivity long term on the soil 

resource.

The use of prescribed fire on 70,000 to 100,000 acres will reduce hazardous fuels and the risk of 

high-severity wildfire, while reintroducing a keystone process to fire-dependent ecosystems.

Introducing low-severity prescribed fire on approximately 24,000 acres along the north aspect of 

the San Francisco Divide, and southwest of Luna in the Dry Blue and Frieborn Canyon areas will 

create a mosaic of burn patches across the landscape to protect values at risk.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

6

Smoke emissions resulting from some of the prescribed fire treatments may affect vulnerable 

populations. All prescribed fires will be conducted under the New Mexico Air Quality 

Department smoke management rule. This, coupled with advanced notification to smoke sensitive 

individuals and smoke reduction management techniques, would minimize impacts.

Thinning small-diameter trees less than 9 inches, on approximately 1,319 acres, coupled with 

low-severity prescribed fire treatments (approximately 8,399 acres) in Mexican spotted owl 

protected activity centers, will reduce the threat of high-severity wildfire while maintaining key 

habitat components. Mexican spotted owl habitat implementation and effectiveness monitoring 

with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel will occur to determine the effects of treatments on 

constituent elements.

Rabbitbrush and alligator juniper are two species that re-sprout when disturbed. Therefore, 

alternative C was developed in response to this issue and the need to manage these species more 

effectively. Alternatives B and D would treat rabbitbrush exclusively by repeated mowing and 

reducing alligator juniper encroachment by mechanical treatment.

Alternative C moves the landscape toward desired conditions by providing additional flexibility 

for vegetation treatment through the application of herbicides where appropriate and most 

effective. Herbicide application would increase treatment effectiveness, and set back succession 

of competing shrub and juniper species maintaining the grassland treatments for a longer period 

of time. Therefore, treatments would be more cost effective, and with less frequent re-entries, 

decrease disturbances to other resources.

The public expressed concerns on the use of herbicides, especially if applied aerially. No aerial 

applications were proposed for this project. Concerns regarding dispersal by air, and residing in 

soils and water, were expressed. Hand application and following product labels address these 

concerns.

Change across a landscape will be incremental with tradeoffs between short-term adverse effects 

and long-term benefits. Implementation of alternative C will lead to some unavoidable adverse 

effects on endangered species (individuals), sensitive species (individuals), and water and air 

quality in the short term. However, the long-term benefits of landscape restoration and protection 

and restoration of these species habitats outweigh the short-term impacts.

All alternatives were considered, but no action, alternative A, was not considered a viable course 

of action. The no-action alternative does not address resource specialists, stakeholders, and 

community members’ common concern regarding high-severity wildfire impacting the 

community of Luna, private inholdings, key communication and utility infrastructure, and natural 

resources. There is a collective urgency to reduce threats of wildfire and other disturbances on 

these values. Also, other opportunities identified by stakeholders including recreation, watershed, 

wildlife, and range are not addressed in the no-action alternative. Additionally, if treatments are 

not implemented, watershed conditions will not be improved, and New Mexico water quality 

standards will not be achieved on listed waterways.

I recognize there is a range of public opinions regarding the variety of treatments identified in the 

selected alternative. I have concluded that my decision is an informed one that best meets the 

Luna Restoration Project’s purpose and need, moves this landscape toward desired conditions, 

and considers the environmental consequences (both negative and positive) of the selected 

restorative actions.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

7

Project-Specific Amendments and Rationale

Introduction

Under the National Forest Management Act and its implementing regulations at 36 Code of 

Federal Regulations 219 (2012 Planning Rule), a plan may be amended at any time. Projectspecific amendments may be broad or narrow, depending on the need for the change. I have the 

discretion to determine whether and how to amend the Gila Forest Plan and to determine the 

scope and scale of any project-specific amendment.

I have decided project-specific amendments are needed for the Luna Restoration Project. I have 

prepared these project-specific amendments under the 2012 Planning Rule to the Gila Forest Plan 

(1986 as amended).

Providing Opportunities for Public Participation (219.4) and 

Providing Public Notice (219.16; 219.13(b)(2))

The public participation is fully described in the following sections titled: Public Involvement and 

Tribal Consultation. The proposed project-specific amendments were included in the notice of 

intent published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2016 and the draft environmental impact 

statement notice of availability published on May 11, 2018.

Amend Consistent with Forest Service National Environmental 

Policy Act Procedures (219.13(b)(3))

The effects of the three project-specific amendments are documented in the final environmental 

impact statement following Forest Service National Environmental Policy Act procedures at 36 

Code of Federal Regulations Part 220. The analysis was developed in consideration of the best 

available science and is consistent with the Gila Forest Plan, as amended. It includes use of 

current (web-posted) data and reports available from various state and federal government 

agencies including: New Mexico Environment Department; U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency; Forest Service directives (manuals and handbooks); current and past inventory, 

monitoring, and administrative information; and use of current literature endorsed by the 

Southwestern Region Forest Service. A list of references is available, with websites as available.

The project-specific amendments apply only to the Luna Restoration Project and are not 

considered a significant change to the plan for purposes of the National Forest Management Act

(36 CFR 219.13(b)(5)).

Purpose and Format for Project-Specific Plan Amendments

The three project-specific amendments are:

1. Allow a one-time, project-specific amendment to the forest plan to allow the Gila 

National Forest to deviate from forest plan standard and guidelines for management areas

3B (pages 105-106), 3C (page 112), and 3D (page 118) to exceed the acres per decade for 

the amount of activity fuels treated (10,000, 4,000, and 12,000, respectively) and for fuels 

treated with prescribed fire (10,000, 3,000, and 10,000, respectively).

• Replace with: No more than 25 percent of a 6th-code watershed within a 3-year 

period would be treated. Percentage may be adjusted up or down based on 

monitoring and assessment of watershed conditions, after treatments.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

8

2. Allow a one-time, project-specific amendment to the forest plan to allow the Gila 

National Forest to deviate from forest plan standard and guidelines in Management Area 

3D (page. 115) to exceed the amount of wildlife habitat development numbers (water 

developments –1 structure; wetland developments – 8 structures; brush pile development 

– 10 structures; prescribed burns – 1,000 acres; planting browse/riparian – 10 acres; 

control of habitat access – 10 miles).

• The standard and guidelines will be removed and will not be replaced with 

another.

3. Allow a one-time, project-specific amendment for Mexican spotted owl protected activity 

center fuel accumulation treatments to abate fire risk (page 29a 1995 Mexican spotted 

owl recovery plan elements):

 Select for treatment 10 percent of the protected activity centers where nest sites are 

known in each recovery unit having high fire risk conditions. Also select another 10

percent of the protected activity centers where nest sites are known as a paired 

sample to serve as control areas.

 Select and treat additional protected activity centers in 10 percent increments if 

monitoring of the initial sample shows there were no negative impacts or there were 

negative impacts which can be mitigated by modifying treatment methods.

• Replace with 2012 Mexican spotted owl recovery plan (page 74): Conduct 

restoration and fuels treatments in up to 20 percent of the protected activity 

center’s within each ecological management unit that exhibits high fire risk 

conditions.

 Designate a 100-acre “no-treatment” area around the known nest site of each selected 

protected activity center. Habitat in the no-treatment area should be as similar as 

possible in structure and composition as that found in the activity center.

 Use light prescribed burns in nonselected protected activity centers on a case-by-case 

basis. Burning should avoid a 100-acre “no-treatment” area around the activity 

center.

• Replace with 2012 Mexican spotted owl recovery plan (page 263): Planned 

ignitions (prescribed fire) and unplanned ignitions (wildland fire) should be 

allowed to enter core areas only if they are expected to burn with low fire severity 

and intensity. Fire lines, check-lines, backfiring, and similar fire management 

tactics can be used to reduce fire effects and to maintain key habitat elements (for 

example, hardwoods, large downed logs, snags, and large trees).

Amendment #1 – The purpose for the site-specific amendment is needed to increase the acres 

treated and period of time by prescribed fire in management areas 3B and 3D. The total number 

of acres targeted for prescribed fire treatment in the Gila Forest Plan in these two management 

areas would not meet the purpose and need of the Luna Restoration Project. Treating this 

landscape at this pace and scale would not reduce the number of acres at risk to crown fire or 

impacts from crown fire on natural and cultural resources, private inholdings, communities, 

infrastructure, and livelihoods in a timely manner.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

9

Amendment #2 – A site-specific amendment is needed to remove and not replace the forest plan 

standard and guidelines in Management Area 3D. Limiting the number of structures, prescribed 

fire acres, browse and riparian acres treated would not meet the purpose and need. Treatments 

identified and proposed in watersheds that are not properly functioning would not be 

implemented, timely. Improving water quality, rangeland, wildlife, aquatic and riparian habitat 

would not occur, timely. Desired conditions are for all 6th-code watersheds to be functioning 

properly, meet New Mexico water quality standards, and have healthy, diverse riparian corridors 

that support aquatic species and riparian obligates. Desired conditions would not be achieved, 

timely.

Amendment #3 – Site-specific amendments are needed for Mexican spotted owl protected 

activity center fuel accumulation treatments to abate fire risk. If fuel treatments are not 

implemented in the protected activity centers the purpose and need would not be met. Reducing 

the risk of high-severity fire within Mexican spotted owl habitat may not be achieved, limiting 

recovery efforts for the federally listed Mexican spotted owl.

Compliance with the Planning Rule’s Applicable Substantive 

Provisions

The scope and scale of the amendments to the forest plan are project-specific. The social, 

economic, and ecological sustainability is within Forest Service authority and consistent with the 

inherent capability of the plan area for: ecosystem integrity, air, soil, water, riparian areas, and 

best management practices for water quality.

Based on the environmental analysis, I have determined that the proposed project-specific 

amendments do not have substantial adverse effects and does not lessen protections. Alternative 

C with project-specific amendments moves toward:

• Achieving ecosystem integrity through maintaining and restoring the ecological integrity of 

terrestrial and aquatic systems and watershed structure, function, composition, and 

connectivity. The diversity of plant and animal communities and the persistence of viable 

populations of native species would be maintained and meet compliance of federal and 

state laws and executive orders.

• Providing for ecosystem services and multiple uses, including outdoor recreation, range, 

timber, watershed, wildlife, and fish.

• Achieving timber requirements based on the National Forest Management Act. Timber 

harvest will not occur on lands that are unsuitable. Clearcutting, seed tree cutting, 

shelterwood cutting, or other cuts designed to regenerate an even-aged stand of timber will 

meet forest plan standards and guidelines. Timber harvest will be carried out in a manner 

consistent with the protection of soil, watershed, fish, wildlife, recreation, and aesthetic 

resources. The quantity of timber sold will be equal to or less than that which can be 

removed from such a forest annually in perpetuity on a sustained yield basis.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

10

Permits, Licenses, and Authorizations

Needed to Implement the Decision

The following items would be needed for the Forest Service to implement specific activities 

described in alternative C:

• A section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be required for the 

discharge of dredged and fill material resulting from the instream habitat treatments like 

hardening of motorized road and trail crossings.

• Consultation and reporting with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 

7 of the Endangered Species Act.

• Obtain permits from the New Mexico Office of the State Engineer for installation of 

proposed water systems.

• Ongoing consultation with New Mexico State Historic Preservation Officer, tribes, and 

consulting parties regarding identification, evaluation, and determination of effects of the 

project on cultural resources in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic 

Preservation Act.

• Coordinate prescribed fire applications with New Mexico Environment Department, Air 

Quality Bureau to ensure compliance with air quality regulations.

Public Involvement

The Luna Restoration Project was posted on the Gila National Forest’s schedule of proposed 

actions since October 2015, and periodically updated. It was originally listed as Luna Planning 

Area and was changed to its current name of Luna Restoration Project in the July 2016 schedule 

of proposed actions.

Prior to scoping the proposed action, the Quemado Ranger District staff hosted two open houses 

in the community of Luna, New Mexico, on December 10, 2014, and May 7, 2015, to have 

discussions with stakeholders on identifying issues, concerns, and restoration opportunities within 

the planning area. In between those open houses, over 200 letters, dated February 2, 2015, were 

sent to individuals, Tribes, organizations, and agencies introducing the planning area and 

requesting help in identifying and shaping the activities needed within the area. Also, on July 21, 

2015, Gila National Forest staff met with members of the Luna community who had great interest 

in all-terrain vehicle and utility task vehicle recreational-related access opportunities. The 

comments received during these events assisted in the development of the proposed action.

The notice of intent was published in the Federal Register on May 19, 2016. The notice of intent 

asked for public comment on the proposal for 45 days ending on July 5, 2016. We mailed the 

proposed action to approximately 270 people and held an open house on June 8, 2016 at the Luna 

Community Center, in Luna, New Mexico. The open house provided an opportunity for interested 

parties to review project maps, ask questions, and provide input to the proposed project. In 

response, we received 27 letters and emails.

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

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

proposed action. Non-significant 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 
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

11

decision; (3) irrelevant to the decision to be made; or (4) conjectural and not supported by 

scientific or factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality National Environmental 

Policy Act 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 (Section 1506.3)...” A list of non-significant issues and reasons regarding 

their categorization as non-significant may be found in the project record.

The interdisciplinary team reviewed the scoping comments and identified three key issues. These

were used to develop alternatives, develop design features or mitigation measures that reduce 

unwanted effects, and to evaluate, analyze, and compare the effects of the different alternatives.

The issue topics were:

• Vegetation Treatments – Exclusively using mechanical treatments to treat alligator juniper 

or mowing of rabbitbrush are not effective treatments.

• Fuels Treatments – Burning mixed conifer canyons east of U.S. Highway180 could result in 

high-severity fire, impacting wildlife travel routes. Proposed activities, specifically limited 

burning, thinning less than 9 inches diameter; are not improving or protecting Mexican 

spotted owl habitat.

• Motorized Transportation – Routes for motorized vehicles less than 50 inches in width

limits access. Motorized access is needed to allow utility companies to access infrastructure 

for maintenance. Adding motorized routes to the National Forest System of roads and trails 

should not be authorized. Motorized routes should not be allowed across wet meadows.

Motorized routes would increase wildlife disturbance.

To address these issues, the Forest Service created the alternatives described in chapter 2 of the 

final environmental impact statement.

The notice of availability for the draft environmental impact statement was published in the 

Federal Register on May 11, 2018. The draft environmental impact statement comment period 

was open for 45 days; which ended on June 25, 2018. The draft environmental impact statement

was mailed to 190 individuals, organizations, tribes, and local, state, and federal agencies. The 

Gila National Forest published a news release announcing the availability of the draft 

environmental impact statement and posted the release in and around the community of Luna. In 

response, we received 12 comment letters on the draft environmental impact statement.

Tribal Consultation

Tribal consultation for the Forest Service is guided by a variety of laws, executive orders and 

memoranda, as well as case law. Laws include the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and 

subsequent amendments (Public Law 89-665, 15 October 1966), Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act of 1979 (Public Law 96-95, 16 U.S.C. 470aa-mm, 31 October 1979), American 

Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978 (Public Law 95-341, U.S.C. 1996 and 1996a, 11 August 

1978), National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Public Law 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, 1 

January 1970), Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (Public Law 

101-601, 16 November 1990), and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (Public Law 94-588, 

22 October 1976, codified in 36 CFR 219). Executive orders and memoranda include a 1994 

memorandum on government-to-government relations with Native American Tribal Governments 

(59 FR 85, 4 May 1994), Executive Order 13007 on accommodation of sacred sites (61 FR 104, 

29 May 1996), and Executive Order 12898 on environmental justice (59 FR 32, 16 February 

1994).
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

12

The Gila National Forest staff is committed to, and has conducted, Tribal consultation and 

provided documents associated with the National Environmental Policy Act during the scoping 

and comment periods. These consultations were carried out at the government-to-government 

level, ensuring that interested Tribes were given the opportunity to participate in the planning 

process as required in the National Environmental Policy Act and elsewhere. The Gila National 

Forest staff will continue to engage in ongoing Tribal consultation through all of the National 

Environmental Policy Act phases for this project. We consulted with the following 12 Tribes or 

chapters:

Alamo Navajo Chapter

Fort Sill Apache Tribe

Mescalero Apache Tribe

Pueblo of Acoma

Pueblo of Laguna

Pueblo of Zuni

Ramah Navajo Chapter

The Hopi Tribe

The Navajo Nation

San Carlos Apache Tribe

White Mountain Apache Tribe

Ysleta Del Sur Pueblo

Other Alternatives Considered

In addition to the selected alternative, I considered three other alternatives. These are briefly 

described below. Chapter 2 of the final environmental impact statement provides a detailed 

description and comparison of all alternatives.

Alternative A – No Action

Under the no-action alternative, there would be no changes in current management and the forest 

plan would continue to be implemented. The no-action alternative is a requirement of 40 Code of 

Federal Regulations 1502.14 (c). There are currently no ongoing vegetation projects within the 

planning area. This alternative would implement pre-approved activities such as prescribed fire 

(East Centerfire Environmental Assessment), road maintenance, recreation, and fuelwood 

gathering. Activities that have been authorized in separate decisions such as special use permits 

(for example, powerline corridors and communication towers), travel management 

implementation, and authorized livestock grazing would continue.

Alternative B – Modified Proposed Action

Vegetation Treatments

Woodland and Forest – Maintenance and Restoration: Woodland (juniper, piñon pine) and 

forest (ponderosa pine and mixed conifer) maintenance and restoration treatments are proposed 

on approximately 73,856 acres. In forested systems, activities would include thinning and group 

selections (for example, creating 1/8- to 4-acre openings). Treatments would favor healthy codominant and dominant trees for retention. Treatments could be accomplished through 

commercial, noncommercial, and fuelwood gathering activities.

Grassland – Maintenance and Restoration: Grassland maintenance and restoration treatments 

are proposed on approximately 23,125 acres. Ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper have encroached, 

become established, and continue to spread into the grasslands as well as wet meadows and valley 
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

13

bottoms. Proposed activities consist of cutting ponderosa pine and piñon-juniper by hand or 

mechanized equipment to reduce tree canopy cover to less than 10 percent in grasslands.

Mexican Spotted Owl Protected Activity Centers: Thin small-diameter trees (less than 9 

inches) on approximately 1,319 acres within protected activity centers. No activities would take 

place from March 1 to August 31 to avoid disturbance to owls during the breeding season.

Wildlife Habitat: Cut and prescribe burn Gambel oak and mountain mahogany stands to 

promote new growth and sprouting in various locations across the planning area. This would 

occur in conjunction with other vegetation and fuel treatments.

Rabbitbrush Overview: There are approximately 23,125 acres of grassland vegetation 

community within the planning area. Of that, approximately 20,283 has been proposed for the 

treatment of rabbitbrush. Green and rubber rabbitbrush are native shrubs that can appear as a 

weedy monoculture (especially following disturbance). The objectives of the proposed treatments 

are to manage rabbitbrush and reduce the occurrence of dense stands or monocultures of 

rabbitbrush, not to eliminate rabbitbrush across the planning area. The objectives can be met by 

treating existing stands to allow for the replacement of rabbitbrush by desired herbaceous 

vegetation and shrubs, and through management of grasslands to prevent the establishment of 

dense stands of rabbitbrush. The proposed action includes mowing for rabbitbrush treatment. 

Under this alternative, dense stands of rabbitbrush would be identified for mowing and reseeding 

to break up these communities and allow for the replacement by vegetation that is more desirable. 

Mowing alone could require multiple entries into the site to deplete the plants energy stores 

enough to achieve limited mortality in rabbitbrush.

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Prescribed Fire – Mixed Severity: Mixed-severity prescribed fire is proposed to treat natural 

fuels and activity fuels. Mixed-severity prescribed fires typically burn in a mosaic, resulting in a 

highly variable pattern of mortality on the landscape that fosters development of diverse 

communities. Pockets of tree mortality and reduction of surface and ladder fuels is desired.

Prescribed Fire – Low Severity: Low-severity prescribed fire is proposed on approximately 

24,026 acres on the north aspect of the San Francisco Divide, and southwest of Luna in the Dry 

Blue and Frieborn Canyon areas extending south to the planning area boundary. This area has 

limited access, steep topography, sensitive soils, high fuel loads, and potential for high-severity

wildfire. The community of Luna and key infrastructure are located to the northeast. The 

objective of implementing prescribed fire is to create a mosaic of burned and unburned patches of 

vegetation, of varying acreages, on the landscape to protect values at risk. Low-severity 

prescribed fire would be introduced when fuel and/or weather conditions minimize fire spread 

across the landscape. These conditions could include rain/monsoon season, fall, and early spring 

when low temperatures, high humidity, and residual snow patches limit fire growth. Ignitions 

would be patterned after a lightning storm with a number of ignitions scattered across an area. 

Desired results would be reduction of surface and canopy fuels. The end goal would be to have 

areas treated with prescribed fire that would eventually merge and breakup the fuel continuity 

across a larger area. Multiple entries and time would be needed to meet these objectives.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

14

Range Management

Add new or upgrade existing water systems on the Centerfire, Dillman/Trout Creek, Luna, 

Mangitas, and Spur Lake allotments to increase livestock and wildlife distribution that would 

benefit rangeland conditions, including watershed, soils, and stream resources. A pasture division 

fence is proposed on the Spur Lake allotment. The improvements would enhance livestock 

distribution, forage utilization and management flexibility. This proposal would not alter the 

management (livestock kind, class, number, or season of use) or desired conditions outlined in 

each allotment’s corresponding grazing analysis.

Motorized Transportation System

Activities associated with the motorized transportation system include decommissioning roads, 

resulting in the stabilization and restoration of roads to a more natural state. During 

decommissioning, approximately 4 miles of trail tread would be maintained for horse, hiking and 

foot trail opportunities. Approximately 37 miles of existing maintenance level 1 closed roads 

would be reopened for project work, 34 would return to closed status or be decommissioned upon 

completion of project treatments. The remainder would remain open for administrative or 

permitted uses only. Temporary roads would be constructed to access treatment areas and 

obliterated after treatments are completed. Add approximately 18 miles of a combination of 

existing closed maintenance level 1 and user-created routes to the National Forest System as open 

to all motor vehicles. For additional recreational opportunity, approximately 0.3 mile of 

motorized 4x4 trail would be constructed to connect existing motorized road systems together.

Stream and Riparian Treatments

Crossings (10 total): Within the Dry Blue, harden 6 motorized trail crossings to reduce impacts 

to aquatic habitat and improve water quality. Hardening of crossing may consist of such things as 

interlocking concrete blocks, concrete planks, prefabricated bridges, rock rip-rap, or other 

engineered design. Road crossings at County Road B-012, National Forest System road 4027 U, 

LATV-9 will be designed to facilitate adequate water passage and reduce erosion. Work may 

include such things as replacement or upgrade of existing structures or material or placement of 

structures or material (culverts, rock, riprap, and fill). National Forest System road 882, Head of 

Ditch Campground road, will be relocated due to currently being located within the proposed 

Luna Irrigation Ditch diversion facility project area. This crossing will be moved approximately 

1,000 feet downstream of its current location.

Diversion (1 total): The Luna Irrigation Ditch Association owns water rights on the San 

Francisco River that allows them to store water in Luna Lake, upstream in Arizona, and release 

this water downstream into New Mexico during irrigation season. The diversion is located in the 

Head of Ditch Campground downstream of National Forest System road 882. The current 

diversion is a “push-up” style native soil dam that requires frequent maintenance by heavy 

equipment. The proposal is to construct a permanent diversion facility in the same location out of 

durable material, such as concrete or steel. The base would extend the width of the stream 

channel and be tied into the stream banks and protected with concrete wings or riprap. The 

facility would be a dual channel system with easy to move and install panels for easy channel 

switching between irrigation and non-irrigation periods. The proposal includes construction of a 

sediment retention pool upstream of the facility.

Exclosures (4 total): Exclosure fences are proposed to be constructed along segments of Stone 

Creek, Centerfire Creek, Spur Lake Draw, and Adair Spring. Exclosures would exclude both 
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

15

wildlife and livestock providing time for proposed riparian, stream and bank restoration projects 

to establish. Exclosures would be from 0.5 acre up to 200 acres. Once the area stabilizes or 

vegetation becomes established, the exclosure could be relocated or expanded to continue 

restoration work. Where access to water is needed for livestock management, Gila National 

Forest staff and permittees will coordinate to identify appropriate location(s) for water access 

points or off-water sites.

Barriers (2 total): The Frieborn and Blue Spring trails are designated and constructed for use by 

hikers and horses. These trails intersect the Dry Blue Trail, which is designated for all-terrain 

vehicle use. Motorized vehicles off the Dry Blue Trail have been accessing the nonmotorized 

Frieborn and Blue Spring trails, causing resource concerns and conflict of recreational uses.

Barriers are proposed to block access by motorized vehicle to these trails. Access for hikers and 

horses would be maintained.

Riparian (2 total): Proposed riparian restoration includes planting riparian species in Spur Lake 

Draw in areas above Centerfire Bog and in Centerfire Creek near the vicinity known as Pinpoint 

40 and within perennial headwater reaches. Planting would provide bank stabilization, improve 

water temperature, and enhance overall water quality. Other stream and bank treatments that will 

be implemented will also serve to enhance riparian resources.

Erosion Control Features (157 total): Numerous erosion control or stabilization structures exist 

within the planning area. It is proposed to conduct maintenance on existing structures. 

Maintenance of structures will vary depending on condition of the structure. Work may include 

such things as removing accumulated sediment, and repairing or replacing breeched sections 

where new head cuts and gullies are developing.

Seeding (multiple): Improve water quality and quantity by seeding the uplands in multiple 

locations in Spur Lake Draw. The objective is to increase herbaceous ground cover to slow down 

overland flow and reduce erosive processes. Sourcing of seed material will follow Region 3 

guidance on weed-free materials.

Stream and Bank Stabilization Structures (10 streams, multiple sites): Structures in the 

uplands may be constructed out of on-site native material, rock riprap, rock and wire riprap, or 

other proven methods.

Surface Erosion Reduction (2 locations): To reduce surface erosion, gravel would be placed on 

roads within Head of Ditch Campground and on the access route to the dispersed camping area 

along Trout Creek.

Forest Plan Amendments

Project-specific amendments to the Gila Forest Plan will be prepared under the 2012 Planning 

Rule. These project-specific amendments are a one-time amendment to the Gila Forest Plan for 

related activities proposed and to be implemented under the Luna Restoration Project only. These 

project-specific amendments include:

• Allow a one-time project-specific amendment to the forest plan to allow the Gila 

National Forest to deviate from forest plan standard and guidelines in management areas 

3B (pp. 105-106), 3C (p. 112), and 3D (p. 118) to exceed the acres per decade for the 

amount of activity fuels treated (10,000; 4,000, 12,000, respectively) and for fuels treated 

with prescribed fire (10,000; 3,000; 10,000, respectively).
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

16

• Replace with: No more than 25 percent of a 6th-code watershed within a 3-year 

period would be treated. Percentage may be adjusted up or down based on 

monitoring and assessment of watershed conditions, after treatments.

• Allow a one-time project-specific amendment to the forest plan to allow the Gila 

National Forest to deviate from forest plan standard and guidelines in Management Area 

3D (page 115) to exceed the amount of wildlife habitat development numbers (water 

developments – 1 structure; wetland developments – 8 structures; brush pile development

– 10 structures; prescribed burns – 1,000 acres; planting browse/riparian – 10 acres; 

control of habitat access – 10 miles).

• This standard and guidelines will be removed and will not be replaced with 

another.

• Allow a one-time project-specific amendment for Mexican spotted owl protected activity 

center fuel accumulation treatments to abate fire risk (page 29a 1995 Mexican Spotted 

Owl Recovery Plan elements):

 Select for treatment 10 percent of the protected activity centers where nest sites are 

known in each recovery unit having high fire risk conditions. Also select another 10

percent of the protected activity centers where nest sites are known as a paired 

sample to serve as control areas.

 Select and treat additional protected activity centers in 10 percent increments if 

monitoring of the initial sample shows there were no negative impacts or there were 

negative impacts that can be mitigated by modifying treatment methods.

• Replace with 2012 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (page 74): Conduct 

restoration/fuels treatments in up to 20 percent of the protected activity centers

within each ecological monitoring unit that exhibits high fire risk conditions.

And...

 Designate a 100-acre “no-treatment” area around the known nest site of each selected 

protected activity center. Habitat in the no-treatment area should be as similar as 

possible in structure and composition as that found in the activity center.

 Use light prescribed burns in nonselected protected activity centers on a case-by-case 

basis. Burning should avoid a 100-acre “no-treatment” area around the activity 

center.

• Replace with 2012 Mexican Spotted Owl Recovery Plan (page 263): Planned 

ignitions (prescribed fire) and unplanned ignitions (wildland fire) should be 

allowed to enter core areas only if they are expected to burn with low fire 

severity and intensity. Fire lines, check-lines, backfiring, and similar fire 

management tactics can be used to reduce fire effects and to maintain key habitat 

elements (for example, hardwoods, large downed logs, snags, and large trees).
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

17

Alternative C

All activities are the same as described in alternative B. Alternative C differs in that it includes a 

proposal for the use of herbicides to treat rabbitbrush and alligator juniper, which was based on 

issues raised during scoping regarding ineffectiveness of treating these species as described in 

alternative B.

Vegetation Treatments – Herbicide Treatments

Alternative C would incorporate the application of herbicide on rabbitbrush and alligator juniper. 

Pre-treatment of vegetation may be needed before application of herbicide using such things as 

chainsaws, mowing, or other type of mechanical equipment to assist in exposing the part of the 

plant recommended for effective treatment. For alligator juniper, herbicide could be applied in 

identified acres in conjunction with mechanical treatments. For rabbitbrush, herbicide could be 

used in conjunction with mowing or on its own in locations where mowing is not feasible. The 

herbicide selected, timing of application, species/subspecies treated and soil type are important 

factors for success.

The application of herbicide would follow all federal, state and local laws and all herbicide label 

requirements. Herbicides selected for use for the management of rabbitbrush and alligator juniper 

would be those approved through the Environmental Assessment for Noxious Weed Management 

Gila National Forest (USDA Forest Service 2000).

No aerial application of herbicides will occur. All applications will be by hand spraying (liquid), 

hand spreading (granular/powder), or broadcast using a small tractor or all-terrain vehicle and 

utility task vehicle towing a spreader. Rubber-tired mechanical equipment will be used.

Alternative D

All activities are the same as described in alternative B. Alternative D addresses the issue of not 

adding more motorized road miles to the Gila National Forest road system.

The decision for reopening of 0.2 mile of National Forest System road 3050 was made in the 

2013 Travel Management Record of Decision, so remains in alternative D unlike the other routes.

Under alternative D, the 13.6 miles of maintenance level 1 road will be added to the 

decommissioning miles, bringing the total miles of roads to be decommissioned to 127 miles for 

alternative D.

Environmentally Preferred Alternative

The environmentally preferred alternative is the alternative that will best promote the national 

environmental policy as expressed in the National Environmental Policy Act section 101 (42 

U.S.C. 4321). The environmentally preferable alternative causes the least harm to the biological 

and physical environment. It also is the alternative that best protects and preserves historic, 

cultural, and natural resources.

For this project, I believe there are two environmentally preferable alternatives: alternatives B and 

D. Both alternatives are environmentally preferable because neither propose the use of herbicides 

for the treatment of rabbitbrush and alligator juniper.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

18

Alternative D is a little more environmentally preferable than alternative B due to less miles of 

National Forest System roads being added and more miles being decommissioned. Under 

alternative D, an additional 13.6 miles of maintenance level 1 roads would be decommissioned 

for a total of 127 miles. Approximately 4.2 miles of user created routes would not be designated 

as National Forest System roads open to all motor vehicle types, and 0.3 mile of motorized 4x4

(Dillman bypass) trail would not be constructed. Not including these routes in the motorized 

system, there would be additional benefit for soil, watershed, and wildlife habitat.

Findings Required by Other Laws and 

Regulations

After consideration of the discussion of environmental consequences (final environmental impact 

statement, chapter 3), I have determined that alternative C is consistent with the Gila Forest Plan, 

as amended, and agency directives. I have also determined that alternative C is consistent with 

applicable federal laws, executive orders, and regulations.

The specialist reports in the project record certify alternative C is consistent with a variety of laws 

and regulations pertaining to each resource topic, and I incorporate the findings in each report 

into this record of decision.

National Forest Management Act

The National Forest Management Act reorganized, expanded, and otherwise amended the Forest 

and Rangeland Renewable Resources Planning Act of 1974, which called for the management of 

renewable resources on National Forest System lands. The National Forest Management Act 

requires the Secretary of Agriculture to assess forest lands, develop a management program based 

on multiple-use, sustained-yield principles, and implement a resource management plan for each 

unit of the National Forest System. It is the primary statute governing the administration of 

national forests.

I find this decision, including project-specific amendments to the Gila Forest Plan, as amended, is 

consistent with the goals and objectives of the forest plan. This decision also complies with the 

management direction and standards and guidelines for all relevant management areas described 

in the plan.

National Environmental Policy Act

The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to consider and disclose the 

effects of proposed actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The 

Luna Restoration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement analyzes the alternatives and 

displays the effects in conformance with the National Environmental Policy Act (40 CFR 1500 to 

1508 and FSH 1090.15).
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

19

Endangered Species Act

Consultation # 02ENNM00-2017-F-0491

Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to use their authorities to carry 

out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened species and to ensure that any 

action authorized, funded, or carried out by them is not likely to jeopardize the continued 

existence of listed species or modify their critical habitat.

Section 4 of the Act directs the development and implementation of recovery plans for threatened 

and endangered species and the designation of critical habitat. Several species listed under the Act 

are found in the Luna planning area, some with recovery plans and some with designated critical 

habitat.

Alternative C is consistent with the Endangered Species Act of 1973. The biological assessment 

and final environmental impact statement disclose potential impacts to the federally listed species 

in the Luna Restoration Project area: least tern, yellow-billed cuckoo, Chiricahua leopard frog, 

Gila trout, Zuni fleabane, Mexican gray wolf, Mexican spotted owl, southwestern willow 

flycatcher, narrow-headed gartersnake, loach minnow, and spikedace. The biological assessment 

was amended to include the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, which was discovered near 

the New Mexico-Arizona stateline. The determination for threatened and endangered species and 

their critical habitat are shown in table 1.

Table 1. Summary of threatened and endangered species and their critical habitat determinations for 

the Luna Restoration Project

Species Status Determination Species

Determination

Critical Habitat

Least tern Endangered No Effect No Effect

Yellow-billed cuckoo Threatened No Effect No Effect

Chiricahua leopard frog Threatened No Effect No Effect

Gila trout Threatened No Effect No Effect

Zuni fleabane Threatened No Effect No Effect

Mexican gray wolf Endangered/

Experimental

Not likely to jeopardize the 

continued existence of the 

experimental, nonessential 

population of Mexican gray 

wolf

Not applicable

Mexican spotted owl Threatened May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Southwestern willow 

flycatcher

Threatened No Effect May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Narrow-headed 

gartersnake

Threatened May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect (Proposed 

Critical Habitat)

Loach minnow Threatened May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

Spikedace Threatened May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

May Affect, Likely to 

Adversely Affect

New Mexico meadow 

jumping mouse

Endangered May Affect, Not Likely to 

Adversely Affect

No Effect
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

20

The analysis concludes that alternative C may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the Mexican 

spotted owl and its critical habitat. Short-term impacts to the species will likely result; however, 

the selected alternative also results in long-term benefits to the owl by increasing habitat 

resilience to large, high-severity wildfires.

The analysis concludes a determination of may affect and likely to adversely affect for the 

narrow-headed gartersnake and its critical habitat. Indirect effects from the proposed activities to 

proposed critical habitat may include increased sediment movement at disturbed sites. However,

disturbed sites are small and located some distance away from proposed critical habitat. Areas 

where project activities could have a direct effect to snakes, if they are present, will be surveyed 

prior to implementation of activities. Proposed critical habitat may be directly affected by some 

of the proposed activities that include instream work or stream bank alteration. These direct 

effects include short-term increased sedimentation from removal of riparian vegetation, and 

removal of large woody debris that provides cover for gartersnakes.

The analysis concludes a determination of may affect, and is likely to adversely affect loach

minnow and spikedace. Direct effects from improving motorized trail crossings, electroshocking, 

and potential increased in sedimentation may affect spikedace 16 miles downstream. These 

affects are neither insignificant nor discountable.

The analysis concludes a determination of may affect, and is not likely to adversely affect the 

New Mexico meadow jumping mouse. Due to implementation of projects occurring outside of the 

active season for New Mexico meadow jumping mice, there will be no direct effects. This project 

will have indirect effects of minimal short-term habitat loss, with long-term improvement of 

riparian and habitat conditions.

Formal consultation occurred with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and a final signed 

biological opinion, dated May 2, 2019, was issued. The reasonable and prudent measures and 

corresponding terms and conditions along with conservation measures in the biological opinion 

will be incorporated by reference to this record of decision. The project-specific amendments 

related to treatments in owl habitat are designed to meet the guidance within the 2012 Revised 

Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl, and are therefore, consistent with recovery objectives 

for the owl.

Forest Service Sensitive Species

Federal law and direction applicable to Forest Service sensitive species are included in the 

National Forest Management Act and Forest Service Manual (2670). The Regional Forester has 

developed the sensitive species list for plants and animals for which population viability is a 

concern. A biological evaluation on species designated as sensitive by the Regional Forester was 

prepared. It was determined that alternative C may affect individuals, but will not cause a trend 

toward federal listing for the following sensitive species: Mogollon clover, Villous groundcover 

milkvetch, Goodding’s onion, Arizona gray squirrel, Arizona montane vole, Gunnison’s prairie 

dog (prairie population), pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, “Gila” may fly, moth (Notodontid moth), 

dashed ringtail, A stonefly, desert sucker, Rio Grande sucker, northern goshawk, burrowing owl 

(western), common black hawk, American peregrine falcon, bald eagle, and gray vireo.

It was determined that the following sensitive species are not known to occur in the project area,

and therefore, there would be no effect to populations, species, or habitat: Maguire’s beardtongue, 

Metcalfe’s penstemon, Davidson’s cliff carrot, Blumer’s dock, Mimbres figwort, Porsild’s 
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

21

starwort, Pinos Altos flame flower, Wright’s dogweed, Mogollon death camas, Greene milkweed, 

Gila thistle, Wooton’s hawthorn, yellow lady’s slipper, Metcalfe’s tick-trefoil, Hess’s fleabane, 

Arizona coralroot, Mogollon hawkweed, Rusby hawkweed, heartleaf groundsel, Silver Creek 

woodlandsnail, Black Range woodlandsnail, Whitewater Creek woodlandsnail, Iron Creek 

woodlandsnail, Dry Creek woodlandsnail, bearded mountainsnail, no common name (Black 

Range mountainsnail), no common name snail, Mineral Creek mountainsnail, Morgan Creek 

mountainsnail, Gila springsnail, New Mexico springsnail, northern Mexican gartersnake, Sonora 

sucker, headwater chub, roundtail chub, Rio Grande cutthroat trout, Gunnison’s prairie dog 

(montane population), spotted bat, western red bat, hooded skunk, Costa’s hummingbird, 

common ground dove, white-eared hummingbird, Gila woodpecker, Abert’s towhee, Arizona 

Bell’s vireo, and lowland leopard frog.

Management Indicator Species

Effects on management indicator species are disclosed in chapter 3 of the final environmental 

impact statement. Wildlife management indicator species within the project area include mule 

deer, Mearn’s quail, long-tail vole, beaver, plain [juniper] titmouse, and hairy woodpecker. The 

Gila trout and Rio Grande cutthroat species and their habitat do not exist in the project area. I find 

that alternative C is consistent with the standards and guidelines pertaining to management 

indicator species. Additionally, based on the limited effects to any management indicator species, 

the alternative does not result in a reduction in the number of acres of available habitat for any of 

the management indicator species, and does not contribute toward a negative trend in viability on 

the Gila National Forest.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act, as amended, is the comprehensive federal law that regulates air emissions 

from stationary and mobile sources. This law authorizes the Environmental Protection Agency to 

establish National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and public welfare and 

to regulate emission of hazardous air pollutants. Chapter 3 in the final environmental impact 

statement has an analysis of the potential impacts on air quality, including compliance with 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Alternative C is designed to be consistent with the provisions of the Clean Air Act, its 

implementing regulations, and associated federal and state air quality standards. The selected 

alternative meets all conditions of the New Mexico Smoke Management Program, which meets 

the requirements of the Clean Air Act and the Regional Haze Rule (40 CFR 51.309). The primary 

concern with this project in regard to air quality is smoke emissions from prescribed fires. No 

exceedance of National Ambient Air Quality Standards is expected from the operation of vehicles 

(including exhaust and fugitive dust) or prescribed fire treatments. There is a potential for health 

impacts because of exposure to PM2.5. Prescribed fire will be planned, designed, and 

implemented to minimize smoke effects on air quality and public health and safety, complying 

with the New Mexico Smoke Management Plan.

Clean Water Act

Public Law 92-500 as amended in 1977 (Public Law 95-217) and 1987 (Public Law 100-4), also 

known as the federal Clean Water Act: This act provides the structure for regulating pollutant 

discharges to waters of the United States. The Act’s objective is "...to restore and maintain the 
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

22

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation’s waters," and is aimed at controlling 

point and non-point sources of pollution.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency administers the Act, but many permitting, 

administrative, and enforcement functions are delegated to state governments. In New Mexico, 

the designated agency for enforcement of the Clean Water Act is the New Mexico Environment 

Department. The Luna Restoration Project includes perennial waters, intermittent flows, and 

ephemeral channels, all of which are covered under New Mexico Environment Department’s 

Non-Point Source Management Program and Plan.

Under alternative C, activities are proposed that are designed to improve water quality by 

restoring channel stability, improving hydrologic function, lowering stream temperatures, 

reducing sediment, and improving dissolved oxygen, pH, and conductivity. As such, the 

alternative is consistent with the federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972.

Executive Orders 11988 and 11990

Floodplain and Wetlands Management

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, (CEQ 1978): All executive agencies to take 

special care when undertaking actions that may affect wetlands or floodplains, directly or 

indirectly. The orders require agencies to avoid disrupting these areas wherever there is a 

practicable alternative, and to minimize any environmental harm that might be caused by federal

actions.

Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands, commands that the agency shall take action to 

minimize the destruction, loss or degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural 

and beneficial values of wetlands. Specifically, it requires the agency to avoid undertaking or 

providing assistance for new construction located in wetlands unless there is no practicable 

alternative to such construction and the proposed action includes all practicable measures to 

minimize harm to wetlands, which may result from such use.

Activities in alternative C to improve channel shape, form and function; improve water quality; 

and provide for stable hydrologic regime will provide beneficial impacts to floodplains and 

wetlands. These activities will provide beneficial impacts to floodplains and wetlands and are in 

compliance with the executive orders.

National Historic Preservation Act

The National Historic Preservation Act and the National Environmental Policy Act both require 

that consideration be given to the potential effects of federal undertakings on historic resources 

(including historic and prehistoric cultural resource sites). The guidelines for assessing effects 

and for consultation are outline in the Region 3 programmatic agreement with the New Mexico 

State Historic Preservation Office and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.

Some cultural resource surveys have been conducted for upcoming activities requiring inspection 

and are documented in the cultural resources clearance report. Because the project will be 

conducted over multiple years, clearance of future activities will be accomplished using a phased 

approach as defined in appendix J of the programmatic agreement.

Implementation of the proposed treatments in alternative C are not expected to impact negatively

heritage resources within the project area. Protective measures including site protect measures 
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

23

were developed to be consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act. As such, I find the 

selected alternative is in agreement with those identified in section I, appendix J, of the Region 3 

first amended programmatic agreement (USDA Forest Service, Region 3 2010).

Executive Order 11644, as Amended by Executive Order 

11989 (Regulating Motorized Off-Road Travel)

Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 provide direction for federal agencies to establish policies and 

provide for procedures to control and direct the use of off-highway vehicles on public lands so as 

to: (1) protect the resources of those lands; (2) promote the safety of all users of those lands; and 

(3) minimize conflicts among the various users on those lands. In the Luna Restoration Project,

all action alternatives propose to decommission unnecessary routes and improve existing allterrain vehicle and utility task vehicle routes to protect resources.

Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice)

Executive Order 12898 governs federal actions to address environmental justice in minority and 

low-income populations. The provisions also apply to programs involving Native Americans. The 

goal of environmental justice is to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse 

with respect to minority and low-income populations and identify alternatives to avoid or mitigate 

those impacts.

Smoke emissions from prescribed fires or wildfire can have health and quality of life 

consequences and is most likely to affect vulnerable populations—children, the elderly, and 

individuals with health or respiratory issues. Prescribed fire will be planned, designed, and 

implemented to minimize smoke effects on air quality and public health and safety, complying 

with the New Mexico Smoke Management Program.

There are also beneficial effects on these populations from the creation of jobs in the wood 

products industry, generation of fuelwood for personal use, improvements in water quality, 

increased access to national forest lands, and protection of cultural resources.

2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule

The 2001 Roadless Area Final Rule (36 CFR Part 294) established protections for inventoried 

roadless areas. The rule prohibits road construction, reconstruction, and timber harvest except for 

other than stewardship purposes. The proposed treatments meet the criteria for stewardship 

purposes.

There are three inventoried roadless areas within the Luna Restoration Project: Mother Hubbard,

Nolan, and the Frisco Box. All action alternatives propose low-severity prescribed fire within the 

Mother Hubbard and Nolan inventoried roadless areas. A road-to-trail conversion is proposed in 

the Frisco Box Inventoried Roadless Area. These actions will have some short-term effects to the 

undeveloped, natural, and opportunities for solitude or primitive unconfined recreation attributes, 

but would result in a long-term beneficial effect.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

24

Implementation

If no objections are filed within the 45-day time period, approval of the decision may occur on, 

but not before, the fifth business day following the end of the objection-filing period.

Implementation may occur immediately after the decision is approved in the record of decision.

When objections are filed, approval of the decision may occur on, but not before, the reviewing 

officer has responded in writing to all pending objections, and until all concerns, and instructions 

identified by the reviewing officer in the objection response have been addressed. Implementation 

may occur immediately after the decision is approved in the record of decision.

Project-specific plan amendments are effective on the date the project may be implemented in 

accordance with administrative review regulations at 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 218 

(36 CFR 219.17(a)(3)).

Administrative Review or Objection Opportunities

This decision is subject to objection pursuant to 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 218. The 

project objection process, 36 Code of Federal Regulations Part 218 is being used for both the 

project and the project-specific plan amendments (36 CFR 219.59 (b)). The objection must be 

filed by way of regular mail, fax, e-mail, hand-delivery, or express delivery with:

Regional Forester, Objection Review Officer

USDA Forest Service

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

Fax number: (505) 842-3173

The office business hours for those submitting hand-delivered objections are: 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m. Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. Electronic objections must be submitted in a 

format such as an e-mail message, plain text (.txt), rich text format (.rtf), portable document 

format (.pdf), or Word (.doc or .docx) to objections-southwestern-regional-office@fs.fed.us with 

Subject: Luna Restoration Project. In cases where no identifiable name is attached to an 

electronic message, a verification of identity will be required. A scanned signature is one way to 

provide verification.

Objections, including attachments, must be filed within 45 days from the publication date of 

notice in the Silver City Daily Press, the newspaper of record. Attachments received after the 45-

day objection period will not be considered. The publication date in the newspaper of record is 

the exclusive means for calculating the time to file an objection. Those wishing to object this 

project should not rely upon dates or timeframe information provided by any other source.

Individuals or organizations who submitted comments during the comment period specified at 

215.6 may file an objection to this project. The notice of objection must meet the content 

requirements at 36 Code of Federal Regulations 218.8.
Luna Restoration Project – Draft Record of Decision

Apache National Forest (Administered by Gila National Forest)

25

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this project, contact: Emily Irwin, District Ranger, 

Quemado Ranger District, P.O. Box 159, Quemado, NM 87829, 575-773-4678.

For information on the Forest Service administrative review and objection process, contact: Lisa 

Mizuno, Environmental Coordinator, Gila National Forest, 3005 E. Camino del Bosque, Silver 

City, NM 88061, 575-388-8267.

ADAM MENDONCA [DATE]

Forest Supervisor

Gila National Forest