United States Department of Agriculture

Forest Service

Southwestern Region

MB-R3-07-19

February 2014

Final Environmental Impact 

Statement for the Kaibab 

National Forest Land and 

Resource Management Plan

Coconino, Yavapai, and Mojave Counties, Arizona 

Cover: collage of four images―Kanab Wilderness, Abert squirrel, Ponderosa pine, and aspen.

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 of 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 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 – February 2014

Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for the 

Kaibab National Forest

Land and Resource 

Management Plan

Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties, Arizona

Responsible Official: Calvin Joyner, Regional Forester

333 Broadway Blvd., SE

Albuquerque, NM 87102

(505) 842-3292

For More Information, Contact: Michael R. Williams, Forest Supervisor, or

Ariel Leonard, Forest Planner

Forest Supervisor’s Office

800 S. 6th Street

Williams, AZ 86046

Mailroom_R3_Kaibab@fs.fed.us

(928) 635-8200

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan i

Summary

This final environmental impact statement (FEIS) documents the analysis of alternatives 

developed for the programmatic management of approximately 1.6 million acres of the Kaibab 

National Forest (NF). The selected alternative will replace the 1988 “Kaibab National Forest 

Land and Resource Management Plan,” as amended (KNF 1988), which guides all natural 

resource management activities on the forest. The revised land management plan (LMP), 

hereafter referred to as the “plan,” is intended to address new information and concerns raised 

since the 1988 forest plan was published; meet the objectives of federal laws, regulations, and 

policies; address the changes in management anticipated to be needed over the next 15 years 

identified in the analysis of the management situation; provide for clear direction in the form of 

desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, suitability, management areas, and 

monitoring; incorporate the best available science; and provide a framework for adaptive 

management.

Four alternatives (or programmatic strategies) for revising the Kaibab NF LMP are described, 

compared, and analyzed in detail in this FEIS. The analysis displays the anticipated progress 

toward the desired conditions as well as the potential environmental and social consequences of 

implementing each alternative. Alternative A is the no action alternative; it represents the 1988 

forest plan (as amended) and is referred to as the current plan, current management, or no action 

alternative. Alternative B is the proposed plan, and Forest Service preferred alternative. The 

proposed action includes a reorganization and restructure of the forest plan; more sustainable, 

ecologically based and descriptive desired conditions (goals); updated objectives; a reevaluation 

of suitable uses, changes to standards and guidelines; new management areas; recommendations 

for designating about 6,400 acres of additional wilderness; and a recalculation of the allowable 

sale quantity (ASQ) and long-term sustained yield (LTSY) of timber resources. The proposed 

action focuses on the Priority Needs for Change identified in the analysis of the management 

situation (AMS). Those priority needs are to (1) modify stand structure and density of forested 

ecosystems toward reference conditions and restore historic fire regimes; (2) protect and 

regenerate aspen; (3) protect and restore natural waters; and (4) restore grasslands by reducing 

tree encroachment in grasslands and meadows. In addition to the Priority Needs for Change, the 

proposed plan provides direction for uses, goods and services including diverse recreation 

opportunities, traditional use, livestock grazing, energy transmission and development, mineral 

and mining activities, and special uses. 

Alternative C is similar to the proposed action, but includes a guideline that would not cut trees 

with physical characteristics typical of those established prior to 1890, adds a management area

called the North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex that would not be managed for timber 

production, and recommends six additional wilderness areas. Alternative D is similar to 

alternative C, except that no lands would be managed for timber production across the entire 

forest. Overall, the analysis performed for this EIS indicates that the proposed action (alternative 

B) would be most effective at meeting management needs and achieving desired conditions.

The proposed action and draft environmental impact statement were published for comment in 

the Federal Register on April 20, 2012, which initiated a 90-day comment period. During the 

comment period, additional public meetings were held in Williams and Fredonia, and 

presentations were made for government, tribal, and citizen groups. In response to comments 

from 56 individuals, organizations, agencies, and tribes, minor changes were made throughout the 

proposed plan and environmental impact statement, all of which were within the scope of the 

analysis in the draft environmental impact statement.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan iii

Contents

Summary ....................................................................................................................................... iii

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

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

Summary of Changes from the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed Plan ...... 2

Location....................................................................................................................................... 2

Purpose of and Need for Action .................................................................................................. 4

Proposed Action .......................................................................................................................... 5

Decision Framework ................................................................................................................... 6

Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning......................................................................... 6

Issues Leading to Alternative Development................................................................................ 7

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action......................................................... 11

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 11

Alternatives Considered in Detail.............................................................................................. 11

Alternative Development .......................................................................................................11

Elements Common to the Action Alternatives.......................................................................11

Alternative A, No Action – Current Plan............................................................................... 12

Alternative B, Proposed Forest Plan – Preferred Alternative................................................ 12

Alternative C ......................................................................................................................... 14

Alternative D......................................................................................................................... 16

Resource Planning Act Alternative ....................................................................................... 16

Alternatives Considered But Not Analyzed in Detail................................................................ 19

Alternative that Would Reduce Grazing................................................................................ 19

Alternative that Would Recommend All Five of the Inventoried Roadless Areas for 

Wilderness Designation......................................................................................................... 19

Alternative That Would Use a Hands-off Approach to Manage Long-term Vegetative 

Health .................................................................................................................................... 20

Alternative That Would Include a Road Density Standard................................................... 20

Comparison of Alternatives....................................................................................................... 20

Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences................................... 25

Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 25

Vegetation and Fire ................................................................................................................... 25

Vegetation Affected Environment ......................................................................................... 26

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis.......................................................................... 33

Methodology and Analysis Process....................................................................................... 41

Environmental Consequences ............................................................................................... 44

Comparison of Alternatives for Vegetation and Fire ............................................................ 56

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Vegetation and Fire...................................... 59

Species Viability Analysis......................................................................................................... 65

Wildlife...................................................................................................................................... 67

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Wildlife................................. 68

Environmental Consequences to Wildlife Viability .............................................................. 76

Summary of Comparison of Alternatives – Wildlife............................................................115

Management Indicator Species ............................................................................................116

Comparison of Alternatives ................................................................................................ 124

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Wildlife..................................................... 130

Botanical Resources ................................................................................................................ 134

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Botanical Resources.......... 134

Environmental Consequences to Plant Species Viability.................................................... 139

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan v
Contents

Comparison of Alternatives for Botanical Resources ....................................................... 156

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Botanical Resources ................................. 157

Nonnative Invasive Plants....................................................................................................... 159

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition)............................................... 160

Environmental Consequences for Nonnative Invasive Plants............................................ 163

Cumulative Effects for Nonnative Invasive Plants............................................................. 166

Watersheds and Soils............................................................................................................... 167

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition)................................................ 167

Environmental Consequences for Watersheds and Soils..................................................... 171

Comparison of Alternatives for Soils and Watersheds....................................................... 178

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Soils and Watersheds................................ 181

Water Resources...................................................................................................................... 182

Affected Environment for Natural Waters........................................................................... 182

Affected Environment for Developed Waters ..................................................................... 184

Environmental Consequences for Water Resources........................................................... 190

Comparison of Alternatives for Water Resources ............................................................... 198

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Water Resources....................................... 199

Air Quality............................................................................................................................... 200

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Air Quality......................... 200

Environmental Consequences for Air Quality..................................................................... 204

Comparison of Alternatives for Air Quality........................................................................ 207

Cumulative Environmental Consequences on Air Quality................................................. 208

Recreation................................................................................................................................ 208

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Recreation ......................... 209

Environmental Consequences for Recreation ..................................................................... 214

Comparison of Alternatives for Recreation......................................................................... 217

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Recreation................................................. 219

Scenery .................................................................................................................................... 220

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Scenery.............................. 220

Environmental Consequences for Scenery.......................................................................... 222

Comparison of Alternatives for Scenery ............................................................................. 225

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Scenery ..................................................... 227

Wilderness............................................................................................................................... 228

Affected Environment (Existing Condition) ....................................................................... 228

Environmental Consequences of Potential Wilderness Area Designation ......................... 232

Comparison of Alternatives: Wilderness............................................................................. 235

Management of Potential Wilderness Areas if Recommended as Wilderness ................... 236

Management of Potential Wilderness Areas if Not Recommended as Wilderness ............ 237

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Wilderness ................................................. 238

Heritage Resources.................................................................................................................. 238

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Heritage Resources ........... 238

Environmental Consequences for Heritage Resources........................................................ 239

Comparison of Alternatives................................................................................................. 241

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Heritage Resources................................... 241

Livestock Grazing ................................................................................................................... 241

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition): Livestock Grazing............... 242

Environmental Consequences for Livestock Grazing ........................................................ 244

Comparison of Alternatives................................................................................................. 245

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Livestock Grazing .................................... 245

vi FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Transportation.......................................................................................................................... 246

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition): Transportation ..................... 247

Environmental Consequences for Transportation .............................................................. 248

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Transportation........................................... 248

Forest Lands............................................................................................................................ 249

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition): Forest Lands........................ 249

Environmental Consequences for Forest Lands.................................................................. 250

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Forest Lands ............................................. 250

Special Uses............................................................................................................................. 251

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition)............................................... 252

Environmental Consequences for Special Uses................................................................. 253

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Special Uses.............................................. 253

Minerals and Mining Activities............................................................................................... 254

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition): Minerals and Mining........... 255

Environmental Consequences for Minerals and Mining Activities.................................... 256

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for Mining and Minerals ................................ 258

Socioeconomic ........................................................................................................................ 259

Description of Affected Environment (Existing Condition) – Socioeconomic.................. 259

 Environmental Justice ......................................................................................................... 265

Environmental Consequences for Socioeconomics ............................................................ 274

Economic Impact Analysis.................................................................................................. 274

Financial Efficiency Analysis.............................................................................................. 278

Social Consequences........................................................................................................... 281

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity ........................................................................ 283

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources..................................................... 283

Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination............................................................................. 285

Preparers (Interdisciplinary Team Members).......................................................................... 285

Consultation and Coordination................................................................................................ 288

Federal, State, and Local Agencies ..................................................................................... 288

Tribes................................................................................................................................... 288

Others.................................................................................................................................. 288

Literature Cited......................................................................................................................... 291

Glossary...................................................................................................................................... 305

Acronyms ................................................................................................................................ 319

Index........................................................................................................................................ 323

List of Tables

Table 1. Primary differences between alternative content and outputs ..................................... 21

Table 2. Summary of the ability of each alternative to achieve management needs and key 

desired condition concepts as analyzed and disclosed in chapter 3................................... 22

Table 3. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVT) that occur on the Kaibab National Forest. 

Acreage and percentage are displayed by forest and ranger district. ................................ 27

Table 4. Conditions, trends, and primary departures for each potential natural vegetation type

(PNVT) on the Kaibab National Forest............................................................................. 30

Table 5. Summary of the alternative vegetation responses for each criterion in ponderosa pine 

at four time marks. The response best meeting the desired conditions is shaded.............. 46

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan vii
Contents

Table 6. Response of alternatives to evaluation criteria in frequent fire mixed conifer. The most 

desirable response is shaded.............................................................................................. 47

Table 7. Percent area in large, open, multistoried states over time for ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer. The greatest percent area in the desired states is highlighted.

........................................................................................................................................... 50

Table 8. Relationship of the land area between the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) ranger 

districts and Bailey’s Ecoregion Sections (Bailey et al. 1994).......................................... 59

Table 9. Wildlife, fish, and invertebrate species on the viability list, forest ranking and 

associated potential natural vegetation type (PNVT)........................................................ 68

Table 10. Mexican spotted owl critical habitat units on the Kaibab National Forest ................ 72

Table 11. Sensitive wildlife species and acres of associated potential natural vegetation type

(PNVT) acres..................................................................................................................... 74

Table 12. Summary of expected abundance, distribution, likelihood of limitation, and 

management effects for wildlife habitat elements by forest plan revision alternatives..... 77

Table 13. Viability risk rating for wildlife species/habitat interactions as a function of species’ F 

Rank and likelihood of habitat element limitation variables............................................. 81

Table 14. Risk to species viability for each wildlife species/habitat relation by forest plan 

revision alternative ............................................................................................................ 81

Table 15. Summary of risk to species viability for wildlife species/habitat elements with a very 

high, high, or moderate high rating in any alternative....................................................... 86

Table 16. Forest planning species classified as having restricted distributions or narrow 

endemic species................................................................................................................. 88

Table 17. Changes in acres of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat by alternative .........116

Table 18. Management indicator species used in the evaluation of all alternatives.................117

Table 19. Current management indicator species for the Kaibab National Forest and the habitat 

or habitat components they represent...............................................................................118

Table 20. Trends in pronghorn populations based on Arizona Game and Fish Department data 

(2012) .............................................................................................................................. 123

Table 21. Forest planning plant species list, forest ranks, and associated vegetation types.... 137

Table 22. Risk to plant species viability for each species/habitat relation by forest plan revision 

alternative ........................................................................................................................ 140

Table 23. Number of plant species/habitat relationships rated as very high, high, and 

moderately high risk to viability for each category of management effect by forest plan 

revision alternative .......................................................................................................... 145

Table 24. Number of plant species rated as very high, high, and moderately high risk to 

viability for each category of species status, by forest plan revision alternative ............ 146

Table 25. Nonnative invasive species of concern on the Kaibab National Forest................... 161

Table 26. Estimated trends in soil condition for each vegetation type by alternative ............. 179

Table 27. Perennial constructed lakes of the Kaibab National Forest and associated acreages184

Table 28. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, acreages, and associated percentages of each that 

comprise the Williams Municipal watershed................................................................... 187

Table 29. Reservoirs, associated water storage capacities, and percentages of total municipal 

surface water in the Williams Municipal watershed........................................................ 188

Table 30. Baseline and 2064 air quality goals in 2003 Arizona State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

for Natural Conditions (Fitch and Truman 2007). Deciview (dv) is a measure of visibility.

......................................................................................................................................... 202

Table 31. Percentage of the ponderosa pine vegetation community in open states with 

30 percent crown cover or less........................................................................................ 206

viii FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Table 32. Percentage of frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation community in open states with 

30 percent crown cover or less........................................................................................ 206

Table 33. Current plan desired recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) acres by ranger district 

(2004 amendment)........................................................................................................... 210

Table 34. Visitor activity results from national visitor use monitoring on the Kaibab National 

Forest............................................................................................................................... 213

Table 35. Acres of desired recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes by alternative..... 215

Table 36. Acres allocated to scenic integrity objective by alternative..................................... 224

Table 37. Acres of proposed wilderness areas by alternative .................................................. 232

Table 38. Alternative B – acres and proposed wilderness areas.............................................. 233

Table 39. Alternatives C and D – acres and proposed wilderness areas.................................. 235

Table 40. Total area, population, and population density for Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai 

Counties in 2000.............................................................................................................. 259

Table 41. Population change in the study area, Arizona and Utah, 1990 to 2010 ................... 261

Table 42. Population density (persons per square mile) for counties in assessment area, 2000 

and 2010 .......................................................................................................................... 263

Table 43. Median age by county for the assessment area........................................................ 264

Table 44. Gender distribution for the study area, counties, the State, and Nation................... 264

Table 45. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25 and older.................................. 265

Table 46. Race and ethnicity in socioeconomic assessment area (population percentage) ..... 267

Table 47. Percentage of residents living in poverty................................................................. 268

Table 48. Per capita income, 2009........................................................................................... 268

Table 49. Median earnings for workers, 2009 ......................................................................... 269

Table 50. Percentage of contribution of labor and non-labor income to total personal income, 

2000 and 2009 ................................................................................................................. 269

Table 51. Payments to states and counties from the Kaibab National Forest.......................... 274

Table 52. Employment and labor income by program area, all alternatives............................ 275

Table 53. Kaibab National Forest contribution (without timber), employment, and income by 

major industry.................................................................................................................. 276

Table 54. Estimated annual forest product volumes by alternative ......................................... 277

Table 55. Timber contribution, employment, and income by alternative, South Zone............ 278

Table 56. Timber contribution, employment, and income by alternative, North Zone............ 278

Table 57. Kaibab National Forest program expenditures by alternative ................................. 279

Table 58. Kaibab National Forest program revenues by alternative........................................ 280

Table 59. Kaibab National Forest present net value (PNV) by alternative and program ........ 281

Table 60. Kaibab National Forest recommended wilderness acres by alternative .................. 282

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan ix
Contents

List of Figures

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Kaibab National Forest................................................................. 3

Figure 2. North Kaibab Ranger District existing and recommended wilderness areas under each 

alternative, plus the North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex (alternative C only).......... 17

Figure 3. Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts existing and recommended wilderness areas 

under each alternative........................................................................................................ 18

Figure 4. Percentage of Kaibab National Forest in each potential natural vegetation type

(PNVT).............................................................................................................................. 26

Figure 5. Number of fires in Kaibab National Forest per year from 1970 through 2010. The 10-

year moving average number of starts is around 200 per year. ......................................... 28

Figure 6. Number of Kaibab National Forest acres burned by wildfires from 1970 through 2010

........................................................................................................................................... 29

Figure 7. Bailey’s ECOMAP sections, containing the Kaibab National Forest. Other National 

Forest System lands in or near the sections are also shown. ............................................. 61

Figure 8. Kaibab National Forest socioeconomic assessment area ......................................... 262

Figure 9. Annual unemployment rate, 2001 to 2010 ............................................................... 270

Figure 10. Employment by industry in the planning area ....................................................... 271

Figure 11. Employment specialization in the study area ......................................................... 273

x FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service prepared this final environmental impact statement (FEIS) in compliance with 

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

regulations. This FEIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts that 

would result from the proposed action and alternatives. The document is organized as follows: 

• 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 involved the public regarding 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. 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. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

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

and agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Literature Cited.

• Glossary. This section contains definitions of many of the resource specific terms used in 

this document. 

• Appendix. The appendix consists of several parts (Appendices A through N) and

provides more detailed information to support the analyses presented in the 

environmental impact statement such as the public comments and responses, analysis 

methods, suitability determinations, wilderness evaluation, etc.

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

found in the project planning record located at the Kaibab National Forest (hereafter referred to as 

the Kaibab NF or the forest) Supervisor’s Office. Key analysis documents can be found online at:

http://fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/plan_revision.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 1
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Summary of Changes from the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement and Proposed 

Plan

Changes made in the FEIS and proposed plan were driven by specific comments from the public 

and other agencies (FEIS Appendix A) on the draft environment impact statement (DEIS) and 

proposed plan. Changes made to the FEIS include:

• Additional alternatives were considered but not given detailed study, as disclosed in 

Chapter 2. 

• The analysis was updated to reflect changes resulting from the 2013 Regional Forester’s 

sensitive species list. 

• Appendix M was added to provide greater transparency on how key existing plan 

direction (e.g. standards and guidelines) were incorporated into the revised plan.

• Other changes to the FEIS include relatively minor corrections or additions to 

terminology, methodology, and effects to improve clarity.

Changes made to the proposed forest plan include:

• Increased alignment between the plan’s desired conditions and the 2012 Mexican spotted

owl recovery plan;

• Separating out plan direction for threatened, endangered, and sensitive species;

• Clarifying language to better include invasive animal species. The plan direction for 

invasive species previously focused on invasive plants;

• Other relatively minor changes to provide increased clarity or emphasis for resources of 

interest.

Location

The Kaibab NF is one of six national forests in Arizona. It covers about 1.6 million acres in northcentral Arizona, and is located in Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties. The forest is broken 

into three geographically separate ranger districts: the North Kaibab Ranger District lies north of 

Grand Canyon National Park, the Tusayan Ranger District is south of Grand Canyon National 

Park, and the Williams Ranger District is southernmost, separated from the Tusayan Ranger 

District by private and Arizona State lands (figure 1). The forest shares boundaries with Grand 

Canyon National Park, the Prescott and Coconino National Forests, Bureau of Land 

Management-Arizona Strip District, Navajo and Havasupai Indian Reservations, the city of 

Williams, the town of Tusayan, Camp Navajo (a National Guard training site), and private lands.

2 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Figure 1. Vicinity map of the Kaibab National Forest

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 3
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Purpose of and Need for Action

The Kaibab NF is revising its 1988 forest plan as required by the National Forest Management 

Act (NFMA) of 1976. The revised plan is designed to meet the legal requirements of the NFMA 

and to incorporate new scientific and traditional cultural knowledge on topics including ecology 

of fire-adapted systems; vegetation management; species viability; soils, insects and diseases; 

known changes in forest conditions; and user trends and preferences. Additionally, the revised 

plan represents the forest level direction that guides the forest in meeting the mission of the Forest 

Service and managing its lands to provide for healthy, resilient ecosystems that meet the diverse 

needs of the American people.

The NFMA directs that forest plans be revised on a 10- to 15-year cycle. Almost twenty-six years 

have passed since the regional forester approved the original forest plan on April 15, 1988; this 

plan has been amended 10 times since. The last 26 years have provided new scientific 

information and understanding, and changes in economic, social, and ecological conditions 

resulting in a shift in management emphasis from outputs to outcomes. A complete revision of the 

1988 forest plan is needed to: (1) meet the legal requirements of NFMA and the provisions of the 

1982 Planning Rule, (2) guide natural resource management activities on the forest for the next 

10 to 15 years, and (3) address the needed changes in management direction.

This forest plan revision process was conducted in accordance with 1982 Rule Provisions as 

provided for in the transition language of the 2012 Land and Resource Management Planning 

Rule (36 CFR 219.17(b)(3) (hereafter referred to as 2012 Rule). This plan revision was initiated 

prior to the availability of the 2012 Rule, and as a result, the responsible official has chosen to use 

the 2012 Rule’s transition provisions to revise the Kaibab NF forest plan. These provisions 

require that an EIS be prepared for a proposed action to revise a forest plan.

The Kaibab NF conducted an analysis of the management situation (AMS), which evaluated the 

need for changes in management in light of how current management under the 1988 forest plan 

was affecting ecological and socioeconomic conditions and trends. This analysis is documented in 

the AMS, which is composed of the comprehensive evaluation report (CER) and CER 

supplementary document. Supporting analysis can be found on the Kaibab NF Web site in the 

Socioeconomic Sustainability Report, Ecological Sustainability Report, and Potential Wilderness 

Evaluation Report. The AMS and subsequent management reviews identified four Priority Needs 

for Change that served to focus the scope of this plan revision:

1. Modify stand structure and density of forested ecosystems toward reference 

conditions and restore historic fire regimes. In ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

vegetation types, tree cover and fuels are far denser and more continuous across the 

landscape than reference conditions. When wildfires occur under current conditions, they 

are increasingly likely to result in severe fire effects and kill large and old trees, which 

take many years to replace. The multiple ecological, social, and economic benefits of 

restoring historic stand structure and reducing the risk of uncharacteristic fires are 

primary areas of focus. 

2. Protect and regenerate aspen. Protection and regeneration of aspen is a priority because 

of the important role aspen plays in providing local habitat diversity and scenery. Aspen 

stands are currently in decline throughout most of the Southwest. On the Williams Ranger 

District, most aspen stands are generally unhealthy because they are being overtopped by 

4 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

conifers, and there has been little to no recruitment of young trees due to ungulate browse

and lack of fire. 

3. Protect natural waters. The Kaibab NF is one of the driest forests in the Nation. With 

the exception of one perennial stream that is less than two miles in length, most of the 

natural waters in the forest are small springs and ephemeral wetlands. The current forest 

plan offers little guidance for managing these rare and ecologically important resources. 

Natural waters are centers of high biological diversity, have traditional cultural 

significance, and are popular recreation destinations. 

4. Restore grasslands by reducing tree encroachment in grasslands and meadows.

There has been significant tree encroachment into grasslands over the past 100 years. 

This change has reduced the quantity and quality of available habitat for grasslandassociated species. The montane/subalpine grasslands on the North Kaibab Ranger 

District are at particular risk of loss because they are linear and, due to their shape,

encroachment occurs more quickly.

Plan Decisions

The forest plan makes the following types of decisions:

• Desired conditions, goals, and objectives express an aspiration and form the basis for 

projects, activities, and uses that occur under the forest plan.

• Suitability determinations, standards, and guidelines set requirements to limit or guide 

forest uses or activities that are expected to occur under the forest plan.

• Management area and special designations, or recommendations for special designations, 

identify areas with differing desired conditions, uses, standards, and/or guidelines than 

the forest-wide plan direction. 

• Monitoring and evaluation framework to assess forest conditions and plan 

implementation in support of adaptive management.

The plan is strategic in nature and does not specifically authorize any projects or activities. Sitespecific decisions are made following project-specific proposals and analysis, with additional 

opportunities for public involvement.

Proposed Action

Proposed changes to the forest plan include a reorganization and restructure of the forest plan; 

more sustainable, ecologically based and descriptive desired conditions (goals); updated

objectives; a reevaluation of suitable uses, changes to standards and guidelines; new management 

areas; recommendations for potential wilderness areas; and a recalculation of the allowable sale 

quantity (ASQ) and long-term sustained yield (LTSY) of timber resources. The proposed action 

(proposed plan) focuses on the most critical issues identified in the AMS.

The proposed plan defines desired conditions for each potential natural vegetation type including: 

species composition; vegetation structural characteristics such as density and arrangement of tree 

groups; and disturbance patterns such as frequency, severity, intensity, and size of fire. It also 

describes the strategies in the form of objectives, standards, and guidelines that will define the 

“when,” “where,” and “how” to achieve the desired conditions. Objectives focus on restoration 

activities such as thinning and burning in high priority areas. Standards and guidelines provide 

sideboards to focus and constrain activities.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 5
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

The proposed plan defines desired characteristics for aspen including regeneration, recruitment, 

structural composition, understory plants, and disturbance processes. Strategies for achieving 

desired conditions focus on thinning encroaching conifers, protecting aspen from browse, and 

reintroducing fire.

The proposed plan provides desired conditions and includes strategies to restore and protect 

natural waters. More than 160 springs and spring-fed wetlands support rich plant and animal life 

on the Kaibab NF. Many of these springs have been degraded due to trampling and water 

development modifications. The plan defines desired conditions and provides objectives for 

protecting and restoring springs and wetlands. 

The proposed plan defines desired conditions and objectives for grasslands, which would restore 

natural patterns of abundance, composition, and distribution. Strategies focus on reducing tree 

density, reintroducing fire to the ecosystem, and modifying fences that would improve habitat 

connectivity for pronghorn antelope.

Besides the priority needs for change, the proposed plan provides direction for uses, goods and 

services including diverse recreation opportunities, traditional use, livestock grazing, energy 

transmission and development, mineral and mining activities, and special uses. 

This proposed plan can be found electronically on the Kaibab NF Web site at:

http://fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/plan_revision.

Additionally, as part of the forest plan revision process, the forest completed a potential 

wilderness area (PWA) evaluation, an evaluation of potential research natural areas, and reviewed 

the eligibility of Kanab Creek as a wild and scenic river (see appendices E, F, and G).

Decision Framework

The regional forester for the Southwestern Region will make the final decision on the selected 

alternative for the revised forest plan. The regional forester will review the proposed action, the 

other alternatives, and the environmental consequences; then decide which plan alternative best 

meets the desired conditions, multiple-use concept, diverse needs of people, and sustainable 

management of the forest as well as the requirements of the National Forest Management Act

(NFMA) of 1976 and the Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960.

Public Involvement and Collaborative Planning

Recognizing that our partners and publics have valuable ideas, knowledge, opinions, and needs 

that can inform and improve management of the Kaibab NF, a variety of opportunities for 

meaningful dialogue and collaboration were provided throughout the plan revision process. To 

initiate plan revision, the Kaibab NF hosted multiple public meetings in Williams, Tusayan, 

Flagstaff, Phoenix, Fredonia (all in Arizona), and in Kanab, Utah, as well as focused meetings on 

ecological sustainability and special areas. The forest sponsored a series of collaborative 

stakeholder meetings through a third-party facilitator. The purpose was to collaboratively identify 

high-priority treatment areas and develop guidance for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems that was 

supported by spatial modeling and analysis. The forest also hosted five topic-based 

6 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

“collaborwriting1” sessions and an online discussion forum that focused on drafting actual plan 

content around revision topics including grasslands, springs/wetlands, aspen, mixed conifer 

forests, and recreation. 

The notice of intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register on April 23, 2010. 

The notice of intent asked for public comment on the proposal through June 7, 2010; however, 

the forest considered substantive comments that were received after this date. Comments were 

used to modify the proposed plan and develop alternatives. With the release of the notice of 

intent, general public meetings were held in Fredonia and Williams. The forest also hosted several 

workshops to facilitate focused discussions on development of alternatives, wildlife components, 

and the monitoring and adaptive management strategy. Each of the workshops provided specific 

information that was incorporated directly into the proposed forest plan. 

Tribal coordination and collaboration with area tribes has been ongoing, with over 35 face-to-face 

meetings over the past five years. The forest held meetings with tribal elders, tribal government 

representatives, and community members. Additionally, the forest hosted four multi-tribal 

meetings where members from different tribes were brought together to discuss shared topics of 

interest. Forest plan revision had a full day dedicated at the first meeting and was a topic at the 

other three. 

Following the release of the DEIS, a notice of availability was published in the Federal Register 

that initiated the formal 90-day comment period on the DEIS and proposed forest plan as required 

by Forest Service NFMA regulations at 36 CFR 219. The formal 90-day comment period 

provided additional opportunities for public involvement in the NEPA review and plan revision 

processes. During the comment period, the planning team hosted public meetings in Williams and 

Fredonia, Arizona. Presentations were given to the Williams City Council, Tusayan Town 

Council, Fredonia Town Council, Kane County (Utah) Commissioners, Southwest Utah Planning 

Authorities Council, Kaibab Paiute Tribe, Hopi Tribe, Cameron and Bodaway-Gap Navajo 

Chapters, Grand Canyon National Park, livestock grazing permittees, and the Williams Rotary 

Club. Additionally, the forest hosted a focused topic collaborwriting session on monitoring and 

adaptive management.

During the 90-day comment period, comments were received from 56 individuals, organizations, 

agencies and tribes. Eligibility to appeal the regional forester’s decision regarding the proposed 

action is limited to individuals and organizations that commented on the DEIS or otherwise 

expressed an interest in the project during the formal 90-day comment period. Appendix A 

summarizes comments received during the 90-day comment period and provides the Kaibab NF’s 

response to these comments. Appendix N provides copies of comment letters received from 

governmental entities. Appendix L describes the public involvement process in greater detail.

Issues Leading to Alternative Development

The public, other agencies, and tribes submitted comments in response to the notice of intent and 

working draft plan. Comments were analyzed to identify issues and frame their associated cause 

and effect relationships. Issues were separated into two groups: significant and nonsignificant. 

Significant issues are those used to develop alternatives and modify the proposed action. 

Nonsignificant issues are identified as those: (1) outside the scope of the proposed action; (2) 

1 “Collaborwriting” is a process that uses a computer-based collaboration tool with multiple keyboards that functions 

like an electronic flipchart. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 7

 
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

already addressed by law, regulation, the proposed forest plan, or other higher level decision; (3) 

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

evidence.

Of the comments received during the initial scoping of the plan, more than 1,500 were identical, 

or nearly identical, form letters that did not raise any significant issues, but expressed general 

concerns that reinforced provisions already found in law, regulation, and policy, such as habitat 

protection for threatened and endangered species, viability of species, monitoring, and a climate 

change adaptation strategy.

Issues that served as the basis for alternative development:

1. The proposed plan does not adequately protect existing and provide for future old growth.

2. Lands of high conservation value such as the Kaibab Squirrel Area National Natural 

Landmark and the surrounding ephemeral drainages are critical wildlife core and linkages 

contributing to the native biodiversity of the greater landscape. Because regular 

mechanical disturbance can adversely affect wildlife, soils, and other resources, this area 

should not be managed for timber or biomass production.

3. The negative effects associated with periodic mechanical disturbance outweigh the 

benefits. Restoring the natural fire regimes to forested landscapes provides greater overall 

benefit to ecosystems, communities, and economies.

4. Areas should not be excluded from wilderness consideration just because they have 

evidence of past human activity, provided they are substantially unnoticeable, or could be 

rendered as such through restoration. 

5. Livestock grazing by cattle and sheep causes watershed, stream, and grassland 

degradation.

Issues that were addressed through modifications or additions to the proposed action:

1. Recreation and commercial activities have the potential to adversely affect traditional 

cultural properties. 

2. Vegetation management activities should be done in a strategic way that spatially 

disconnects large expanses of excessive fuels to reduce the risk of large-scale 

uncharacteristic fires. 

Issues and concerns that are outside the scope of the decision to be made:

1. Reintroduction of strongly interactive species may be needed for species such as wolves. 

Rationale: This is outside the authority of the Forest Service. Should the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service initiate species reintroductions, they would be supported by the desired 

conditions in the proposed plan which “strives to create and maintain natural 

communities and habitats in the amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of 

supporting viable populations of existing native and desired nonnative plants, and 

aquatic and wildlife species.”

2. The existing memorandum of understanding (MOU) with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department needs to be modified to reconsider the ecological and economic costs of 

continued management for bison. Bison are not staying within the area identified in the 

MOU, and they have the potential to cause impacts to sensitive resources such as springs. 

8 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

Rationale: MOUs are one of the tools that help to facilitate working with other entities to 

achieve and maintain desired conditions. However, interagency agreements are not 

within the scope of the plan decision. The proposed plan contains guidance for 

addressing the potential impacts of authorized activities and protecting sensitive 

resources. 

3. The plan should close more roads and must prohibit cross-country travel.

Rationale: The scope of the Kaibab NF plan revision did not revisit the recent travel 

management decisions conducted in accordance with the Travel Management Rule.

1 Sitespecific decisions were made on all three districts that have already closed the forest to 

cross-country travel and closed many roads. The transportation section of the plan 

incorporates these decisions through a transportation standard that prohibits motor 

vehicle use off of the designated system of roads and the desired condition that states 

“designated routes open to wheeled motorized vehicles are shown on a motor vehicle use 

map (MVUM).”

4. Uranium mining can have adverse effects to public health, water quality, and other 

natural resources. 

Rationale: The decision to authorize mining of locatable minerals is subject to the 

General Mining Law of May 10, 1872, as amended, and is outside the authority of 

national forest planning. The North Kaibab and Tusayan Ranger Districts, as well as 

Kendrick Wilderness on the Williams Ranger District are currently withdrawn from 

locatable mineral entry. Withdrawal prevents the establishment of new mining claims on 

public domain lands, but has no effect on existing valid claims. On acquired lands where 

the forest does have mineral rights, the action alternatives contain a guideline that hard 

rock mineral activities should not be authorized for more than 50 pounds of materials. 

Where mining may occur, there is existing law, regulation, policy, and forest plan 

guidance that would minimize adverse effects to public health, water quality, and natural 

resources.

5. Allowing the use of lead ammunition on the forest could prevent the establishment and 

recovery of the California condor. 

Rationale: The regional forester has the authority to prohibit actions on the forest for the 

purposes of protecting endangered species per 36 CFR 261.70. However, such a 

prohibition would require following the rule making procedures established in 5 U.S.C.

553. Rulemaking would require additional analysis and documentation for compliance 

with the National Environmental Policy Act and is outside the scope of the plan revision

EIS analysis. Further, additional protections for the condor are not needed for the 

purposes of the forest plan. Under all plan alternatives, the viability of the California 

condor is maintained while implementing forest management activities, as documented in 

the viability analysis in chapter 3.

6. The Kaibab NF land management plan should expressly authorize the voluntary, 

permanent retirement of grazing allotments by permittees for conservation purposes, 

including endangered species recovery.

Rationale: Resource management decision authority on National Forest System (NFS)

lands is retained by the Forest Service. Delegations of authority are outside the scope of 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 9
Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action

the plan revision decision. The proposed plan has a guideline for livestock grazing that 

states “as grazing permits are waived back to the forest, they should be evaluated for 

conversion to forage reserves to improve flexibility for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems

and in response to other range and resource management needs.” Additionally, all 

grazing projects are designed to comply with the Endangered Species Act, provide for 

endangered species habitat where they occur, and protect natural and cultural resources. 

Already decided by law, regulation, or policy:

The lack of direction for threatened and endangered species could result in adverse 

effects to threatened and endangered species, as well as their habitat. 

Rationale: The forest follows the recommendations in recovery plans and works closely 

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for species recovery in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act. The plan does not reiterate existing law, regulation, or policy. 

Not supported by scientific evidence:

The plan could result in removing too much fuel, which can make forests hotter, drier, 

and windier, which increases fire hazard and decomposition rates, both of which counter 

carbon storage and other objectives.

Rationale: The planning team could not find any peer-reviewed literature to support this 

statement.

10 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives,

Including the Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes each alternative considered for revising the 1988 forest plan. It also 

presents the alternatives in comparative form, describing the differences between each and 

providing a basis for choice among options by the responsible official. The information used to 

compare the alternatives is focused on the plan decisions (which are also referred to as plan 

components e.g., objectives, guidelines, special areas) and the expected environmental 

consequences or outcomes of implementing each alternative.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Kaibab NF analyzed four alternatives in detail: no action, proposed action, and two 

alternatives developed in response to issues raised by the public. 

Alternative Development

The following input was used in developing the alternatives:

• Collaborative workshops and meetings that built plan content, identified issues, and 

developed alternative ways to address those issues.

• Comments from the public, interest groups, forest employees, State and Federal agencies, 

and local and tribal governments.

• Analysis of the management situation and associated scientific information.

• Sideboards provided by the forest supervisor and the forest’s leadership team (e.g., the 

alternatives must be realistic, implementable, and able to be monitored).

• Wilderness evaluation results (appendix E) as conducted in accordance with Forest 

Service Handbook (1909.12, chapter 70), and Southwestern Region guidance.

• Wild and scenic river evaluation results (appendix F) as conducted in accordance with 

Forest Service Handbook 1909.12, Chapter 80.

These alternatives include management direction for inventoried roadless areas (IRAs) identified 

in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule. The preferred alternative includes direction that 

retains the undeveloped character of these areas. Comments received in the scoping process and 

between the draft and final EIS helped the Agency determine the scope of issues related to 

roadless area management and guide the analysis of environmental effects.

Elements Common to the Action Alternatives

Three action alternatives are analyzed in this FEIS (alternatives B, C, and D), which respond to 

the priority needs for change and issues identified in chapter 1. All action alternatives share the 

same forest-wide desired conditions and objectives. These include provisions that: 

• Provide for and maintain diversity of plant and animal communities to meet overall 

multiple-use objectives;

• Provide for species’ viability by providing appropriate habitat that is well distributed 

across the planning area;

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 11
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• Conserve soil and water resources and do not allow significant or permanent impairment 

of the productivity of the land;

• Provide direction to control, treat, and eradicate nonnative invasive plant and animal 

species;

• Protect heritage resources;

• Maintain air quality that meets or exceeds applicable Federal, State and/or local standards 

or regulations;

• Manage the inventoried roadless areas to maintain their roadless character; and

• Assume the use of monitoring and adaptive management principles.

Alternative A, No Action – Current Plan

Under the no action alternative, the current management plan would continue to guide 

management on the Kaibab NF. The current plan emphasizes producing timber products; 

providing quality habitat for Mexican spotted owls, the northern goshawk, and its prey; providing 

recreation opportunities to meet demand; livestock grazing; and improvement of soil resources.

The current plan has no articulated desired conditions for grasslands, wetlands, springs, 

traditional cultural use, or air quality. There are very few desired conditions for other resources; 

however, there are standards and guidelines that in some cases imply desired conditions.

Although the current plan contains very few desired conditions, the analysis in this FEIS 

evaluates the effectiveness of each of the alternatives, including the no action alternative (current 

plan) for how well they meet the same set of desired conditions that are specified in the proposed 

action.

The forest is currently implementing approximately 2,000 acres per year of mechanical thinning 

and roughly 13,000 acres of burning within the ponderosa pine type, with small amounts of 

treatments in the mixed conifer. In addition, the forest is currently implementing roughly 

200 acres per year of grassland restoration projects. Aspen restoration has been occurring, but at a 

low and variable rate. Protection of ephemeral wetlands has also been occurring, but spring 

protection and restoration have been minimal. While the current plan allows for higher rates of 

implementation, their lack of emphasis has resulted in low and variable results.

Alternative B, Proposed Forest Plan – Preferred 

Alternative

This alternative was developed focusing on the four Priority Needs for Change:

1. Modify stand structure and density of forested ecosystems toward desired conditions

and restore historic fire regimes. The multiple ecological, social, and economic benefits 

of reducing the risk of uncharacteristic fires made this a primary area of focus. The 

proposed forest plan defines desired characteristics of forested ecosystems including: 

species composition; structural characteristics such as spacing tree groups and tree 

density; and disturbance patterns such as frequency, severity, intensity, and size of fire. 

It also describes the strategies in the form of objectives or guidelines that define “when” 

and “how” the desired conditions would be achieved. Objectives in the proposed plan 

would increase the amount and rate of mechanical thinning and managed fire treatments 

to reduce the risk of uncharacteristic fire and to improve forest resiliency in the face of 

climate change. Reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire would also provide 

12 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

increased protection to communities, infrastructure, and watersheds, including a 26,000-

acre watershed that provides water for the City of Williams.

Objectives under the proposed forest plan would increase mechanical thinning to between 

11,000 and 19,000 acres annually in ponderosa pine and between 1,200 and 2,100 acres 

annually in frequent fire mixed-conifer forests. Objectives would also treat up to 

55,000 acres annually with a combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited fire in 

ponderosa pine and up to 13,000 acres annually in frequent fire mixed conifer. Vegetation 

management guidelines provide direction to focus and constrain treatment activities.

The mechanical thinning associated with the restoration of ponderosa pine and frequent 

fire mixed conifer ecosystems could provide a wood supply that would to sustain a forest 

products harvesting and utilization industry. This could more than double the forest’s 

contribution of jobs (currently estimated at approximately 700), and add diversity to an 

economy that has become increasingly dependent on tourism and recreation.

2. Promote aspen regeneration and establishment. Aspen has been in serious decline in 

the lower elevations on the forest. Aspen supports high levels of plant and animal 

diversity and has important recreation and scenery values. The proposed forest plan

defines desired conditions for aspen including regeneration, recruitment, structural 

composition, understory plants, and disturbance processes. 

Strategies for achieving desired conditions focus on removing encroaching conifers, 

protecting aspen from browse, restoring forest structure and understory across the 

landscape which should help to disperse ungulates, and reintroducing fire. The plan 

objectives reflect the differences in how aspen occurs between the North Kaibab, 

Tusayan, and Williams Ranger Districts and addresses the primary needs.

3. Protect natural waters. The Kaibab NF has little natural water. With less than two miles 

of perennial stream, it is one of the driest forests in the Nation. Most of the natural waters 

are springs and wetlands that occur as isolated features in the arid landscape. Waters are 

important centers of biological diversity, have traditional cultural significance, and are 

popular recreation destinations. Actions to protect springs and wetlands are relatively 

inexpensive and would provide important ecological and social benefits. The proposed 

forest plan provides desired conditions and includes objectives and strategies for 

restoring and protecting springs, wetlands, and natural waters. 

4. Restore grasslands by reducing tree encroachment in grasslands and meadows. Tree 

encroachment into grasslands over the past 100 years has occurred due to the absence of 

fire. This has reduced the quantity and quality of available habitat for grassland 

associated species. The montane/subalpine meadows on the North Kaibab Ranger District 

are at a higher risk of loss because they are linear and encroachment occurs more quickly. 

The proposed forest plan contains desired conditions and objectives to restore the natural 

patterns of abundance, composition, and connectivity of grasslands. Objectives focus on 

removing conifers from areas where they have encroached, restoring fire to the 

ecosystem, and modifying fences that would improve habitat connectivity for pronghorn 

antelope.

The proposed plan would also provide:

• Continued availability and access to resources for traditional cultural use and guidance 

for managing traditional cultural properties.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 13
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

• A range of high quality scenery and recreation opportunities, with an emphasis on 

dispersed recreation opportunities within limits of the administrative and resource 

capacity. Dominant recreation activities are sightseeing, hiking, camping, picnicking, and 

hunting. High visitation occurs on summer weekends and holidays as people from nearby 

desert communities come to the cool pines to escape the heat. 

• Continued opportunities to graze livestock consistent with other desired conditions. The 

forest uses adaptive management to balance use with capacity and address relevant 

resource concerns. 

• Objectives and guidelines provide a consistent and efficient management response after 

large uncharacteristic wildfires. Following these types of events, the desired conditions 

generally remain the same, but management actions are often needed to set the burned 

areas on a trajectory toward the desired conditions. 

• Guidance for mineral exploration and development, special-use management, and forest 

products collection.

• The proposed plan identifies four potential wilderness areas (PWAs) for wilderness 

recommendation (figures 2 and 3) that rated high for capability and at least medium for 

availability in the wilderness evaluation (see appendix E). These PWAs would be 

managed to protect their wilderness values until Congress acts on the recommendation. 

One PWA is on the Williams Ranger District, adjacent to Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, 

at the head of Jacks Canyon (about 160 acres). Three are located on the North Kaibab 

Ranger District: one PWA is comprised of eight separate areas bordering the Kanab 

Creek Wilderness (totaling about 4,700 acres), one adjacent to the Saddle Mountain 

Wilderness that includes a unique landform commonly referred to as the “Cockscomb” 

(approximately 1,300 acres); and one adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park that 

includes the upper reaches of Grassy and Quaking Aspen Canyons (about 230 acres). The 

PWAs adjacent to the Grand Canyon National Park, Kanab Creek Wilderness, and 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness would bring the boundary of the area managed as 

wilderness to the rim, which would be more recognizable and manageable.

Alternative C 

Alternative C is similar to the proposed action, but has the following differences in response to 

three issues raised: 

1. In response to the issue that “the proposed plan does not adequately protect existing and 

provide for future old growth,” alternative C would replace the proposed vegetation 

management guideline “Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not 

remove...large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow wide platy bark, flattened 

tops, with moderate to full crowns and large drooping or gnarled limbs (e.g., Thomson’s 

age class 4 (Thomson 1940), Dunning’s tree class 5 (Dunning 1928) and/or Keen’s tree 

class 4 (A and B) (Keen 1943))” (see appendix K), with “Project design and treatment 

prescriptions should generally not remove trees with physical characteristics typical2 of 

those that were established prior to 1890 (i.e., generally larger than 16 inches diameter at 

breast height, with yellowing platy bark).” 

This guideline was developed following a collaborwriting session that explored the issue 

raised during scoping that the proposed plan did not have sufficient guidance to protect 

2 Typical characteristics would vary somewhat depending on site quality. 

14 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan

 
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

old growth. Participant comments focused on the lack of guidance for protecting old trees 

rather than large trees. Subsequent follow-up discussions and comments focused on 

“presettlement trees” or those that were 120 to 150 years old. It was agreed that an 

“established prior to” year would better represent the time at which Euro-Americans 

disrupted the natural fire regime. It was also agreed that while coring trees would help to 

establish physical characteristics typical of a 120 year-old tree at a given site, it would not 

be practical or necessary to core a majority of the trees, which could be required if the 

guideline specified an age. As a result, the guideline specified not cutting “trees with 

physical characteristics typical of those established prior to 1890.”

2. In response to the issue that “lands of high conservation value such as the Kaibab 

Squirrel Area National Natural Landmark should not be managed for timber or biomass 

production because regular mechanical disturbance can have adverse effects to soils and 

other resources,” alternative C would establish a management area on the North Kaibab 

Ranger District (figure 2). The management area, called the North Kaibab Wildlife 

Habitat Complex would be approximately 260,000 acres and include most of the Kaibab 

Squirrel National Natural Landmark, and eight linked ephemeral riparian valleys and 

canyons. This management area would have a desired condition that the wildlife habitat 

complex provides effective wildlife linkages and core areas for wide ranging species, and 

a guideline that states “Mechanical thinning would be used initially to restore the desired 

forest structure to the extent possible. Thereafter, the desired conditions should primarily 

be maintained with fire and other natural disturbances.” Because this area would not be 

managed for timber or biomass production, it would be not be included in the suitable 

timber base.

The North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex Management Area provision in this 

alternative was developed in response to the above issue raised by a consortium of 

environmental groups. It also addresses the key aspects of a management area proposal 

provided by the Grand Canyon Wildlands Council during initial plan development.

3. In response to the issue that “areas should not be excluded from wilderness consideration 

just because they have evidences of past human activity, provided they are substantially 

unnoticeable, or could be rendered as such through restoration,” six additional PWAs 

totaling about 38,000 acres would be recommended for wilderness designation under

alternative C. 

Several suggestions and comments were made regarding possible recommended wilderness areas 

during the plan and alternative development. All of the areas corresponded to PWAs that were 

considered during the wilderness evaluation process. In discussions about the additional areas

that would be recommended for wilderness designation, the leadership team specified that that 

recommended areas must be capable of being managed as wilderness, possessing at least a 

moderate level of wilderness character (natural, undeveloped, opportunities for solitude, special 

features, manageability) and be reasonably available based on information about the tradeoffs of 

current and potential uses, outputs, and trends for the various resources. The Wilderness 

Evaluation Report identified six areas that met the criteria. In addition to the PWAs recommended 

in the proposed action, alternative C would recommend the following PWAs: Burro Canyon, 

Seegmiller, South Canyon Point, and Willis Canyon on the North Kaibab Ranger District, the 

Coconino Rim on the Tusayan District, and the Sycamore Canyon Addition on the Williams 

District (figures 2 and 3). The Sycamore Canyon Addition is contiguous to potential wilderness 

identified in an alternative developed by the Prescott National Forest during their plan revision 

process. Although this area ranked “high” for capability and availability in the PWA evaluation 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 15
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

process, due to its small size it was only to be recommended by the Kaibab NF for wilderness 

designation if the adjacent section on the Prescott NF was recommended in the Prescott’s revised 

forest plan. This portion of the Prescott NF was not included in that National Forest’s proposed 

forest plan, so the Sycamore Canyon Addition is not recommended as a PWA under the Kaibab 

NF’s Alternative B (proposed action), but is was retained in alternative C, so that it would remain 

within the scope of the alternatives evaluated in detail.

Alternative D 

Alternative D was developed in response to the issue that “the negative effects associated with 

regular mechanical disturbance outweigh the benefits. Restoring the natural fire regime to 

forested landscapes provides greater overall benefit to ecosystems, communities, and economies.” 

Alternative D would contain the following forest-wide guideline: “Mechanical thinning would be 

used initially to restore the desired forest structure to the extent possible. Thereafter, the desired 

conditions should primarily be maintained with fire and other natural disturbances.” Because no 

areas on the forest would be managed for timber or biomass production, there would be no lands 

identified as suitable for timber production. Alternative D also includes the same presettlement 

tree retention guideline and recommended wilderness as alternative C.

Resource Planning Act Alternative

The provisions of the 1982 Planning Rule regulations at 219.12(f)(6) require forest plans to 

respond to and incorporate the Renewable Resource Planning Act Program objectives for each 

national forest as displayed in regional guides. There is no longer a regional guide for the 

Southwestern Region. This was withdrawn as required by the 2000 Planning Rule at 219.35(e). 

The last Renewable Resource Planning Act Program was developed in 1995. In lieu of the 

Renewable Resource Planning Act Program, the Forest Service Strategic Plan 2007–2012 

provides broad overarching national guidance for forest planning and national objectives for the 

agency as required by the Government Performance Results Act. All alternatives in this FEIS 

address these broad strategic objectives. 

16 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 2. North Kaibab Ranger District existing and recommended wilderness areas under 

each alternative, plus the North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex (alternative C only)

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 17
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Figure 3. Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts existing and recommended wilderness

areas under each alternative

18 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Alternatives Considered

But Not Analyzed in Detail

NEPA requires Federal agencies to rigorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable 

alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for eliminating any alternatives that were not 

developed in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments received in response to the proposed 

action provided suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the purpose and need. Some of 

these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the plan revision process or already 

addressed by the alternatives considered in detail. The following alternatives were considered, but 

dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized below.

Alternative that Would Reduce Grazing

In response to the issue that “Livestock grazing by cattle and sheep causes watershed, stream, and 

grassland degradation,” the forest considered a reduced grazing alternative, but concluded that it 

was not necessary because under all of the alternatives, the livestock grazing program has 

multiple mechanisms to evaluate, review, and adapt management as needed to effectively protect 

resources and respond to changing conditions. Some language was added to the plan to ensure 

that the adaptive management process was clearer. 

The effects from grazing in each range allotment are evaluated and adjusted (1) throughout the 

season, particularly when pasture rotation is being determined; (2) in detail at the beginning of the 

season when the annual operating instructions are determined; and (3) comprehensively on 10-15 

year intervals, or more frequently when needed, as grazing is periodically re-authorized through 

the NEPA process. This allows for any needed adjustments to be made on a site specific basis to 

maintain and move toward desired conditions for watersheds, wildlife habitat, and other 

resources. 

For these reasons, an alternative that would eliminate or have a reduced level of grazing across 

the forest was not studied in detail.

Alternative that Would Recommend 

All Five of the Inventoried Roadless 

Areas for Wilderness Designation

Comments were received that supported recommending all five of the inventoried roadless areas

identified in the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (RACR) for wilderness designation. All

of the IRAs on the Kaibab NF were evaluated during the potential wilderness evaluation process.

Three of the IRAs were included in alternatives C and D, and two were considered, but not 

analyzed in detail. The Big Ridge and Red Point IRAs were not analyzed in detail in the FEIS 

because they received a low capability and availability ratings, partly from severe fire effects and 

subsequent noxious weed invasions resulting from the 2006 Warm Fire. These areas would 

benefit from restoration and weed treatments that would be more efficient and effective if 

mechanical options were available. Although the Red Point and Big Ridge IRAs were not 

recommended for wilderness, the IRAs will continue to be managed to retain their roadless 

character.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 19
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Alternative That Would Use a Hands-off 

Approach to Manage Long-term 

Vegetative Health

This alternative was considered but not analyzed in detail because it would not address the 

priority needs for change. The greatest need for change is to restore fire-adapted ecosystems

toward the desired reference conditions. Current conditions in the ponderosa pine and frequent 

fire mixed conifer forests have accumulations of live and dead woody material that can lead to 

uncharacteristic and undesirable fire effects. With a “hands-off approach”, fire and other natural 

disturbances are the only available mechanisms for making progress toward reference conditions. 

Under current conditions, when wildfires occur, they typically either do not do enough to lift tree 

crowns and open up tree density, or they burn with high intensity, resulting in the loss of 

ecosystem diversity, structure, and process. A hands-off approach would also not make progress 

toward restoring grasslands, aspen, or natural waters except over very long time frame, if ever.

Alternative That Would Include a 

Road Density Standard

An alternative was suggested that would include a road density standard, which would limit the 

road system to two miles of road per square mile of land. This alternative was considered but not 

analyzed in detail because recent site specific analysis and decisions have been made on all three 

of the forest’s districts that identified the open road system during the travel management process. 

Under the travel management process, alternatives were developed and analyzed based on issues 

including the effects of sedimentation and erosion. The resulting decisions were based on a 

collaborative process and scientifically based information. While it is desirable to minimize new 

roads and naturalize /rehabilitate unneeded roads, a road density standard would be arbitrary and 

would not meet the purpose and need. 

Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a summary comparison of the alternatives. Table 1 focuses on differences in 

management direction and anticipated outputs that can be compared quantitatively or 

qualitatively. Table 2 is a summary of how well each of the alternatives is expected to achieve the 

management needs and key desired condition concepts as analyzed and disclosed in chapter 3, 

which contains the detailed analysis. 

20 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Table 1. Primary differences between alternative content and outputs

Plan Decision Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D

Mechanical thinning 

in ponderosa pine

No objectives, but occuring 

at ~2,100 acres per year

11,000 to 19,000 acres per year

Mechanical thinning 

in frequent fire 

mixed conifer

No objectives, but occuring 

at ~ 200 acres per year

1,200- 2,100 acres per year

Prescribed fire and 

naturally ignited 

wildfire*

No objectives, but occuring 

at ~20,000 acres per year

14,000 to 68,000 acres per year

(ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer combined)

Protect and restore 

natural waters

There are no desired 

conditions or objectives. 

Some fencing has been 

occurring to protect 

ephemeral wetlands.

Provides desired conditions for natural waters. Provides 

objectives that would protect 10 springs in 5 years, and 

restore native vegetation and waterflow patterns on 6 acres of 

wetlands in 5 years.

Protect and restore 

aspen

There are no desired 

conditions or objectives. 

Treatments have been 

occurring, but at a low and 

variable rate.

Provides desired conditions for aspen and objectives that 

would fence 200 acres and reduce conifer encroachment on 

800 acres within 10 years on the Williams and Tusayan 

Ranger Districts.

Restore grasslands There are no desired 

conditions and no

objectives. Treatments 

have been occurring at a 

low and variable rate.

5,000 to 10,000 acres per year

Existing wilderness A total of 116,249 acres in the plan area and 114,839 acres within the Kaibab NF proclaimed 

boundary. (Note all of KendrickMountain Wilderness is managed under the Kaibab NF forest 

plan although about half is on the Coconino National Forest, and the portion of Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness within the Kaibab NF boundary is managed under the Coconino forest 

plan.) 

Recommend 

wilderness

0 6,394 acres 44,282 acres 44,282 acres

Recommend 

research natural 

areas

Garland Prairie No RNAs are being recommended. Garland Prairie would be 

managed as a management area and continue to serve as a 

reference area for the study of ecological changes and as a 

control for other habitats being manipulated for management 

or research purposes. 

Wild and scenic 

river

The existing eligible 20-mile segment would continue to be eligible. No new segments are 

being recommended. Management under all alternatives would maintain the eligibility of the 

Kanab Creek segment until a suitability study can be completed. 

Suitable timberlands 400,959 acres 381,517 acres 230,556 acres 0

Allowable sale 

quanity (ASQ)

152,300 CCF 107,815 CCF 60,970 CCF 0

Long-term sustained 

yield (LTSY)

216,200 CCF 74,737 CCF 45,148 0

Present net value $-127,300,925 $-156,637,754 $-151,264,490 $-166,022,727

*Acres of lightning-caused wildfire counted toward this objective are only those that make progress towards or 

maintain desired conditions.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 21
Chapter 2 –Alternatives

Table 2. Summary of the ability of each alternative to achieve management needs and key 

desired condition concepts as analyzed and disclosed in chapter 3

Management Need Desired Conditions

Ability to Achieve Desired 

Conditions

Alt. 

A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Reduce tree density in ponderosa 

pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer to achieve desired 

conditions (open, uneven-aged) 

with mechanical thinning

Vegetative structure within historic 

range of variation x    

Robust understory x    

High soil integrity and productivity 

(long term) x  – –

High soil integrity and productivity 

(short term) – x x x

Water yield supports ecosystem and 

human needs –    

Forest products provide a source of 

employment and income over the 

plan period

xx  x x

High scenic integrity (long term) –    

High scenic integrity (short term) – x x x

Recreation opportunities (long –   

Recreation opportunities (short – x x x

Restore historic fire regime through 

combination of low intensity 

wildland fire and prescribed fire

Fine scale heterogeneity –    

Satisfactory soil hydrologic –    

Satisfactory nutrient cycling x    

Minimize impacts from prescribed 

fire emissions (adverse health 

effects to sensitive persons) 

– x x x

Reduce the risk of uncharacteristic 

wildland fire by restoring stand 

structure

PP: ponderosa pine

MC: frequent fire mixed conifer

Protection of watershed/soil 

f i

x

PP

xx

MC 

 PP



MC 



PP



MC 



PP



MC 

Protection of water quality

Protection of habitat

Low threat to communities and 

infrastructure

Protection of recreation setting

Protection of heritage resources

Prevention of uncharacteristic, high 

emission-producing fire (smoke)

Fires burn as low-intensity surface 

fires allowing for direct attack

Low fire suppression/rehabilitation 

22 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action

Management Need Desired Conditions

Ability to Achieve Desired 

Conditions

Alt. 

A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Protect and restore springs and 

wetlands

Satisfactory availability of riparian

habitat –    

Water quantity/quality sufficient to 

support ecosystem and human 

needs

–    

Prevent trampling of vegetation and 

soils x    

Protection of rare and endemic 

species x    

Protection of areas of traditional 

cultural use x    

Protect and restore aspen

Aspen regenerating successfully x    

Competition from conifers similar 

to historic conditions x    

High habitat diversity –    

High scenic integrity x    

Restore grassland by reducing 

encroaching conifers

Grass, forb, and shrub diversity and 

cover x    

Grasslands present in historic 

extent x    

High quality habitat for grassland 

species x    

Satisfactory nutrient cycling –  – –

Habitat connectivity for pronghorn x    

Guidance for consistent, efficient 

scientifically based response 

following large-scale disturbance 

Threats to human safety and 

property are promptly addressed –    

Effective ground cover (stabilized 

soils) –    

Planting establishes future seed 

sources needed for restoring desired 

 

  x xx

Drainages stabilized, water quality 

protected –    

Establish new management areas Increased guidance for unique 

natural resources –    

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 23
Chapter 2 –Alternatives

Management Need Desired Conditions

Ability to Achieve Desired 

Conditions

Alt. 

A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Increased protection for unique 

cultural resources –    

Minimal risk of adverse impacts 

from uncharacteristic wildfire

(wildland-urban interface)

x    

Plan guidance developed for 

wildlife habitat needs

*Not MIS under current plan

Habitat for species w/high viability 

risk –    

Protection of rare and endemic 

species –    

Habitat provided for western 

bluebird* –    

Habitat provided for Grace’s 

warbler* –    

Habitat provided for ruby-crowned 

kinglet* –    

Habitat provided for pronghorn x    

KEY: = very effective at achieving desired conditions 

= effective at achieving desired conditions

 – = neutral (maintaining current conditions) 

x = ineffective at achieving desired conditions

xx = very ineffective at achieving desired conditions

24 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment

and Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the 

project area and the potential environmental consequences of implementing each alternative on 

that environment. The kinds of resource management activities allowed under each of the 

alternatives are reasonably foreseeable future actions to achieve the goals and objectives in the 

plan. However, the specific location, design, and extent of such activities are generally not 

known. Therefore, the discussions in this chapter refer only to the potential for an effect to occur. 

The intent is to provide scientific analysis and information that will allow for a comparison of the 

alternatives and provide the basis for an informed decision.

Assumptions

• The Kaibab NF Land and Resource Management Plan (plan) provides a programmatic 

framework that guides site-specific actions but does not authorize, fund, or carry out any 

project or activity (including ground-disturbing actions). As a result, it does not result in 

direct effects. However, there may be implications, or longer term indirect or cumulative 

environmental consequences from managing the forests under this programmatic 

framework. 

• Before any ground-disturbing actions take place, they must be authorized in a subsequent 

site-specific environmental analysis. Therefore, none of the alternatives would cause 

unavoidable adverse impacts or an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

• The plan decisions (desired conditions, objectives, standards, guidelines, management 

areas, and monitoring) will be followed when planning or implementing site-specific 

projects and activities.

• Law, regulation, and policy regulations will be followed when planning or implementing 

site-specific projects and activities.

• Funding levels will be similar to the past 5 years.

• The planning timeframe for the effects analysis is 10 to15 years; although other 

timeframes may be specified in the analysis, depending on the resource and potential 

consequences.

• Monitoring identified in the plan’s monitoring chapter will occur.

• The land management plan will be amended, as needed, during the life of the plan.

For the following analysis, all alternatives are evaluated in terms of how well they achieve the 

same set of desired conditions, regardless of whether the alternative articulates those desired 

conditions. For example, alternative A, no action (current plan) does not specify many desired 

conditions, but it is still evaluated using the same common set of criteria. Appendix B provides 

greater detail about the methodologies used in these analyses.

Vegetation and Fire

Healthy, resilient landscapes have a greater capacity to survive natural disturbances and largescale threats to ecological sustainability, especially under changing and uncertain future 

environmental conditions, such as those driven by changing climate and increasing human uses 

(FSM 2020). Fire has long played a role in shaping the vegetation of the Kaibab NF. The 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 25
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

resiliency of much of the forest is dependent upon fire as a frequent disturbance process; the 

structure and function of vegetation are closely intertwined with the role of fire. As a result, 

vegetation and fire are examined together in this section. Additional information can be found in 

the Vegetation and Fire Specialist Report (KNF 2013a).

Vegetation Affected Environment

Three major vegetation types dominate the landscape. Pinyon-juniper woodlands cover 

40 percent of the forest and are found at lower elevations. As elevation increases, pinyon-juniper 

transitions to ponderosa pine forests, which cover 35 percent of the forest. At higher elevations, 

mixed conifer forests predominate, occurring on the crest of the Kaibab Plateau on the North 

Kaibab Ranger District, and the tops of Kendrick, Sitgreaves, and Bill Williams Mountains on the 

Williams Ranger District. Mixed conifer forests cover 8 percent of the forest. Due to the forest’s 

range of elevation and soil types, there is a wide diversity of other vegetation types including 

spruce-fir, grasslands, sagebrush shrublands, Gambel oak shrublands, and desert communities. 

Riparian and wetland vegetation is present in small but important areas (see figure 4 and table 3).

Figure 4. Percentage of Kaibab National Forest in each potential natural vegetation type

(PNVT)

26 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3. Potential natural vegetation types (PNVT) that occur on the Kaibab National 

Forest. Acreage and percentage are displayed by forest and ranger district.

PNVT Acres on 

Foresta Percent of Forest

Acres on 

NKRDb Percent of NKRD

Acres on 

TRD

Percent 

of TRD

Acres on 

WRD

Percent 

of WRD

Pinyon/ juniper 

communities

629,199 40.4% 247,062 37.7% 186,943 57.2% 195,194 12.5%

Ponderosa pine 541,159 34.7% 156,121 23.9% 103,248 31.6% 281,790 18.1%

Mixed conifer 

forests

127,854 8.2% 113,662 17.4% 0.0 0.0% 14,193 0.9%

Sagebrush 

shrublands

88,646 5.7% 57,735 8.8% 30,910 9.5% 1 0.0%

Montane/

subalpine 

grasslands

40,760 2.6% 6,479 1.0% 2,184 0.7% 32,097 2.1%

Colorado 

Plateau/Great 

Basin 

grasslands

44,198 2.8% 69 0.0% 3,740 1.1% 40,389 2.6%

Spruce-fir 

forests

29,119 1.9% 28,974 4.4% 0.0 0.0% 145 0.0%

Semi-desert 

grasslands

24,970 1.6% 24,965 3.8% 0.0 0.0% 5 0.0%

Desert 

communities

13,742 0.9% 13,742 2.1% 0.0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Gambel oak 

shrublands

5,368 0.3% 3,939 0.6% 0.0 0.0% 1,429 0.1%

Wetland/ 

cienega

1,478 0.1% 612 0.1% 0.0 0.0% 866 0.1%

Cottonwoodwillow riparian

forest

1,196 0.1% 1,196 0.2% 0.0 0.0% 0 0.0%

Water, urban, 

agriculture, and

other PNVTs

11,314 0.7% 1 0.0% 0.0 0.0% 11,312 0.7%

Totals: 1,559,003 100% 654,557 100% 327,025 100% 577,421 37%

a

Acreages exclude private lands within the forest boundary. b

NKRD = North Kaibab Ranger District, TRD = Tusayan Ranger District, and WRD = Williams Ranger District

Fire Ecology

Most of the vegetation on the forest is adapted to recurrent wildland fires started by lightning 

during spring and summer thunderstorms. In these vegetation communities, frequent, low

intensity fire plays a vital role in maintaining ecosystem health. In the 1800s, intensive grazing by 

domestic livestock removed the grasses that previously carried low-intensity surface fires. Early 

settlers suppressed fires to protect their livelihood and homes. As a result, the condition and 

structure of most of northern Arizona’s forests, woodlands, shrublands, and grasslands have 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 27
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

changed. Fuels, in the form of dead woody material, continued to build up because when fires 

were started, they were usually extinguished quickly. 

With a significantly reduced understory and no fire, conifer seedlings survived at unprecedented 

rates. In ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, and grassland vegetation communities, 

conifer seedlings invaded forest openings and encroached into grasslands and savannahs. Many 

large, old trees were harvested for lumber. Today, the Kaibab NF contains uncharacteristically 

dense forests with many more young trees than were present historically. The forested types are 

deficient in grasses, forbs, and shrubs due to tree competition and shading from the denser 

canopy; they are at high risk for uncharacteristic wildfires due to the accumulated buildup of live 

and dead woody material, increased crown bulk density, and increased canopy continuity. 

Grasslands have decreased in size due to conifer encroachment from the edges. 

The probability and occurrence of large uncharacteristic, stand-replacing fires continues to 

increase. These fires cause high tree mortality, degrade watersheds, sterilize soils, and threaten 

homes and communities. While the average number of fire starts has been stable over the past 

30 years, there has been a dramatic increase in the total number of acres burned by 

uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire across the Kaibab NF, particularly since 1996 (figures 5 

and 6).

Figure 5. Number of fires in Kaibab National Forest per year from 1970 through 2010. The 

10-year moving average number of starts is around 200 per year.

28 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 6. Number of Kaibab National Forest acres burned by wildfires from 1970 through 

2010

This indicates that the fuel conditions, particularly in forested vegetation types, have increased so 

that they support increasingly extreme fire behavior, resulting in more severe fire effects, 

especially in dry years, which may become more common with changes to climate. Extreme fire 

behavior and the resulting severity are uncharacteristic and well outside the historic range of 

variability. 

Forest-wide Current Condition and Trends

Table 4, conditions, trends, and primary departures for each potential natural vegetation type

(PNVT) on the Kaibab NF, displays the key findings from the Ecological Sustainability Report 

(KNF 2008a). The current departure from reference conditions and the projected trend toward or 

away from reference conditions on the forest is presented here for each vegetation community. 

Note that the trend for ponderosa pine is static. This reflects what percentage of the vegetation 

type is departed, rather than how far vegetative structure and function is departed from reference 

conditions. The trend is static because nearly all of the type is not in reference conditions, and 

there is very little of the type that is currently in reference conditions that could become departed 

in the future.

The departures of ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, the aspen component of those 

vegetation types, and the grasslands are the focus of this analysis. The forest has a limited 

capacity, in the anticipated 10- to 15-year lifespan of the revised plan to reverse trends in all 

vegetation types, and move them all toward desired conditions. Limitations are imposed by 

limited and fluctuating funding, current lack of a market for small-diameter biomass to offset cost 

of treatments, and length of time required to accomplish and approve planning for treatments. 

Acknowledgement of limited capacity necessitated the development of priority needs for change 

to focus efforts during the planning period. Objectives in the revised plan alternatives are 

designed to address these priority needs for change. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 29
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The full description of the desired condition for ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, 

aspen, and montane/subalpine grasslands used in this analysis can be found in the Kaibab NF

Land and Resource Management Plan. The plan can be accessed at the following link: 

http://fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/plan_rev_docs.

The current conditions and trends for ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, and 

montane/subalpine, Great Basin, and semidesert grasslands are described below. More 

information on current condition and trends in these, and other vegetation types, can be found in 

the Kaibab NF’s Ecological Sustainability Report (KNF 2008a), and in the Vegetation and Fire 

Ecological Need for Change Report (KNF 2008b).

Table 4. Conditions, trends, and primary departures for each potential natural vegetation

type (PNVT) on the Kaibab National Forest

PNVT

Departure 

from 

Reference 

Condition

Projected Future 

Trend Under 

Current 

Management

Primary Departures

Pinyon-juniper 

woodland

Moderate Static to away Increased tree density, reduced understory cover 

and diversity, insect/drought related die-off, and 

invasion of exotic plants.

Ponderosa pine High Static Increased tree density, reduced understory, 

increased risk of uncharacteristic, high-severity fire, 

decline of aspen.

Frequent fire 

mixed conifer

High Away Increased tree density, species shifts toward more 

shade-tolerant species, increased risk of 

uncharacteristic, high-severity fire.

Mesic mixed 

conifer/sprucefir forest

High Static Increased tree density, species shifts toward more 

shade-tolerant species, and increased fuel 

continuity.

Sagebrush 

shrubland

Moderate Away Lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited 

nutrient cycling, closed shrub states, tree 

encroachment.

Montane/ 

subalpine 

grassland

Moderate Away Lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited 

nutrient cycling, closed shrub states, tree 

encroachment. 

Colorado 

Plateau/Great 

Basin grassland

Moderate Away Lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited 

nutrient cycling, closed shrub states, tree 

encroachment.

Semidesert 

grassland

Low Away Lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited 

nutrient cycling, closed shrub states, tree 

encroachment.

Desert 

communities

Moderate Away Invasion of exotic plant species, closed shrub states, 

tree encroachment.

Gambel oak 

shrubland

High Away Lack of fire disturbance, conifer encroachment.

Wetland/

cienega

Low Slowly Away Lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited 

nutrient cycling, reduced water input, woodland 

tree species encroachment.

30 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

PNVT

Departure 

from 

Reference 

Condition

Projected Future 

Trend Under 

Current 

Management

Primary Departures

Cottonwood 

willow riparian

forest

High Away Upstream water diversions and impoundments, 

tamarisk, and exotic plant species invasion.

Ponderosa Pine

Ponderosa pine occurs at elevations from 7,000 to 9,300 feet, and covers about 550,000 acres of 

the forest. It occurs extensively on all three districts. The dominant species in this system is 

ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa), which makes up at least 80 percent of the overstory. Other 

trees, such as Gambel oak (Quercus gambelii), Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii), pinyon pine 

(Pinus edulis), and juniper (Juniperus spp.) may be present. Aspen (Populus tremuloides) may 

occur in patches, or as a nearly codominant species as on the North Kaibab Ranger District. This 

vegetation community is adapted to drought and has evolved several mechanisms adapted to 

tolerate frequent, low-intensity surface fires, which is characteristic for this vegetation type.

Canopy cover is far denser and more continuous across all developmental states than the desired 

conditions, and fuel loads have accumulated on the forest floor. The primary threat is 

uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. Insect epidemics and drought represent secondary threats. 

When wildfires occur under the current dense conditions, they are more likely to kill many of the 

large and old trees, moving the vegetation structure further from desired conditions. This would 

greatly increase the time departure, or time it would take to grow and restore the vegetation to 

desired conditions after such a fire, rather than from current condition. There is a moderate risk of 

insect and/or disease outbreaks, which is also a function of increased tree density and is 

exacerbated by drought. 

Frequent Fire (Dry) Mixed Conifer

Mixed conifer vegetation communities are found between 7,200 feet and 10,418 feet. Ponderosa 

pine dominates, making up approximately 57 to 80 percent (Fulé et al. 2002; Fulé et al. 2003) of 

the overstory. Other species present are Douglas-fir, white fir (Abies concolor), and aspen. Aspen 

may be present either in patches, or as a nearly codominant species. Mixed conifer occurs on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District, and on the north-facing aspects of Bill Williams, Sitgreaves, and 

Kendrick Mountains, and other north-facing cinder cones and canyon walls on the Williams 

Ranger District. The presettlement (characteristic) fire regime in dry mixed conifer is similar to 

that of ponderosa pine (Fulé et al. 2003). At the highest elevations of the Kaibab Plateau, dry 

mixed conifer is intermingled with infrequent fire (wet) mixed conifer and spruce-fir with mixed 

severity fire regimes. Even in these mixed fire regime areas, large stand-replacing fires are 

uncharacteristic. The historic size of stand-replacing fires on the Kaibab Plateau is less than 

240 acres, with a median size of 15 acres (Vankat 2004).

In the frequent fire mixed conifer forests, canopy cover is denser and more continuous across 

developmental states than desired conditions. The primary threat is uncharacteristic, high-severity 

wildfire. As with ponderosa pine, when fires occur under current conditions, they are more likely 

to result in high mortality of large and old trees, and further departure from desired conditions. 

Testimony of this risk can be seen in the fire effects of the Outlet and Warm Fires. The Outlet Fire 

in 2000 burned most of its 15,500 acres during the initial burning period pushed by high winds 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 31
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

from Grand Canyon National Park through NFS lands. The 40,500-acre Warm Fire in 2006, 

exhibited plume-dominated fire behavior and burned over 30,000 acres in one burning period in 

late June as the fire transitioned from the ponderosa pine type into dry mixed conifer. The time it 

would take to grow and restore the vegetation to desired conditions after such a fire, rather than 

from current condition, would be greatly increased. Insect or disease epidemics and drought 

represent secondary threats, which are also functions of increased tree density.

Aspen

Aspen is an important component of ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, wet mixed 

conifer, and spruce-fir communities, where biophysical conditions are conducive. The desired 

conditions for aspen within these communities shift from smaller, more permanent patches at 

lower elevations to larger, more ephemeral patches at higher elevations. Aspen frequency and 

regeneration is rapidly declining and trending away from desired conditions due to increased 

conifer encroachment and dominance, drought, fire exclusion, and ungulate herbivory.

The decline and loss of the aspen component in the ponderosa pine vegetation type is of particular 

concern on the Williams Ranger District. The Tusayan Ranger District has only a few scattered 

aspen clones, which are also of concern, particularly because they are so rare. With the combined 

effects of ungulate browsing, insects, disease, severe weather events, and lack of fire disturbance, 

aspen decline is expected to continue. Aspen appears to be much less departed on the North 

Kaibab Ranger District. On the North Kaibab Ranger District, following stand-replacing events 

(shelterwood seed cuts and high-severity wildfires in ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer), aspen has expanded. Great Basin grasslands are mostly found at the lowest elevations of 

the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, and are surrounded by sagebrush or pinyon-juniper. 

They occupy 44,200 acres of the forest. Semidesert grasslands cover about 25,000 acres on the 

lower and west and east sides of the North Kaibab Ranger District. 

These grasslands range from small patches less than 10 acres to large areas covering thousands of 

acres. They contain several plant associations with varying dominant grasses and herbaceous 

species. The reference fire regime for grasslands is typically driven by the fire regime of the 

surrounding forest type. Those adjacent to ponderosa pine or frequent fire mixed conifer have a 

high frequency fire return interval of less than 35 years. Those surrounded by wet mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir likely only burned at the edges (Johnson 1998) and far less frequently.

Grasslands are much less abundant than they were historically, which reduces the amount of 

available habitat for grassland-associated species. Primary threats to this vegetation community 

are conifer encroachment d and regenerated in apparently uncharacteristically large patterns. 

These responses probably enhance rather than threaten the aspen population over time. 

Grasslands

Three primary grassland PNVTs appear on the Kaibab NF. Montane/subalpine grasslands on the 

forest range in elevation from below 7,200 feet to above 10,000 feet, and are found primarily on 

the North Kaibab and Williams Ranger Districts. They occupy about 40,800 acres of the forest. 

Great Basin grasslands are mostly found at the lowest elevations of the Williams and Tusayan 

Ranger Districts, and are surrounded by sagebrush or pinyon-juniper. They occupy 44,200 acres 

of the forest. Semidesert grasslands cover about 25,000 acres on the lower and west east side of 

the North Kaibab Ranger District. 

32 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

These grasslands range from small patches less than 10 acres to large areas covering thousands of 

acres. They contain several plant associations with varying dominant grasses and herbaceous 

species. The reference fire regime for grasslands is typically driven by the fire regime of the 

surrounding forest type. Those adjacent to ponderosa pine or frequent fire mixed conifer have a 

high frequency fire return interval of less than 35 years. Those surrounded by wet mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir likely only burned at the edges (Johnson 1998) and far less frequently.

Grasslands are much less abundant than they were historically, which reduces the amount of 

available habitat for grassland-associated species. Primary threats to this vegetation community 

are conifer encroachment, lack of characteristic fire disturbance, and limited nutrient cycling. The 

montane/subalpine grasslands on the North Kaibab Ranger District are long and narrow. As a 

result of their shape, encroachment from the edges is of particular concern, as they could 

transition from grassland to forested area at a rapid rate. Under the current disturbance regime and 

current rate of management, further departures are expected. Excessive ungulate pressure may 

also play a role in some areas.

Revision Topics Addressed in this Analysis

The Comprehensive Evaluation Report (CER) (KNF 2009) was prepared in April 2009 to 

evaluate the needs for change in light of how management under the current Kaibab NF forest 

plan was affecting the current conditions and trends related to sustainability. This CER is based 

upon the Ecological Sustainability Report (KNF 2008a), and the Social and Economic 

Sustainability Report (KNF 2008c) which describe the social, economic, and ecological 

conditions and trends across the forest. 

An internal management review of this CER was conducted in December 2008 to determine 

which needs for change issues would be carried forward into plan revision. The forest leadership 

team identified four priority topics that focus the scope of the Kaibab NF’s plan revision. These 

topics reflect the priority needs and potential changes in program direction that are emphasized in 

the development of the revised forest plan components. They are:

• Modify forest structure and species composition to restore or maintain sustainability and 

restore historic fire regimes.

• Regenerate aspen to ensure long-term healthy aspen populations. 

• Restore natural waters and wetlands to ensure healthy riparian communities. 

• Restore grasslands by reducing tree encroachment and restoring fire.

The priority need for change to protect seeps, springs, and ephemeral wetlands is not addressed 

directly in this analysis. However, the objectives in the action alternatives for modifying stand 

structure and density toward desired conditions and restoring historic fire regimes, which is 

addressed in this section, plays an indirect role in protecting seeps and springs under the action 

alternatives as they would make progress toward the desired vegetation surrounding seeps and 

springs, thereby promoting hydrologic function (Baker and Ffolliot 2003).

Though not identified in the CER, the management review by the forest leadership team 

identified several additional items to address in the proposed forest plan. Only one is addressed in 

this section, as it has strong ties to fire and vegetation condition:

• Management response in the years immediately following large disturbance events.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 33
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

A brief discussion of each revision topic follows, identifying the needs for change from the 

current condition.

1. Modify Stand Structure and Density Toward

Desired Conditions and Restore Historic Fire Regimes

This need for change addresses the following current conditions: 

• Ponderosa pine is more even-aged and less multistoried than the desired conditions.

• The larger and older trees (greater than 24 inches) are less frequent than desired in many 

areas, especially on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. 

• Tree density has increased in all but the largest size classes of trees over the past 

100 years in much of the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation type 

on the Kaibab NF. 

• There has been an increase in shade-tolerant species over the past 100 years in frequent 

fire mixed conifer vegetation communities. This has resulted in a shift in the dominant 

tree species, which was historically ponderosa pine. 

• Spatial homogeneity is greater than the desired conditions for ponderosa pine and most 

mixed conifer.

• Understory vegetative cover and diversity are much lower than reference conditions.

• Increases in ladder fuels (generally small suppressed trees), canopy bulk density, canopy 

cover, and fuel loading have resulted in a marked increase in the total number of acres 

burned by uncharacteristic, high-severity wildfire. 

• Areas affected by large, high-severity fires usually have significantly reduced seed 

sources and are unable to regenerate on their own without planting. 

• There is a moderate risk of uncharacteristic insect and/or disease outbreaks, which is also 

a function of increased tree density. 

The major vegetation communities addressed in this analysis are ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

(dry) mixed conifer, the second and third largest vegetation communities on the forest. Together 

they cover around 43 percent of the forest. The aspen component of ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer, and grasslands are also addressed. 

This analysis does not address the pinyon-juniper, mesic mixed conifer, spruce-fir, or other 

14 vegetation types on the forest. No objectives were developed for any of the alternatives for 

these vegetation types. This is because the forest has a limited capacity for implementing 

treatments during the planning period and has prioritized where the work is most needed. It does 

not prevent treatments from being planned and implemented in these areas as funding and 

personnel become available. Since no objectives were developed for these other vegetation types 

and there are no differences between alternatives, no quantitative comparison of alternatives was 

conducted.

Resiliency and Adaptation to Climate Change 

Modifying forest structure toward desired conditions and restoring historic fire regime is more 

important in light of the uncertainty of climate prediction. The alternative that makes the most 

progress toward this need for change would likely provide the best resiliency and adaptation in 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer in the face of a changing climate. 

34 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Uncertainty here does not refer to unlikelihood or to lack of knowledge, but rather the possibility 

of more than one outcome (West et al. 2009). Climate models provide a range of possibilities that 

vary according to assumptions in the climate model used, and the social assumptions about future 

greenhouse emissions. Modeling done for the southwestern United States, however, does show 

consistency in several areas. Current drought levels may become the norm; water-stressed forests 

would be more prone to large-scale pathogen attacks; at the lower elevations of the vegetation 

types where they are most stressed, uncharacteristic disturbances may occur; hotter, drier 

environments are likely to enhance the size and severity of wildfires, and fire disturbance would 

increase; post-fire vegetation is likely to be less like the historical forest as severe disturbances 

favor states such as grasslands and shrublands over pine forest. The ponderosa pine and mixed

conifer vegetation types are likely to migrate northward and upward in elevation (Fulé 2008).

Some have questioned if restoration toward reference conditions is relevant or useful at a time 

when climate may change dramatically. Fulé (2008) suggests that reference conditions should not 

be regarded simply as a snapshot of what existed for a couple thousand years prior to humancaused degradation, but in a long-term functional view as the result of evolutionary processes. 

Prior to recent fire suppression, fire-adapted pine forests of western North America were among 

the most frequently burned in the world. From this perspective of evolutionary history, frequent 

fire played a role in developing fire adaptations in pine species. Fire will likely continue to play a 

role as an agent of ecosystem maintenance, as with surface fire, or as an agent of change, as with 

stand-replacing fire. Ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer, have already exhibited great 

flexibility and adaptation over the millennia, occupying a variety of climates, and are not 

necessarily fragile. As we move into what is predicted to be a more fire-prone environment, “it 

makes sense to use fire and fire-related characteristics of structure and composition to enhance 

resistance to loss and facilitate migration” (Fulé 2008).

Management approaches that enhance ecosystem resiliency and ability to adapt during climate 

change include (Fulé 2008, West et al. 2009): 

• Reducing uncharacteristic disturbances.

• Allowing disturbances that promote adaptation and biodiversity. 

• Reducing anthropogenic stresses.

The primary anthropogenic stress to ponderosa pine and mixed conifer vegetation communities 

has been a century of fire suppression in conjunction with past unsustainable grazing practices. 

The result is that the ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer vegetation communities are highly 

departed from reference conditions on the Kaibab NF and other forests in the Southwest. These 

forest types are denser, with greater canopy bulk density and canopy continuity, making them 

more susceptible to uncharacteristic stand-replacing fires. Restoring the historical high-frequency, 

low-intensity fire regime would counter this anthropogenic stress.

Modifying stand structure reduces the canopy bulk density, reduces canopy continuity with the 

creations of interspaces, or openings, and promotes an abundant grass/forb understory that, in 

turn, promotes the high-frequency, low-intensity historic fire regime. “Restoration of patterns of 

burning and fuels/forest structure that reasonably emulate historical conditions prior to fire 

exclusion is consistent with reducing the susceptibility of these ecosystems to catastrophic loss”

(Fulé 2008). In the reference conditions, stand-replacing fires do not occur even during periods of 

elevated fire danger. The beneficial effects of more open stands and restoring historic fire regimes 

are already being realized on the Tusayan Ranger District. The ponderosa pine type on this 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 35
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

district is less highly departed than on the other two districts, and the majority of the pine type has 

had one to several fire entries in the past 15 years. In areas that have already seen one fire 

disturbance or more in that time period, wildfires have been able to perform their natural role as a 

disturbance factor even during the traditional peak of fire season in late June. This is true in parts 

of the Williams Ranger District as well. It is not uncommon on the forest to have wildfires and 

prescribed burns being used to achieve resource benefits on one part of the forest, while 

suppression action is being taken on multiple or large wildfires in other more departed areas.

Continued application of wildland fire, from both prescribed burns and wildfires, mimicking the 

historic fire regime allows fire to continue to enhance resistance to loss and to facilitate natural 

(evolutionary) adaptation and migration as climate changes.

2. Protect and regenerate aspen. 

This need for change addresses the following current conditions: 

• Aspen is declining as a component of the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer 

vegetation communities, particularly on the Williams Ranger District. With the combined 

effects of ungulate browsing, insects, disease, severe weather events, and lack of fire 

disturbance, aspen decline on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts is expected to 

continue. 

3. Restore grasslands by reducing tree encroachment in 

grasslands and meadows.

This need for change addresses the following current conditions: 

• Grasslands are less abundant than they were historically due to limited nutrient cycling 

and conifer encroachment associated with the lack of characteristic fire disturbance.

• Tree encroachment is of particular concern in the montane/subalpine grasslands on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District. Because the montane/subalpine grasslands are long and 

narrow in shape; even limited tree encroachment from the edges can rapidly transition the 

area from grassland to a forested type.

4. Management response in the years immediately 

following large disturbance events.

The current plan contains limited guidance for responding to large disturbance events. Because 

there has been a trend toward larger, high-severity, uncharacteristic fires, this emerged as a 

priority need for change from the current plan. The size of these disturbed areas inhibits natural 

regeneration due to the distance to seed sources. The time to regenerate, grow, and return to 

reference conditions is indefinite and likely measured in centuries. 

Disturbance events large enough to inhibit natural regeneration, other than high-severity fires, 

have not been documented on the forest, with the possible exception of one or two tornado paths 

on the Kaibab Plateau. In the case of tornadoes, the narrowness of the paths of disturbance may 

have allowed natural regeneration from seed sources along the edges, but the areas were 

reforested with planted trees, so natural regeneration rates in these narrower areas is still 

uncertain. 

36 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Insects and disease outbreaks, drought, and other stressors accompanying climate change may 

play a larger role in the future as large-scale disturbances may also create areas which do not 

regenerate naturally.

Short- and long-term adverse outcomes from stand-replacing fire in the ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer communities include:

• Substantial soil loss (over 2 inches on the Point Fire in 1993, for example).

• Associated soil productivity loss.

• Associated flooding, damage to water diversions and other improvements.

• Displacement of native understory species by nonnatives.

• Little or very slow recovery of desired tree species and stand structure.

• Uncharacteristically high accumulations of large fuels in frequent fire PNVTs.

Description of Alternatives

Alternative A, Current Plan, and Current Management (No 

Action)

Under alternative A, no changes would be made to the current Kaibab NF Land and Resource 

Management Plan and management practices would continue at current rates. The current plan 

contains very few goals that describe the desired conditions for any of the forest’s vegetation 

resources.

Guidelines for vegetative management in the current plan include recommendations for managing 

northern goshawk habitat and its prey. These guidelines specify that the forest manage for 

uneven-aged stand conditions, and retain live reserve trees, snags, downed logs, and woody 

debris levels throughout woodland, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forest cover 

types. The current plan has guidelines with implied desired conditions for a specific size class 

distribution, which uses vegetative structural stage (VSS) to describe dominant tree size in six 

diameter size classes: VSS1 (0 to 0.9 inch) or regeneration, VSS 2 (1 to 4.9 inches), VSS 3 (5 to 

11.9 inches), VSS 4 (12 to 17.9 inches), VSS 5 (18 to 23.9 inches), and VSS 6 (greater than 

24 inches). VSS class is determined by the predominance of the tree size class. The guideline for 

a specific distribution of VSS for ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir forests is 

10 percent each in VSS 1 and VSS 2, and 20 percent each in VSS 3, VSS 4, VSS 5, and VSS 6, 

where all VSS classes are within 3 percent of the desired distribution. Ponderosa pine canopy 

cover outside post-fledging family areas should average 40 percent or more in VSS 4, VSS 5, and 

VSS 6 forest. Inside post-fledgling family areas, VSS 4 should have one-third 60 percent or more 

and two-thirds 50 percent or more. In VSS 5 and VSS 6, canopy cover should average 60 percent 

or more. The plan also describes opening size and reserve tree requirements (a specified number 

of trees retained according to opening size) by forest type. These guidelines have had differing 

interpretations, which has resulted in difficulty with implementation. 

Alternative A identifies about 400,000 acres of land that is managed for timber production. 

Currently, the forest mechanically thins about 2,100 acres a year in ponderosa pine and around 

200 acres per year in frequent fire mixed conifer to alter or restore stand structure. 

The current plan was signed before the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy was enacted, and does 

not have objectives for acres to be treated with prescribed burns or wildfires exhibiting beneficial 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 37
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

fire effects. In the late 1970s, the understanding and acceptance of the role of fire in the 

ecosystem emerged, and fire managers on the Kaibab NF began to implement prescribed burns. 

Currently, fire managers burn an average of 8,500 acres per year with prescribed fire and manage 

wildfires to achieve multiple objectives on an average of 11,700 acres per year, totaling an 

average of 20,000 acres per year that receive beneficial fire disturbance. 

In Mexican spotted owl critical habitat on the North Kaibab Ranger District, which includes all 

the mixed conifer vegetation type, suppression action must be taken on all wildfires in accordance 

with the terms and conditions associated with the wildland fire use amendment to the plan in 

2000. On the Williams Ranger District, the wildland fire use amendment of the current plan 

(2000) includes prescriptive restrictions defining when wildfires must be suppressed in Mexican 

spotted owl habitat. 

Other restrictions of wildfire management in the current plan include suppressing all wildfire 

starts within a 2-mile radius of North Canyon Spring in Saddle Mountain Wilderness on the North 

Kaibab Ranger District, within the 145-acre Frank’s Lake Geologic-Botanical Area (also on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District), and within the 490-acre Arizona Bugbane Area on the north 

aspect of Bill Williams Mountain on the Williams Ranger District.

The current plan does not contain objectives for restoring or monitoring aspen. However, aspen 

restoration projects have been occurring and are expected to continue because aspen is recognized 

as an important and declining resource on the Williams Ranger District. Also, the current plan

contains no objectives for restoring grasslands. Grassland restoration has been occurring at a slow 

and variable rate.

In ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer forests, uncharacteristic openings following 

large disturbance events, such as high-severity fires, are so slow to recover desired forest 

structure that some management effort is required to begin the progress toward desired 

conditions. The current plan contains no objectives or guidelines to provide direction for actions 

in the years immediately following large disturbance events.

Description of Alternative B, Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative would accelerate the rate of mechanical treatment, and shift the focus of 

mechanical thinning treatments over the next decade to larger scale dense forest areas where 

effective modification of stand structure toward reference conditions can be implemented. 

Objectives under this proposal would increase the rate of mechanical thinning (primarily using 

group selection cuts with matrix thinning) to average 11,000 to 19,000 acres annually in 

ponderosa pine and 1,200 to 2,100 acres annually in frequent fire mixed conifer. This alternative 

includes the following guidelines for vegetation management in all forested communities and 

guidelines for forestry and forest products:

• Projects in forested communities that change stand structure should generally retain at 

least historic frequencies of trees by species across broad age and diameter classes at the 

mid-scale. As such, the largest and oldest trees are usually retained. 

• On suitable timberlands, projects should retain somewhat higher frequencies of trees 

across broad diameter classes to allow for future tree harvest.

• Project design should manage for replacement structural stages to assure continuous 

representation of old growth over time.

38 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not remove: 

◦ Large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow, wide platy bark, flattened tops, 

with moderate to full crowns and large drooping or gnarled limbs (e.g. Thomson’s 

age class 4, Dunning’s tree class 5 and/or Keen’s Tree Class 4, A and B [proposed 

plan appendix C]).

◦ Mature trees with large dwarf mistletoe induced witches’ brooms suitable for wildlife 

nesting, caching, and denning, except where retaining such trees would prevent the 

desired development of uneven-aged conditions over time. 

◦ Large snags, partial snags, and trees (>18 inches d.b.h.) with broken tops, cavities, 

sloughing bark, lightning scars >4′′ wide, and large stick nests (>18 inches in 

diameter).

◦ Gambel oak >8 inches d.r.c.

◦ Known bat roost trees.

• The location and layout of vegetation management activities should effectively 

disconnect large expanses of continuous predicted active crown fire. 

• Vegetation management prescriptions should provide for sufficient canopy breaks to limit 

crown fire spread between groups, allow for the redevelopment and maintenance of a 

robust understory, and mimic the spatial arrangement of the reference conditions. 

• Vegetation management activities in mixed conifer forests should incorporate 

experimental design features and monitoring to accelerate learning and adaptive 

management. 

• Trees established after 1890 should generally not be retained in areas where biophysical 

conditions would have supported stable openings over time.

• Vegetation management activities should meet or exceed goals for scenic beauty (scenic 

integrity objectives) by creating natural patterns, structure and composition of trees, 

shrubs, grasses, and other plants.

• Vegetation management should favor the development of native understory species in 

areas where they have the potential to establish and grow.

• Even aged silvicultural practices may be used as a strategy for achieving the desired 

conditions over the long term, such as bringing dwarf mistletoe infection levels to within 

a sustainable range, or old tree retention.

• Seed and plants used for revegetation should originate from the appropriate PNVT and 

general ecoregion (i.e. southern Colorado Plateau) as the project area.

• Timber harvest activities should be carried out in a manner consistent with maintaining or 

making progress toward the desired conditions in this plan. 

• Harvesting systems should be selected primarily for their ability to meet desired 

conditions and not on their ability to provide the greatest dollar return, although cost 

efficiency and practicality in terms of transportation and harvest requirements should also 

be considered.

• On suitable timber lands, timber harvest activities should only occur when there is 

reasonable assurance of restocking within 5 years after final regeneration harvest.

• On suitable timber lands, even-aged stands should have reached or surpassed 95% of the 

culmination of mean annual increment prior to having a regeneration harvest, unless it is 

needed to reduce fire hazard within the wildland-urban interface, or would contribute 

toward achieving the desired uneven aged vegetation conditions over the long term.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 39
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• On lands classified as not suited for timber production, timber harvesting should only be 

used for making progress toward desired conditions or for salvage, sanitation, public 

health, or safety. Heavy equipment and log decks should not be staged in montane 

meadows.

This alternative includes wildland fire objectives for the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

vegetation communities. In ponderosa pine, an average of 13,000 to 55,000 acres per year would 

be treated with wildland fire, whether from prescribed burns or wildfires exhibiting beneficial fire 

effects. In mixed conifer, an average of 1,000 to 13,000 acres would be treated with wildland fire. 

The only guideline directing suppression action on wildfires would be for fires in the desert 

communities of Kanab Creek Wilderness. The desert communities PNVT did not evolve with fire. 

Suppression in this area would also limit further noxious weed invasion, particularly cheatgrass. 

In all other areas, wildfires could be allowed to function in their natural role as a disturbance 

process when weather and fuel conditions are appropriate, and current and expected fire effects 

are desirable.

The preferred alternative includes objectives to fence 200 acres of aspen within 10 years of plan

approval and reduce conifer encroachment on 800 acres of aspen within 10 years of plan

approval.

The preferred alternative identifies 6,238 acres of potential wilderness areas, all of which would 

be recommended additions to existing or proposed wilderness.

The preferred alternative identifies about 381,309 acres of land to be managed for timber 

production. This is about 19,000 acres less than alternative A. The differences are those areas that 

would be restored and maintained as grasslands, areas that are not cost efficient, and areas 

managed for recommended wilderness (see appendix C, Timber Suitability Calculation.)

The preferred alternative includes an objective to replant an average of 300 to 700 acres annually 

to restore forest structure in uncharacteristic openings following large-scale disturbances in 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer forests.

Description of Alternative C 

Alternative C is the same as the preferred alternative, except:

• Alternative C would replace the proposed old tree retention guideline with “Projects 

should not cut trees with physical characteristics typical of those that were established 

prior to 1890 (i.e., generally larger than 16 inches in diameter at breast height, with 

yellowing platy bark).” The differences between the old tree retention guidelines in 

alternatives B and C are subtle; they have the same intent to generally retain large old 

trees, but implementation of this Alternative C guideline would result in leaving all 

presettlement trees regardless whether they would meet other desired conditions such as 

uneven aged stands, reduced risk of stand-replacing wildfire, or insect and diseases 

within endemic levels.

• It would establish a new management area on the North Kaibab Ranger District called the 

North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex. This area is approximately 260,000 acres and 

includes most of the Kaibab Squirrel National Natural Landmark, and eight linked 

ephemeral riparian valleys and canyons. In this management area there would be a 

guideline that states “Mechanical thinning would be used initially to restore the desired 

40 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

forest structure to the extent possible. Thereafter, the desired conditions should primarily 

be maintained with fire and other natural disturbances.” Because this area would not be 

managed for timber or biomass production, it would be removed from the suitable timber

base.

• In addition to the wilderness recommended in the proposed action (6,238 acres), this 

alternative proposes five new potential wilderness areas and one small addition to 

adjacent potential wilderness (37,888 acres), for a total of 44,126 acres.

• Because the area in the North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex and recommended 

wilderness would not be managed for timber production, the acres of suitable timber

would be reduced from 381,309 to about 230,349 (see appendix C).

Description of Alternative D

Alternative D is the same as the preferred alternative, except:

• Forest-wide, the stand structure would be restored to desired conditions using a 

combination of mechanical thinning treatments and wildland fire, to the extent possible. 

Thereafter, desired conditions would be largely maintained with wildland fire. No lands 

would be managed for timber or biomass production (see appendix C).

• This alternative proposes the same presettlement tree retention guideline and 

recommended wilderness areas as alternative C.

• This alternative proposes the same recommended wilderness areas as alternative C.

Methodology and Analysis Process

Vegetation composition and structure are used to evaluate or predict a number of ecosystem 

functions related to the priority needs for change. These include the likelihood of various types of 

disturbance and succession, species habitats, and social and economic values. A number of 

sources were used to inform current conditions. Various models were used to predict trends in 

vegetation and disturbances in response to natural and anthropogenic forces by alternative. 

Alternatives are evaluated in relation to their progress toward priority needs for change and 

associated desired conditions.

The primary sources for existing vegetation conditions are:

• A potential natural vegetation type (PNVT) classification, based primarily upon the map 

units from the terrestrial ecosystem survey was developed and used to compare existing 

vegetation to characteristic vegetation. Characteristic vegetation is the vegetation 

composition and structure that would exist under a natural disturbance regime, and is 

considered to be ecologically sustainable and more resilient to climate change.

• A mid-scale vegetation map of existing vegetation, completed in 2008 across the 

Coconino and Kaibab NF s provided geospatial polygons with characteristics of life form 

(tree, shrub, grass/forb), size class (for trees), and canopy cover class.

• Forest inventory and analysis (FIA) plot data were used primarily to calibrate the 

Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool (VDDT) model, to estimate relative proportions 

of even- and uneven-aged conditions on the forest, and to estimate proportions of various 

types within pinyon-juniper systems.

• Field-sampled vegetation data gathered on the Kaibab NF.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 41
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Stand-replacing fire area over time (frequency) for the Kaibab NF and across the national 

forests along the Mogollon Rim.

The VDDT was the primary model used to evaluate trends. VDDT is a state and transition 

modeling tool that provides a framework for examining the role of various disturbance agents and 

management actions on defined vegetation state changes. The interaction of human activity, fires, 

insects, pathogens, growth, and competition is complex, and the combined effects are difficult to 

predict over long periods. VDDT allows for testing of the sensitivity of the ecosystem to a variety 

of activities and agents of disturbance to enable a comparison of alternatives. 

The outcomes for all alternatives were compared against the desired conditions in the Kaibab NF

proposed plan, which consist of the Forest Service Region 3 desired conditions, and some 

additional Kaibab NF specific desired conditions. To compare how well each alternative 

addresses the priority needs for change, evaluation criteria were developed for each priority need 

for change. 

Assumptions

In addition to the assumptions made for all of the effects analyses in this chapter, the vegetation 

analysis makes the following assumption: 

• The population and calibration of VDDT using FIA plots and Forest Vegetation Simulator 

(FVS) modeling of growth and disturbances represents the response of forested PNVTs

well enough to compare these responses in a relative way to mid- and landscape-scale 

desired condition attainment.

• Alternative B is modeled using group matrix thinning. Alternatives C and D are modeled 

for thinning to a 16-inch diameter cap because of the large tree retention guideline that 

calls for generally retaining all pre-settlement trees established prior to 1890. Presettlement trees can often be identified by having the plated yellow bark frequently 

exhibited by these large old trees, rather than the rougher black bark exhibited by younger 

pines. The models used for comparing alternatives do not have the ability to select on 

bark characteristics. As a result, these alternatives were modeled with a 16-inch diameter 

maximum as a conservative surrogate for age. Additionally, it is likely that prescriptions 

developed to meet this guideline would be written as a diameter cap because size is easier 

than age to determine in the field. Group selection matrix thinning and thinning to a 

diameter cap are equally effective in stands where there is a lack, or a desired number, of 

large trees. However, when thinning to a diameter cap in stands that already have many 

large trees, it becomes necessary to remove most or all the smaller trees to achieve the 

desired openness of a stand.

Evaluation Criteria 

The environmental consequences for each alternative were evaluated using criteria that reflect 

how well each alternative addresses the priority needs for change and desired conditions for the 

vegetation community. For more detail about the processes and assumptions of this analysis, see 

appendix B. 

Evaluation criteria for Modify stand structure and density toward desired conditions and 

restore historic fire regime:

42 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The mid-scale desired condition for these communities includes an open, uneven-aged 

forest with all age classes and structural stages present. Evaluation criteria for ponderosa 

pine and frequent fire mixed conifer communities are:

• Frequency of the desired structural state (state K in the VDDT analysis) is one of 

the 14 vegetative structural states developed for ponderosa pine and dry mixed

conifer VDDT models. It represents the large, open, multistoried state in the midscale desired conditions. This is expressed as the percentage of the vegetation type in 

the desired structural state at each time mark for each alternative. 

• Time Departure Index. This index is a measure of the relative time to attainment of 

desired structural state from all other VDDT states. The principle behind this index is 

that it takes more time for some states to grow or be treated to attain the desired 

structural state than it does others. For example, an open state with only seedlings 

and saplings would take much longer to grow and develop into the desired structural 

state than it would to thin a closed, multistoried, uneven-aged stand to achieve the 

same state. The highest value possible is 1 if all the vegetation types were in state K. 

The higher the value for this index, the less time that alternative is expected to take to 

move toward the desired condition. 

• Density Departure Index. This relative index is an indicator of the relative risk of 

uncharacteristic loss of forest structure using an index sensitive to tree density and to 

dominant tree size selection. This index represents the potential for an immediate 

threat posed from density dependent disturbance, such as active crown fire. The 

highest value is 1, which would indicate the least density departure. 

The fine-scale desired conditions for these communities include a composition of 

irregularly spaced groups of trees surrounded by openings composed of a grass-forbshrub mix. Trees within groups have similar or variable ages, and groups are typically 

less than 1 acre in size. The fine-scale states, therefore, have high interspersion of clumps 

of trees and openings. The evaluation criterion is: 

• Interspersion Creation Index. This index is an indicator of the relative frequency of 

application of treatments, such as group selection with matrix thinning or burning 

with moderate fire effects that create the fine-scale structural state interspersion in the 

desired conditions. Currently, there is much less interspersion (fine-scale 

heterogeneity) than desired. The highest value of this index is 4, indicating a very 

high frequency of treatment application likely to produce the desired fine-scale 

heterogeneity of structural states. 

Percent of potential understory abundance is an important indicator of the ability to carry 

frequent surface fire. Understory vegetative cover is lower than historic conditions. The 

evaluation criterion is:

• Understory Abundance Index. This index is based on tree overstory basal area and 

canopy cover relationships to understory productivity. It is expressed as a percentage 

of potential understory productivity, where the highest rating would be 100 percent. 

The desired fire behavior is the same for ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer. 

Fires burn as a surface fire under all weather scenarios, but single tree torching and 

isolated group torching are not uncommon (passive crown fire). Fire does not spread 

from group to group as active crown fire. Canopy bulk density and canopy cover

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 43
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

continuity determine the potential for undesirable active crown fire. Lower crown bulk 

density, and gaps and interspaces among groups of trees, inhibit the spread of active 

crown fire from group to group. The evaluation criterion for desired fire behavior is:

• Percent of Open States. This criterion is the sum of the percentage of the vegetation 

type modeled to be in the VDDT open states (states A, B, C, D, E, J, K, and N), with 

30 percent crown cover or less at each year mark. Open states promote surface fire 

over active crown fire. It is also an indicator of the amount of particulate emissions 

that would result from a wildfire, with surface fires producing less than crown fires. 

The latter is addressed in depth in the Air Quality section of this chapter.

All criteria above are evaluated at the current, 10-year, 15-year, 50-year, and 250-year 

time marks.

Evaluation criteria for Protect and Regenerate Aspen:

• Acres of aspen fenced (with elk-proof construction) in ponderosa pine on the Williams 

and Tusayan Ranger Districts.

• Acres of reduced conifer encroachment on aspen in ponderosa pine vegetation 

communities.

Aspen clones in ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer across the Kaibab NF are likely 

to be more resilient—able to withstand droughts, regenerate in place, and to move gradually—

when the surrounding forest is in a more characteristic condition than it currently is. State K is the 

larger, open, multistoried state that represents the characteristic condition. State J is similar to 

state K except the dominant trees are the next smaller tree size class in the model and nearing the 

characteristic condition. This evaluation criterion is evaluated at the current, 10-year, 15-year, 50-

year, and 250-year time marks. 

Evaluation criterion for Restore Grasslands by Reducing Tree Encroachment:

• Acres of grassland communities with tree canopy cover reduced below 10 percent. This 

evaluation criterion is evaluated at the current and 10-year time-marks.

Evaluation criterion for Management Response in the Years Immediately Following Large 

Disturbance Events:

Experience on the Kaibab NF has shown little success in recovery of forest structure 

following stand-replacing fire by relying upon natural regeneration processes. 

Conversely, planting has been quite successful, with about 69 percent success with any 

individual planting event in ponderosa pine (Higgins 2008). The evaluation criterion is: 

• Acres planted reduces the time to achieve the desired stand structure.

This evaluation criterion is evaluated at the current, 10-year, 15-year, 50-year, and 250-year time 

marks. 

Environmental Consequences 

Table 5 presents the alternatives’ predicted responses to the evaluation criteria for this need for 

change currently and at four future time marks for ponderosa pine. Table 6 does the same for 

44 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

frequent fire mixed conifer. The values presented either come directly from the VDDT model 

outputs or from indices that use input directly from the model and other values derived from 

research (when available) or professional judgment. Additional information on the indices is

documented in the VDDT analysis process in the Vegetation Specialist Report (KNF 2013a). 

Criteria indicators for tables 5 and 6 are:

Percent state K = percent of vegetation type in desired state

Time departure index = the relative time to attainment of the desired structural state

Density departure index = percent area at high risk of a density dependent disturbance, such 

as active crown fire

Interspersion creation index = fine-scale structural state interspersion of openings

Percent potential understory abundance = index of potential understory productivity based 

on tree overstory basal area and canopy cover relationships to understory productivity. 

Percent in an unnatural open state = percent area in an “uncharacteristic” state following a 

high-intensity wildfire event

Percent in desired open states = total percent of vegetation at low risk of high-intensity 

wildfire 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 45
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 5. Summary of the alternative vegetation responses for each criterion in ponderosa 

pine at four time marks. The response best meeting the desired conditions is shaded.

Criteria Alternative Time Mark (years)

0 10 15 50 250

Percent state K (mid-scale 

desired condition)

A

2

4 5 10 13

B 16 20 28 29

C 3 4 8 11

D 3 3 10 12

Time departure index

A

0.55

0.55 0.55 0.58 0.58

B 0.60 0.61 0.62 0.62

C 0.54 0.55 0.59 0.58

D 0.54 0.55 0.60 0.57

Density departure index

A

0.52

0.58 0.59 0.66 0.69

B 0.67 0.70 0.75 0.76

C 0.57 0.59 0.73 0.71

D 0.57 0.60 0.76 0.68

Interspersion creation index

A

2.71

2.74 2.72 2.75 2.80

B 3.73 3.71 3.68 3.71

C 2.42 2.43 2.50 2.47

D 2.42 2.43 2.60 2.69

Percent potential understory 

abundance

A

32

32.1 32.5 33.7 35.6

B 35.9 36.5 37.4 37.9

C 31.1 31.2 34.5 36.2

D 31.3 31.4 35.8 38.4

Percent in an unnatural open 

state

A

2

2.1 2.1 2.1 3.7

B 1.8 1.6 1.3 1.9

C 1.9 1.8 1.7 4.2

D 1.8 1.8 1.6 6.7

Percent in desired open states

A

36

46 48 59 67

B 64 68 76 78

C 42 46 68 70

D 44 47 75 71

46 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 6. Response of alternatives to evaluation criteria in frequent fire mixed conifer. The 

most desirable response is shaded.

Criteria Alternative

Time Marks (years)

0 10 15 50 250

Percent state K (mid-scale 

desired condition)

A 0.5 3 4 7 9

B 9 11 15 15

C 4 5 7 8

D 4 5 8 8

Time departure relative index A 0.48 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.47

B 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.48

C 0.46 0.46 0.46 0.45

D 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.44

Density departure relative index A 0.43 0.43 0.44 0.45 0.45

B 0.50 0.52 0.53 0.54

C 0.49 0.50 0.51 0.51

D 0.50 0.51 0.51 0.51

Interspersion creation index A 1.6 2.5 2.5 2.6 2.6

B 3.0 3.1 3.1 3.1

C 2.4 2.4 2.6 2.6

D 2.5 2.4 2.7 2.6

Percent potential understory 

abundance

A 34.4 29.0 29.2 30.0 29.6

B 33.0 33.7 34.1 33.9

C 32.3 32.7 32.9 32.7

D 33.4 33.7 33.8 33.5

Percent in an unnatural open 

state

A 12.0 11.5 11.4 12.1 21.5

B 11.4 11.2 11.5 19.0

C 11.4 11.2 12.0 20.1

D 11.4 11.2 13.0 24.1

Percent in desirable open states A 33 28 30 34 43

B 43 47 52 59

C 41 44 46 50

D 44 47 47 53

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 47
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Vegetation, 

Fuels, and Fire

Alternative A – Current Plan, Current Management 

(No Action)

Under alternative A, there is progress toward the desired open, multistoried, uneven-aged 

condition at the mid-scale in ponderosa pine, but the rate is not sufficient to reduce the threat of 

uncharacteristic wildfire, or to open the canopy to allow for a response in understory production. 

In ponderosa pine, the percent of the area in the desired structural state increases from the current 

condition of 2 percent to 4 percent in 10 years. At the 50-year time mark, the area in state K 

increases to 10 percent. In frequent fire mixed conifer, the percent of the area in the desired 

structural state rises 0.5 percent to almost 3 percent within 10 years. At the 50-year time mark, it

increases to 7 percent.

The percentage of the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer in the desired state K is 

12 to 18 percent lower at all time marks than in alternative B, the preferred alternative. This is 

due to the lower rate of mechanical thinning treatments under current management practices to 

achieve desired stand structure.

The temporal departure index is lower than the preferred alternative at all time marks indicating 

that the relative time to attain the desired open, uneven-aged condition is longer. This, again, is 

due to the lower application of mechanical thinning treatments. 

The density departure index is also lower than the preferred alternative at all time marks in 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer. This indicates a greater risk of density-dependent 

uncharacteristic disturbance, such as active crown fire. The rate of treatment to improve stand 

structure in alternative A is too slow to make a difference, so density does not improve over time.

The interspersion creation index is lower than the preferred alternative at all time marks, because 

alternative A has a lower rate of application of treatments that create fine-scale heterogeneity.

The percentage of relative potential understory productivity is somewhat lower at all time marks 

than in the preferred alternative. The abundance of fine fuels that carry the desired low-intensity, 

high-frequency fires would be lower than under the preferred alternative.

This alternative has a lower percentage of area in open states that promote surface fire over active 

crown fire than the preferred alternative. It has the least percentage in desirable open states of all 

alternatives at the 50- and 250-year time marks in ponderosa pine, and at all time marks in 

frequent fire mixed conifer. The percentage of area in the ponderosa pine type in open states is 

11 to 20 percent lower under this alternative than in the preferred alternative, and 15 to 18 percent 

less of the area is in open states in frequent fire mixed conifer. The higher percentage of closed 

states, with canopy cover greater than 30 percent, under this alternative indicates a corresponding 

high risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Lower understory abundance diversity and abundance is 

also indicated by this criterion.

Under alternative A, the guideline in the current plan for vegetation structural state intended to 

provide for uneven-aged stands with sustainable age and size class distribution over time, has had 

differing interpretations, which has resulted in difficulty in implementation. Project design has 

often used more conservative prescriptions to ensure the guidelines are met, which has resulted in 

48 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

leaving tree densities that are higher than in the desired range, and this trend would be expected to 

continue. 

Suppression action would continue to be taken on all wildfires in Mexican spotted owl critical 

habitat on the North Kaibab Ranger District, which includes all the mixed conifer vegetation type, 

in accordance with the terms and conditions associated with the wildland fire use amendment to 

the plan in 2000. The risk of transitioning most or all of this vegetation type to an uncharacteristic 

open state, with minimal natural regeneration, as the result of one or several high-severity 

wildfire incidents is high, as demonstrated by several large wildfires with undesirable standreplacing results that have occurred during the past 15 years. The immediate risk of converting 

the entire mixed conifer type on the North Kaibab Ranger District to aspen or grassland as a 

result of one or a few high-severity fires would persist. These current plan restrictions would also 

reduce the ability to manage fires across administrative boundaries burning on the Kaibab Plateau 

between Grand Canyon National Park and the forest that could be used to reduce the risk of 

stand-replacing fires within both jurisdictions. 

The prescriptive restrictions defining when wildfires must be suppressed in Mexican spotted owl

habitat on the Williams Ranger District would continue to limit the opportunities to restore the 

historic fire regime, and to reduce the threat of high-severity wildfire to Mexican spotted owl 

habitat by managing wildfires to consume accumulated fuels when fire weather and fuel moisture 

conditions are appropriate.

Fires would continue to be suppressed within a 2-mile radius of North Canyon Spring in Saddle 

Mountain Wilderness on the North Kaibab Ranger District; within the 145-acre Frank’s Lake 

Geologic-Botanical Area (also on the North Kaibab Ranger District); and within the 490-acre 

Arizona Bugbane Area on the north aspect of Bill Williams Mountain on the Williams district. 

Wildfires could not be managed to reduce the threat of high-severity wildfire to these biologically 

unique areas by managing wildfires to consume accumulated fuels when fire weather and fuel 

moisture conditions are appropriate.

Protect and Regenerate Aspen

Under alternative A and current management, there would be no objectives to fence areas of 

aspen on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, and no objectives for reducing conifer 

encroachment in aspen in the ponderosa pine type. Some aspen restoration treatments are 

occurring under the current plan and would continue under the no action alternative, but the rate 

of implementation is expected to be variable due to limited funding and competing resource 

needs. There are no guidelines for retaining large, old trees under the current plan, so the 

effectiveness of the treatments that would occur is expected to be good as competing conifers 

could be adequately removed during aspen restoration treatments. 

As previously discussed, stands at or approaching the desired characteristic states J and K for 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer, promote the retention and regeneration of aspen. 

Table 7 presents by alternative the predicted frequency of these larger, open, multistoried states 

currently and at four future time marks.

Alternative A has considerably less area in states J and K than the preferred alternative at all time 

marks (table 6), with 20 to 25 percent less ponderosa pine area in states that promote the retention 

and regeneration of aspen, and 3 to 9 percent less area in states J and K in frequent fire mixed 

conifer. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 49
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative A does not allow wildfires to play a natural role as a disturbance agent in the mixed 

conifer type on the Kaibab Plateau. Wildfires could not be used under appropriate conditions to 

encourage the regeneration of aspen in smaller, more ephemeral patches. 

Table 7. Percent area in large, open, multistoried states over time for ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer. The greatest percent area in the desired states is highlighted.

Vegetation 

Type Alternative Percent Area at Time Mark (years)

0 10 15 50 250

Ponderosa pine A

9

12 13 15 17

B 32 36 40 40

C 8 8 10 13

D 9 9 11 16

Frequent fire 

mixed conifer

A

1

6 12 14 16

B 15 18 20 19

C 7 8 11 12

D 8 9 13 12

Restore Grasslands

Under alternative A and the current plan, there would continue to be no specific plan direction or 

objectives governing the removal of encroaching trees from grasslands. Some grassland 

restoration would likely be accomplished without plan objectives if funding is available, but 

probably not to the extent that is expected under the action alternatives. 

The 8,174 acres of grassland currently managed for timber production would continue to be 

managed as part of the suitable timber base. 

Management Response to Large Disturbance Events

The current plan has no objectives for planting after large disturbance events. The current rates of 

planting would not meet the need for making progress toward the desired stand structure 

following stand-replacing fire under the estimated probability of occurrence. If the climate gets 

warmer and drier, trends away from desired conditions are anticipated to be exacerbated.

Environmental Consequences for Vegetation, 

Fuels, and Fire: All Action Alternatives

Modify Stand Structure Toward Desired Conditions 

and Restore Historic Fire Regime

Objectives under all action alternatives would mechanically thin 11,000 to 19,000 acres annually 

in ponderosa pine; and 1,200 to 2,100 acres annually in frequent fire mixed conifer. This 

increased rate of treatment in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer would change the trajectory from 

“static/away” to “toward” the desired conditions of open, multistoried, uneven-aged stand 

structure. The more open canopy would promote an increase in understory diversity and 

abundance. Openings in the canopy would break up continuous live fuels and promote surface 

50 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

fire behavior, which would reduce the risk for high-severity wildfires and uncharacteristic large 

openings that do not regenerate naturally. 

Ground disturbance and associated effects to understory vegetation would occur to varying 

degrees under all alternatives from the implementation of mechanical treatments. Related effects 

of ground disturbance are further discussed in the Nonnative Plant Specialist Report (KNF 

2013b) and in the Soil and Watershed Specialist Report (KNF 2013e).

Objectives under all action alternatives would treat an average of 13,000 to 55,000 acres in 

ponderosa pine, and an average of 1,000 to 13,000 acres annually in frequent fire mixed conifer 

using a combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited wildfires. Increased management of 

low intensity wildland fire, both prescribed fire and managed wildfires, would restore the historic 

fire regime, increase resistance to uncharacteristic disturbances, enhance and maintain stand 

structure, and facilitate natural (evolutionary) adaptation and migration as climate changes. The 

full range of management responses to wildfires would be available across the forest, except in 

the desert communities where wildfire is not a characteristic disturbance. In fire-adapted 

ecosystems, fires could be managed for resource objectives when fuel and weather conditions are 

appropriate. 

Smoke is a byproduct of prescribed burns and wildfires under all alternatives. While all 

alternatives are expected to meet the desired conditions for air quality in complying with State 

and Federal emissions regulations, the public tolerance for smoke is often reached long before 

health and visibility standards are exceeded. Air quality impacts are discussed further in the Air 

Quality Specialist Report (KNF 2012a).

All action alternatives have guidelines to retain at least historic frequencies of trees by species 

across broad diameter classes to provide for uneven-aged conditions with sustainable size-class 

distribution over time. Additionally, all action alternatives would generally not remove large, old 

trees (although to different degrees). These guidelines would support creating and retaining exist 

old growth as described in the desired conditions. 

Protect and Regenerate Aspen

Under all the action alternatives, there are objectives to fence 200 acres of aspen and reduce 

conifer encroachment on 800 acres of aspen within 10 years of plan approval. Additionally, aspen 

regeneration and mortality are components in the monitoring plan. The objectives and guidelines 

in the action alternatives for aspen restoration would help to improve and maintain the aspen on 

the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. 

Restore Grasslands

Under all the action alternatives, there are objectives to reduce tree and shrub density in 

grasslands to less than 10 percent on 5,000 to 10,000 acres of historic grasslands annually. This 

emphasis on grassland restoration would make it a priority on the Williams and North Kaibab 

Ranger Districts. Overall, the amount of grassland restoration treatment is not expected to be 

different between the action alternatives and is not expected to be a driver for selecting one 

alternative over another.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 51
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management Response to Large Disturbance Events

All action alternatives include the following guideline for management response to large 

disturbance events, “Where extensive mortality results from fires, insect epidemics, or wind 

events, and sufficient timber value exists, salvage of dead trees should be considered where it 

would facilitate meeting public safety objectives, and long-term restoration.” Economically, 

receipts from the sale of disturbance-killed trees can facilitate restoration work by offsetting the 

cost of such efforts. However, there is much conflicting research regarding the ecological value of 

salvage harvest and its associated impacts. The guideline for alternatives B, C, and D is worded 

such that salvage operations would be evaluated on a site-specific basis using the best available 

science post-disturbance. 

All action alternatives include an objective to replant an average of 2,500 acres annually

disturbances in ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types. This would help

to restore forest structure in uncharacteristic openings where seed sources are depleted. Planting 

would decrease the time to achieve the desired structural conditions by augmenting natural 

generation.

Environmental Consequences for Vegetation, 

Fuels and Fire: Alternative B – Preferred 

Alternative

Modify Stand Structure Toward Reference Conditions 

and Restore Historic Fire Regime

In ponderosa pine, the percent of area in the desired structural state at the middle and landscape 

scale would go from its current condition of 2 percent of the vegetation type to more than 

15 percent within 10 years. Within 50 years, this area is anticipated to nearly double, but then 

level off. In frequent fire mixed conifer, the percent of the area in the desired uneven-aged open, 

multistoried condition at the middle and landscape scale would move from its current condition of 

0.5 percent of the vegetation type to almost 10 percent within 10 years. At the 50-year time mark,

it is expected to increase to about 15 percent and then level off (table 5). Alternative B has nearly 

double the area in state K at all time marks of all other alternatives. 

The index for time departure for alternative B indicates the least time for attainment of desired 

conditions at all time marks for both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer. Overall, the 

differences between the alternatives are smaller for this evaluation criterion than other mid-scale 

desired condition attainment differences. This difference is due to modeling for group selection 

matrix thinning in alternative B versus diameter cap treatments. With thinning from below, it 

takes longer to achieve a multistoried state, if it is ever achieved. This is because when the 

smallest size classes are removed over time, it results in less age diversity in the stand.

The preferred alternative has the lowest density departure from the mid-scale desired conditions 

at all time marks except for at the 50-year time mark in ponderosa pine. Alternative B shows the 

least risk of density-related uncharacteristic disturbance, such as active crown fire over the four 

time marks. In alternative A, the rate of treatment to restore stand structure is too slow to decrease 

density over time. In alternatives C and D, without reentry with mechanical treatment into stands 

treated once with a diameter cap, trees continue to grow and become more dense over time.

52 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

This alternative has more fine-scale interspersion created at all time marks for both ponderosa 

pine and frequent fire mixed conifer. Differences between the preferred alternative and other 

alternatives are relatively large for ponderosa pine and moderate for mixed conifer. Group 

selection matrix thinning is more effective at creating uneven-aged groups of trees with 

interspaces and openings. Diameter cap thinning works against creating interspersion, as larger 

trees are retained in what could otherwise become an interspace. With reference condition 

interspaces, maintaining desired stand structure with fire alone might be possible. Without 

interspaces created and trees continuing to grow in interspaces, the forest becomes more dense, 

canopy bulk density and canopy cover increase, and the probability of active crown fire increases. 

In denser, departed states, fire is not effective at creating or maintaining stand structure on its 

own. Under low and moderate fire severity conditions, very few trees above the seedling size are 

thinned; under high-severity fire conditions, too many or all trees are removed.

The preferred alternative has the highest percentage of potential understory abundance at three of 

four time marks in ponderosa pine, and at all four in mixed conifer. This is a function of having 

the greatest amount of characteristic open states, such as interspaces between groups at the fine 

scale, and the most open states with less than 30 percent canopy cover. This understory 

abundance would best support the desired high-frequency, low-intensity fire regime. Differences 

for this evaluation criterion are smaller in mixed conifer than in ponderosa pine due to lower rates 

of treatment to create desired stand structure with interspaces. 

Since alternative B has the highest percentage of open states, with 30 percent canopy cover or 

less at all time marks in both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer, it also best 

promotes surface fire over active crown fire. Open states in ponderosa pine increase in 10 years 

from 36 percent of the vegetation type to 64 percent, and continue to gradually increase after that. 

In frequent fire mixed conifer, open states increase in 10 years from 33 percent to 43 percent, and 

again continue to gradually increase over time. It should be noted that the preferred alternative 

also has the least percentage of the unnatural open state from high-severity wildfire at all time 

marks. 

This alternative contains a tree retention guideline to protect and retain large old trees with 

structural characteristics desirable for wildlife habitat to increase the numbers of these trees over 

time. This guideline is included in the preferred alternative because in many areas these types of 

trees are less abundant than in reference conditions and can take more than a century to replace if 

removed. 

Protect and Regenerate Aspen

Alternative B includes the objectives to fence 200 acres of aspen and reduce conifer 

encroachment on 800 acres of aspen within 10 years of plan approval. This emphasis on aspen 

restoration would make it a priority on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. 

This alternative has considerably more area in large, open states at all time marks than the other 

alternatives that would promote the retention and regeneration of aspen since aspen is a shadeintolerant species. The percent of ponderosa pine in these desirable states increases from 

9 percent to 32 percent in 10 years, and continues to gradually increase over time. In frequent fire 

mixed conifer, the area in these states moves from 1 percent to 15 percent in 10 years, and again 

gradually continues to increase over time (table 6).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 53
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The tree retention guideline in alternative B is based on structural characteristics. This guideline 

only applies to a small percentage of trees and would not likely reduce the effectiveness of 

treatments in achieving the desired conditions

Restore Grasslands

Alternative B includes the objective to reduce tree density to less than 10 percent on 5,000 to 

10,000 acres of historic grasslands annually, as do alternatives C and D. Overall, the amount of 

grassland restoration treatment is not expected to be different among the action alternatives. 

The differences in the large tree retention guidelines between the action alternatives could result 

in more effective grassland restoration treatments under alternative B than under C or D. The tree 

retention guideline in alternative B applies only to very large trees. Because there are few of these 

trees in the encroached grasslands, retaining these trees is not expected to reduce the effectiveness 

of grassland restoration treatments.

Environmental Consequences for Vegetation, 

Fuels and Fire: Alternatives C and D 

Modify Stand Structure Toward Reference Conditions 

and Restore Historic Fire Regime

In ponderosa pine, the percent of area in the desired structural state at the middle and landscape 

scales increases from the current condition of 2 percent to 3 percent in both alternatives C and D 

in 10 years. Within 50 years, the area in state K increases to 8 percent in alternative C and 10 

percent in alternative D. 

In frequent fire mixed conifer, the percent of the area in the desired uneven-aged open, 

multistoried condition at the middle and landscape scale rises 0.5 percent to almost 4 percent for 

both alternatives C and D within 10 years. At the 50-year time mark, it increases to 7 percent in 

alternative C and 8 percent in alternative D.

Alternatives C and D have less area in the desired condition—state K—at all time marks than in 

the preferred alternative. In ponderosa pine, these alternatives have 13 to 20 percent less area in 

state K; in frequent fire mixed conifer they have 5 to 8 percent less area in state K. The 

differences between the preferred alternative and alternatives C and D are large for this measure. 

The difference is due to the effects of modeling for group selection matrix thinning in the 

preferred alternative versus modeling for thinning to a 16-inch diameter cap in alternatives C and 

D. 

Alternatives C and D are modeled for thinning to a 16-inch diameter cap because of the large tree 

retention guideline that would retain all presettlement trees established prior to 1890. 

Implementation of this retention guideline would likely result in thinning from below to reduce 

tree density to desired condition. Group selection matrix thinning and thinning to a diameter cap 

are equally effective in stands where there is a lack, or a desired number, of large trees. However, 

when thinning to a diameter cap in stands that already have many large trees, it becomes 

necessary to remove most or all the smaller trees to achieve the desired openness of a stand. This 

would be the case in areas where there are continuous dense old trees as occurs in some areas on 

the North Kaibab Ranger District. This results in a more single-storied state. This is why group 

54 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

selection matrix thinning is more effective at creating multistoried, uneven-aged states than 

treatments with an imposed diameter cap. 

The temporal departure index is lower in both alternatives C and D than the preferred alternative 

at all time marks indicating that the relative time to attain state K is longer due, again, to the 

single-storied state that results from thinning from below.

The density departure index is also lower than the preferred alternative at all time marks in 

ponderosa pine and in three of four time marks in frequent fire mixed conifer, indicating a greater 

risk of density dependent uncharacteristic disturbance, such as active crown fire. In these 

alternatives, with reduced mechanical treatment over time in stands that were previously thinned 

from below, trees continue to grow and become denser.

The interspersion creation index is lower than the preferred alternative at all time marks 

indicating less fine-scale heterogeneity. Thinning to a diameter cap works against creating 

interspersion, as it results in a more single-storied state, and because larger trees are retained in 

what could otherwise become an interspace. Without interspaces being created, and trees 

continuing to grow in interspaces, the forest becomes more dense, canopy bulk density and 

canopy cover increase, and the probability of active crown fire increases. 

Understory abundance in ponderosa pine in these alternatives is expected to remain stable 

through the first 15 years and to continue to increase gradually over time. Alternative D has the 

highest potential understory abundance at the 250-year time mark because it has the most state N, 

the uncharacteristic state resulting from stand-replacing fire. Because state N is open and 

unshaded, understory abundance is high. For frequent fire mixed conifer, understory abundance 

would slightly decrease and remain stable for the long term. The differences between alternatives 

are fairly small for this evaluation criterion. The percentage of relative potential understory 

productivity is somewhat lower at all time marks than in the preferred alternative, indicating that 

the fine fuels that are the carrier of the desired low-intensity, high-frequency fires would be less 

abundant than under the preferred alternative.

There is a marked increase in the percentage of area in open states from the current condition to 

the 10-year time mark. This is due to the increased rate of mechanical treatments to modify stand 

structure modeled in these alternatives until areas are transferred out of the suitable timber base. 

In ponderosa pine, open states increase from 36 to 42 percent for alternative C, and from 36 to 

44 percent in alternative D. In frequent fire mixed conifer, open states increase from 33 to 

41 percent under alternative C, and from 33 to 44 percent under alternative D. The percentage of 

area in open states continues to gradually increase over time, though some of this increase is in 

state N, particularly in alternative D at the 250-year time mark. 

These alternatives have a lower percentage of area in open states than the preferred alternative. In 

ponderosa pine, the difference is large at first and decreases over time; the difference at the 10-

and 15-year time marks is 20 to 22 percent less area in open states, but by year 50 is only 1 to 

8 percent less open. The differences in frequent fire mixed conifer are not as large, as the rate of 

mechanical treatment is lower in this vegetation community; they range from 1 to 6 percent less 

area in open states than the preferred alternative. The higher percentage of closed states, with 

canopy cover greater than 30 percent, under these alternatives indicates a corresponding higher 

risk of uncharacteristic wildfire and lower understory abundance.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 55
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Protect and Regenerate Aspen

Alternatives C and D also include the objectives to fence 200 acres of aspen and reduce conifer 

encroachment on 800 acres of aspen within 10 years of plan approval. This emphasis on aspen 

restoration would make it a priority on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts. 

These alternatives have considerably less area in states J and K that would promote the retention 

and regeneration of aspen at all time marks than the preferred alternative. In ponderosa pine, 

these alternatives have 23 to 30 percent less area in states J and K than the preferred alternative, 

and 7 to 10 percent less area in frequent fire mixed conifer. Alternative C has the least area in 

states J and K of all alternatives at all but one time mark (table 6). 

The differences in the presettlement tree retention guideline in alternatives C and D may result in 

less effective treatments for reducing shade and competition from conifers because fewer conifers 

would be removed. This is because the tree retention guideline in alternatives C and D, based on 

the age of the tree cannot be accurately determined visually, and coring individual trees to 

determine age is labor and cost intensive. Prescription implementing this guideline may use a 

diameter cap to facilitate implementation. Because all coniferous trees above the diameter cap 

would be retained, treatment would likely result in less effective grassland restoration treatments 

than alternative A or B.

Restore Grasslands

Alternatives C and D include objectives to reduce tree density to less than 10 percent on 5,000 to 

10,000 acres of historic grasslands annually. The differences in the presettlement tree retention

guideline in alternatives C and D may result in less effective treatments for reducing conifer 

encroachment than in alternative B because all presettlement trees would be retained.

Comparison of Alternatives for Vegetation 

and Fire

Modify Stand Structure Toward Reference Conditions 

and Restore Historic Fire regime

Alternative B is more effective overall at meeting the evaluation criteria for this priority need for 

change than all others and would best promote resiliency in the face of a changing climate. This is 

the case for both ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer. 

Alternative B is more effective in achieving the desired stand structure—state K—than all other 

alternatives, with more than double the area in the mid-scale desired condition in ponderosa pine 

at all time marks. The same is true for frequent fire mixed conifer at the 10-, 15-, and 50-year 

time marks. 

The index for time departure for alternative B indicates the least time for attainment of mid-scale 

desired conditions at all time marks for both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer. 

Overall, the differences between the alternatives are smaller for this evaluation criterion than 

other mid-scale desired condition attainment differences. Alternative A takes more time to reach 

desired conditions because the current rate of treatment is lower than in alternative B. Alternative 

B responds better than alternatives C and D for this evaluation criterion because of group 

selection matrix thinning in alternative B versus thinning from below in alternatives C and D, 

which takes longer to achieve a multistoried state. 

56 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative B scores the highest on the density departure index indicating the least relative risk of 

uncharacteristic loss of forest structure from density-dependent disturbance such as active crown 

fire. Again, in alternative A, the rate of treatment to modify stand structure is lower than in the 

action alternatives. In alternatives C and D, mechanical treatment decreases over time, and trees 

continue to grow and stands become denser. Overall, the differences among the alternatives are 

intermediate compared to other mid-scale desired condition attainment differences.

Fine-scale heterogeneity is expected to be higher under alternative B, providing more of the finescale desired condition of irregularly spaced groups of trees with variable spacing that are 

surrounded by openings, and the mix of similar or variable ages within groups. Alternative A has 

a lower implementation rate of treatments that create fine-scale heterogeneity. The presettlement 

tree retention guideline in alternatives C and D, which is likely implemented by thinning from 

below or thinning to a diameter cap, results in more single-storied states and more trees retained 

in potential interspaces than with the large tree retention guideline in alternative B. Differences 

among alternatives are intermediate for this criterion.

The difference between the preferred alternative and other action alternatives is large for this 

evaluation criterion. The difference is due to the effects of modeling for group selection matrix 

thinning under the preferred alternative versus thinning to a 16-inch d.b.h. cap in alternatives C 

and D. In stands where there are a lack of—or a reference condition number of—large trees, both 

group selection matrix and diameter cap are equally effective. However, with a d.b.h. cap 

treatment in stands that already have many large trees, it becomes necessary to remove most or all 

of the smaller trees to achieve the desired openness of a stand. This results in a more singlestoried state. This is why group selection matrix thinning is more effective at creating 

multistoried, uneven-aged states than treatments with an imposed diameter cap.

In ponderosa pine, alternative B has the highest relative potential understory abundance at three 

of four time marks. Alternative D has the highest at year 250 because it has the most state N, the 

uncharacteristic state resulting from stand-replacing fire. In frequent fire mixed conifer, 

alternative D has the highest percentage of potential understory abundance at the 10-year time 

mark, the same percentage as alternative B at the 15-year time mark, with alternative B having 

the highest at the 50- and 250-year time marks. Differences among alternatives for this criterion 

are fairly small. Differences are smaller in mixed conifer than in ponderosa pine due to the lower 

rates of treatment to create stand structure with interspaces.

In ponderosa pine, alternative B is expected to have more area in characteristic open states with 

30 percent canopy cover or less, than all other alternatives. With less canopy continuity, the risk 

of uncharacteristic high-severity fires would be the least under this alternative. Alternative B has 

the highest percentage of open states at all time marks. In frequent fire mixed conifer, all the 

action alternatives have more area in open states than in alternative A; in alternative A the 

treatment rate is too slow to create and maintain open states in a dynamic environment. 

Alternative D has the most area in open states at the 10-year time mark, the same as alternative B 

at the 15-year time mark, with alternative B having the highest at the 50- and 250-year time 

marks. Differences among alternatives for this criterion are fairly small.

Alternative A would continue to require suppression action on wildfires within the mixed conifer 

type of the North Kaibab Ranger District, within a 2-mile radius of North Canyon Spring, in the 

Frank’s Lake Geologic-Botanic Area, and in the Arizona Bugbane Conservation Area. It also 

places prescriptive criteria on when wildfires must be suppressed in the pine-oak habitat type on 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 57
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the Williams Ranger District; wildfires could not be managed to reduce the threat of high-severity 

wildfire to these biologically unique areas by managing wildfires to consume accumulated fuels 

when fire weather and fuel moisture conditions are appropriate. In all action alternatives, the full 

range of management responses to wildfires would be available across the forest, except in desert 

communities where wildfires would be suppressed.

Protect and Regenerate Aspen

All action alternatives have objectives for fencing and reducing conifer encroachment in aspen

stands which would make this work a priority on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, but 

alternative A does not. Treatments would likely continue under alternative A, but perhaps not to 

the extent under the action alternatives. 

Effectiveness of treatments is likely to be greatest under alternatives A and B; shading and 

competition from conifers could be more effectively removed. 

Under alternatives C and D, trees meeting the presettlement tree retention guidelines would not 

be cut. This would likely result in more conifers being retained than alternatives A or B. As a 

result, treatment effectiveness is expected to be higher under alternatives A and B.

Alternative B is expected to have more area in desired and nearing desired conditions in 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer than the other alternatives, where aspen clones are 

likely to be more resilient—able to withstand droughts and regenerate in place. Alternative A has 

20 to 25 percent less area in states J and K in ponderosa pine, and 3 to 9 percent less area in these 

states in frequent fire mixed conifer. Alternatives C and D have 23 to 30 percent less area in states 

J and K in ponderosa pine than the preferred alternative, and 7 to 10 percent less area in these 

states in frequent fire mixed conifer.

Restore Grasslands

All action alternatives have objectives for reducing tree and shrub encroachment in grasslands 

which would make this work a priority on the Williams and North Kaibab Ranger Districts, but 

alternative A does not. Treatments would likely continue under alternative A, but perhaps not to 

the extent under the action alternatives. 

Overall, the amount of grassland restoration is not expected to be very different among 

alternatives. Effectiveness of treatments is likely to be somewhat higher for alternative A than for 

alternatives B, C, and D which have large tree retention guidelines. Alternatives C and D would 

likely be less effective than B, as all presettlement trees would be retained. 

Management Response Following Large Disturbance 

Events

In alternative A, there is limited direction for planting to move stand structure on a trajectory back 

toward desired conditions following uncharacteristic, large-scale disturbances, such as standreplacing wildfire. Planting does occur, but not at a rate sufficient to counter loss of forest 

structure from uncharacteristic disturbance. 

All action alternatives contain an objective to plant an average of 2,500 acres annually in 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer. 

58 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative D and the wildlife habitat complex in alternative C are not to be managed for timber 

production once stand structure is restored. Current policy calls for planting following standreplacing fire in areas that are in the suitable timber base. Because these areas would not be 

managed for suitable timber, it is less likely that they would be planted following uncharacteristic 

fire. Without planting, the time to return to the desired condition is significantly increased, which 

also reduces recovery from uncharacteristic open states associated with high-intensity fire. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for 

Vegetation and Fire

Cumulative effects to vegetation and fire behavior are examined from the larger landscape-level 

spatial context as the contribution of the forest’s vegetation and fire management practices to the 

surrounding landscape. 

The Kaibab NF is inherently connected to its surrounding landscape, regardless of administrative 

boundaries. To compare the effects of proposed forest management to the surrounding landscape 

in the spatial context, they are evaluated considering the management actions of other entities 

within shared sections from Bailey’s Ecoregion Units (Bailey et al. 1994, McNab and Avers 

1994). For cumulative effects, each of the three sections that contain NFS lands is considered 

separately. 

Bailey’s Ecoregions is a hierarchal system for classifying ecosystems and commonly used for 

ecosystem analysis at middle to large scales. This system divides the United States into domains, 

then divisions, and then further divides them into provinces and sections. Sections are described 

by broad areas of similar subregional climate, geomorphic process, geology, geomorphic origin, 

topography, and drainage networks. 

The Kaibab NF is located in the Dry Domain that covers much of the western United States. 

Table 8 displays the distribution of Kaibab NF lands within Bailey’s Ecoregion Sections in that 

domain. 

Table 8. Relationship of the land area between the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) ranger 

districts and Bailey’s Ecoregion Sections (Bailey et al. 1994)

Section No.

Total 

Section 

Acreage

KNF 

Ranger 

District

KNF 

Acres in 

Section

Percent of 

KNF in 

Section

KNF 

Percent of 

Section

Grand Canyon (313A) 19,556,212 North 

Kaibab

655,078 41 3.3

Painted Desert (313D) 8,934,546 Tusayan 331,428 * 21 3.7

White Mountains - San 

Francisco Peaks -

Mogollon Rim (M313A)

13,471,798 Williams 613,459 * 38 4.6

*Less than 5 percent of the Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts fall within the Mohave Desert Section and the 

Tonto Transition Section. Since there are no objectives analyzed for the vegetation types in this limited area, all acres 

on the Tusayan Ranger District are analyzed as part of the Painted Desert Section, and all acres of the Williams Ranger 

District are analyzed as part of the White Mountains–San Francisco Peaks–Mogollon Rim Section. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 59
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 7 displays the location of the Kaibab NF within the sections. Each of the three ranger 

districts falls almost entirely into a separate section, which highlights how different each ranger 

district is from the other

North Kaibab Ranger District in Context of 

the Grand Canyon Section

The North Kaibab Ranger District is in the Grand Canyon Section. This section includes lands 

administered by the Navajo Nation, Hopi Tribe, Kaibab Band of Paiutes Tribe, Arizona Strip 

Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Grand Canyon and other National Park Service area, the 

State of Arizona, slivers of the Dixie National Forest, and all of the North Kaibab Ranger District. 

In this section, the elevation of the Kaibab Plateau has led to its description as a green island in 

the midst of an ocean of desert. This “island” contains most of the ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, 

and other forested types in the section. The Grand Canyon National Park and Kaibab NF are the 

primary land management agencies. The North Kaibab Ranger District covers only 3 percent of 

the section, yet it has 28 percent of the ponderosa pine, 39 percent of the mixed conifer, and 44 

percent of the spruce-fir vegetation type. The park implements limited mechanical treatments to 

modify stand structure, usually to protect human improvements and heritage resources. In the past 

two decades, however, the park has used wildland fire extensively—with a wide range of 

effects—to restore historic fire regimes and improve the resiliency of the forested types. On parts 

of the boundary between the agencies, this has reduced the risk of high-severity fires originating 

on the park burning onto the forest, pushed by predominant summer southwesterly winds, where 

until recently fuel loads were much higher and forest stands are much denser. This risk is still

present and high on other parts of the boundary area. Isolated pockets of ponderosa pine on the 

park, such as on Powell Plateau, have seen little, if any, fire suppression and are used as a guide 

for reference conditions in the type. The forest uses both mechanical treatments and wildland 

fires.

60 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 7. Bailey’s ECOMAP sections, containing the Kaibab National Forest. Other 

National Forest System lands in or near the sections are also shown.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 61
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The use of wildland fire in mixed conifer types is limited to prescribed fires on the forest under 

the current plan, which limits the ability to manage wildfires across the boundary with the park to 

reduce the risk of stand-replacing fires. Under the action alternatives, wildfires could be managed 

across the boundary to achieve similar objectives of improving the resiliency of the mixed conifer 

type on the plateau. Outside of plan restrictions, few barriers to such cross-boundary management 

exist as there is one interagency fire management organization, composed of both National Park 

Service (NPS) and Forest Service personnel, responsible for all fire management on the Kaibab 

Plateau. 

Objectives to accelerate the rate of modification to enhance or restore forest structure in the 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer types under the action alternatives would improve the 

resiliency of these vegetation types to climate change. Because of their limited extent in the 

section, they provide the habitat for many species that do not exist elsewhere in the section. Such 

restoration would have positive outcomes in limiting susceptibility to stand-replacing fire. Using 

wildland fire to reduce large-scale uncharacteristic events is not without risk. 

For lower elevation vegetation types also present on the forest and in the section, BLM and tribal 

lands are the predominant land management agencies, with the Park Service and Forest Service 

playing lesser roles. These vegetation types are all departed and little treatment is being done to 

improve departures from reference condition. The North Kaibab Ranger District contains 25 

percent of the montane/subalpine grassland vegetation type in the section, and objectives to 

remove encroachment in the action alternatives would benefit this type in the larger context of the 

section. The cottonwood-willow vegetation type in Kanab Creek Wilderness is highly departed 

due to tamarisk invasion, and the lack of flood disturbances due to impoundments upstream and 

off the forest. Few options for management actions to improve conditions exist, so it did not rise 

as a priority need for change within the planning period, but would still likely provide refugia for 

species requiring a low-elevation riparian habitat within the section. 

Tusayan Ranger District in 

Context of the Painted Desert Section

The Tusayan Ranger District is located in the Painted Desert Section. This section includes lands 

administered by the Kaibab NF, the Navajo Nation, the Hopi Tribe, a small portion of the 

Coconino National Forest, and the State of Arizona. The Tusayan Ranger District occupies about 

4 percent of the section. Despite its limited extent, it contains 78 percent of the ponderosa pine 

vegetation type and 100 percent of the montane grasslands in the section. 

The ponderosa pine vegetation on the south side of Grand Canyon National Park lies within the 

Grand Canyon Section, but shares borders with the Tusayan Ranger District. As on the Tusayan 

Ranger District, most of the park’s ponderosa pine type has experienced one or several fire entries 

in past decades and is approaching the historic fire regime. Prescribed burning projects are 

coordinated across boundaries to complement each other to achieve maximum benefit in reducing 

the risk to highly valued human improvements, maintain reference fuel loads, and improve 

ecosystem resiliency to uncharacteristic fire. The first wildfire to be used to accomplish resource 

benefits across agency boundaries, the Ruby Complex, occurred in 2009. Objectives and tactics 

for the fire were slightly different on each agency’s lands, but were successfully achieved with a 

single incident command structure and no adverse outcomes during peak fire season for the year. 

This cross-boundary management approach is included in the management approach in the action 

alternatives for the revised plan, as well as in the Federal Wildland Fire Policy.

62 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Objectives in the action alternatives would promote continued modification of stand structure to 

reduce susceptibility to large uncharacteristic fire events. The first recorded large fire event over 

1,000 acres—since shortly after the turn of the century—on the Tusayan Ranger District occurred 

in April 2007. The X-Fire was a human-caused fire originating from a campfire which burned 

2,048 acres during a wind event after a dry March, with a high percentage of stand-replacing fire. 

This fire demonstrates that structural change to move toward reference conditions is a necessary 

complement to treatment with fire, as much of this area had been burned with prescribed fire 

within the last 15 years. Under 90th percentile fire weather conditions and above, wildfire can 

still exhibit uncharacteristic outcomes in departed stand structure despite reference fire return 

intervals. 

Objectives for restoring grasslands in the action alternatives would continue and enhance refugia

for grassland-related species, as this vegetation type does not occur elsewhere in the section.

Aspen clones on the Tusayan Ranger District are small and rare in that there are a dozen or less, 

and they are even rarer in the section. This is believed to be true under reference conditions as 

well. Objectives in the aspen alternatives to retain and regenerate aspen clones could be achieved 

with limited funds and resources. Though small, these tiny rare clones have high biodiversity, 

provide small pockets of refugia for aspen-related species, and are not found elsewhere in the 

section. Climate change may eliminate these rare components of the ponderosa pine type in the 

section despite management action.

Williams Ranger District in Context of the 

White Mountains – San Francisco Peaks –

Mogollon Rim Section

This section is located on the Mogollon Plateau above the Mogollon Rim—a pronounced 

demarcation in elevation in northern Arizona. The Williams Ranger District on the Kaibab NF, as 

well as the Coconino National Forest, the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests, Fort Apache Tribal 

lands, and Arizona State administer lands in this section. The Williams Ranger District occupies 

just over 4 percent of the section. Less than 5 percent of the ponderosa pine is on the district and 

has around 2 percent of the mixed conifer vegetation type. For montane/subalpine grassland, 

however, it has 23 percent of the vegetation type and 100 percent of the Gambel oak shrubland. 

The latter may be because this vegetation type on the Coconino National Forest was classified as 

another woodland type. 

The Coconino and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests are in the process of revising their land 

management plans concurrently with the Kaibab NF, based upon the same regional vegetative 

desired conditions, standards and guidelines, and similar objectives for ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer. Though the Kaibab NF has a small percentage of the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

types in the section, the cumulative restoration activities from the action alternatives from these

plans could have a pronounced effect on modifying stand structure to be less susceptible to standreplacing fire in these vegetation types across the section, and improving the resiliency and 

adaptability of these types to climate change. Additionally, they would contribute to carbon 

sequestration at this scale that would provide additional benefit.

It is recognized across agency boundaries that the current rate of stand structure modification is 

not sufficient to compensate for states increasingly departed from reference conditions. To 

accelerate structure modification, to get ahead of increasing departure, planning at scales large 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 63
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

enough to attract a market for small-diameter biomass, in areas where consensus from 

stakeholders is high, and desired states can be rapidly achieved through mechanical treatments is 

necessary. This means focusing on dense forest areas in larger states where effective mechanical 

structural modification can reduce stand structure to desired conditions, and away from areas 

where risk cannot be effectively treated due to limitations of law, regulation, or policy, such as 

Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers. It also diverts treatment from areas that may not 

be in the desired state due to low tree density, that are at low risk of stand-replacing fire, and that 

would take decades to grow to desired stand structure. 

One such planning effort, already underway, is the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI). 

Stakeholders are actively participating in this planning process to complete landscape-scale 

planning over a 2.4-million-acre analysis area. The cumulative effect of structural modification of 

the ponderosa pine type toward desired conditions as part of this project, in conjunction with 

portions of the project on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts, would have widespread 

beneficial outcomes in restoring the ponderosa pine type across the section and beyond. If 

successful, this effort could decrease susceptibility to large and uncharacteristic disturbances, 

increase water yields from winter snowfall through the creation of interspaces, and provide longterm carbon sequestration in large old trees at a scale meaningful to improving the resiliency and 

ability to adapt to climate change in the ponderosa pine type of the Southwest. 

Objectives for aspen in the action alternatives would benefit the aspen component of ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer that are declining throughout the section. Ungulate herbivory is 

accelerating aspen decline on the Williams Ranger District outside of other uncertain influences 

on aspen decline. The high biodiversity associated with this component of the vegetation type

merits the limited planning, funding, and resource requirements to deter further aspen decline.

With 23 percent of the montane/subalpine grassland in the section, the objectives for reducing 

encroachment in this vegetation type would provide refugia for grassland-related species. 

Wildland fire is widely used on all agency lands in the section, including some burning by the 

State on State lands and the Navajo Army Depot, and by the city of Flagstaff and other 

municipalities. Due to such widespread burning across the section, smoke management is critical 

to maintain public support for prescribed burns and the use of wildfires to achieve resource 

benefits. This topic is covered in the Air Quality section of this chapter. 

Summary of Cumulative Effects for Vegetation 

and Fire

The sum of past management actions over time has resulted in the departure of most PNVTs from 

their characteristic states on and around Kaibab NF. These departures are largely due to fire 

suppression, in conjunction with past, unsustainable grazing practices, and other anthropogenic 

disturbances of natural processes. It has resulted in a dramatic increase in stand-replacing fires, 

particularly since the mid-1990s, decreases in water yields, degradation of aspen stands, and 

encroachment of grasslands, and resulted in the priority needs for change identified for forest plan

revision. Departures from reference conditions exist in all vegetation types on the forest, and most 

continue to trend further from reference conditions. 

The cumulative effects of proposed management actions on the Kaibab NF in the context of the 

larger landscape for the North Kaibab and Tusayan Ranger Districts are largely to provide refugia

64 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

for species in the section requiring ponderosa pine, mixed conifer (on the North Kaibab), aspen, 

and grasslands, as these vegetation types are rare elsewhere in the Grand Canyon and Painted 

Desert Sections of Bailey’s Ecoregions.

The cumulative effects of proposed management actions on the forest in the context of the larger 

landscape for the Williams Ranger District include providing refugia for grassland-related 

species, and contributing its part to modifying stand structure in ponderosa pine toward reference 

conditions and restoring historic fire regimes at a broad scale across the White Mountain-San 

Francisco Peak-Mogollon Rim Section to reduce large-scale disturbance and increase resiliency

and ability to adapt to climate change to a significant portion of the ponderosa pine type in 

northern Arizona. 

Species Viability Analysis

The species viability analysis for wildlife and botany were conducted using the same process. It 

was initiated by compiling a comprehensive list of “forest planning species” with potential 

viability concerns for the Kaibab NF. This list was used to help develop desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines for the revised forest plan. Forest planning species were identified only 

for forest plan revision purposes, and they hold no special regulatory status beyond existing State 

and Federal status. Further detail on this process and explicit criteria used to identify forest 

planning species is explained in the Species Diversity Report, v. 1.2.5 (KNF 2008d).

The forest planning species list, developed collaboratively in 2008, contains 148 plant and animal 

species (out of more than 1,800 species initially considered) and includes those species found, or 

potentially found, on the Kaibab NF. While developing the forest planning species list, a coarse 

filter/fine filter process was used to ensure the needs of all wildlife species were addressed and to 

determine the need for plan direction. The process considered habitat, habitat elements, and 

species-specific traits. The 148 analysis species were grouped first by habitat association, 

represented by water or the broadly defined vegetation types historically present in the planning 

area (i.e., PNVT). Potential natural vegetation types (PNVTs) represent the vegetation type and 

characteristics that would occur when natural disturbance regimes and biological processes 

prevail (Schussman et al. 2006). Further, PNVTs combine potential vegetation and historic fire 

regime to form ecosystem classes useful for landscape assessment. These same species were then 

secondarily grouped by habitat elements (e.g., snags, downed woody debris, understory 

vegetation) not specifically addressed by broad habitat associations. Species-specific plan 

direction was only developed where needed and only for those threats which the Forest Service 

could impact through management and for which the Forest Service has jurisdictional control. 

In 2011, the 148 planning species underwent further analysis using a viability approach. Before 

assessing the abbreviated list of planning species, the NatureServe rankings for the original 

1,835 species were reassessed to determine if any had changed since the original screening. A few 

NatureServe rankings had changed; however, these changes were not sufficient to warrant 

removing or adding a species to or from the planning list. Included in this reassessment were an 

additional 47 species found in the Arizona Game and Fish State Wildlife Action Plan (Arizona 

Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 2012). 

The coarse-to-fine filter approach aided in plan development by helping identify desired 

conditions for all species as part of a two-step process. That is, broad direction was first 

developed to include those landscapes and ecological processes necessary to protect and 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 65
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

maintain, at a minimum, species. Viability conditions were then developed for each PNVT or 

habitat type. In some cases, however, such as for species with limited distributions or specific life 

requirements, an additional fine filter was applied. Additional forest plan components were 

developed to meet the needs of those species that fell through the initial coarse filter.

The viability analysis process consisted of the following steps, which are described in detail in the 

Wildlife Specialist Report (KNF 2013c) and the Botany Specialist Report (KNF 2013d): 

1. Forest Service biologists and local species specialists developed Forest Ranks or F Ranks 

for the list of 148 forest planning species, as well as adding three federally listed and 

Region 3 sensitive species not included in the original forest planning list, for a total of 

151 species reviewed. The ranking process generally follows the conventions used by 

NatureServe and others in defining State and Global Ranks. The F Ranks were used in 

the viability risk assessment as a categorical variable representing a species’ current 

abundance. 

2. A list of habitat elements important to each species in the analyses was developed. Each 

habitat element was defined and described in terms of its desired condition in the 

planning area. 

3. Abundance values (consisting of rare, occasional, and common) were used to categorize 

the projected abundance of each habitat element after 50 years of implementing each 

forest plan revision alternative. Fifty years was considered the point in time for which the 

most progress is expected to be made toward achieving desired conditions in fire-adapted 

ecosystems. That is, the greatest percentage of the landscape (which is considered 

temporally relevant to this analysis) would be in the desired condition or moving toward 

the desired condition. This is also a reasonable scale at which the positive effects to most 

wildlife populations might be realized. While the life of the forest plan is considered to be 

15 years, it would set a trajectory for continued habitat improvement into the foreseeable 

future. 

4. Similarly, a future distribution variable of poor, fair, or good was defined as the 

distribution of the associated habitat element in 50 years if the alternative were selected 

and implemented over that 50-year period. In contrast to the abundance variable, 

distribution includes consideration of intermixed ownership patterns and conditions, and 

their general effects on movements and interactions of individuals among the suitable 

habitat patches found on NFS lands. This approach relies on the assumption that a habitat 

distribution similar to that which supported associated species during recent evolutionary 

history would likely contribute to their maintenance in the future, and that the further a 

habitat departs from reference distribution, the greater the risk to viability of associated 

species. Both abundance and distribution ratings were done as an interdisciplinary team 

with input from other resource specialists.

5. Habitat element abundance and distribution variables were then combined to create one 

variable to indicate the general likelihood that the habitat element would be limiting to 

populations of associated species. This “likelihood of limitation” was described as low, 

moderate, or high. In general, quality habitat elements that are rare and poorly distributed 

are those most likely to cause risk to viability of associated species; those that are 

common and well distributed are least likely to cause risk to viability of associated 

species. In this general context, habitat limitation refers to a habitat factor, quantity, 

distribution, or quality, that results in risk to continued existence of the species within the 

planning area (table 13). 

66 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

6. Providing for species viability requires providing abundant and well distributed habitat in 

ways that allow existing populations to persist or expand. The ability of existing 

populations to respond to available habitat depends in part on the populations’ current 

robustness, which is generally a function of size. In general, for a given habitat condition, 

small populations would be at greater risk than large populations. To reflect this fact, the 

likelihood of habitat limitation variable (step 5) was combined with a species’ F Rank 

(step 1) for each species/habitat element interaction to generate a viability risk rating for 

each species/habitat relationship. These viability ratings are based only on the habitat 

elements. Other factors that could affect species are not included (e.g., disturbance during 

the breeding season).

7. Finally, once viability risk ratings were developed for each species/habitat relationship, 

habitat elements most commonly associated with risks to species viability were identified 

by counting the number of very high, high, and moderately high ratings associated with 

each habitat element. To assess the role of national forest management in minimizing 

viability risk associated with each habitat element, a management effects variable was 

assigned to each habitat element by alternative. The management effects variable 

categorized the goal of management for the habitat element, the expected resulting trend, 

and any additional opportunity for minimizing viability risk. Numbers of very high, high, 

and moderately high risk ratings were summarized by management effects variable by 

alternative to assess how well alternatives address viability related habitat needs. 

8. Distribution of viability risk was also summarized by species status, i.e., federally listed 

under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), listed as regional forester’s sensitive species, 

or identified as locally rare or of other concern. The species status summary highlights 

the relative role of other provisions included in law and policy that result in additional 

consideration of at-risk species during planning (table 15). 

Wildlife

This analysis evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the wildlife 

resource that may result with the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines, in 

detail, four different alternatives for revising the 1988 Kaibab NF Land and Resource 

Management Plan (KNF 1988). This is a summary of the information provided in the Wildlife 

Specialist Report (KNF 2013c) and the full analysis is within the specialist report. Further 

information on the use of best available science in wildlife analyses associated with the plan 

revision process can be found in Appendix J.

The initial species diversity analysis and subsequent report combined plants and wildlife. The 

focus of this analysis is on the non-plant species from the forest planning species list. Since the 

original list was developed in 2008, there have been a few changes. The bald eagle and Sonoran 

Desert bald eagle population have been lumped together. The USFWS determined that the 

Sonoran population is not a separate population and ESA protection was removed in 2010. 

This analysis is based on the 65 forest plan species, as well as the addition of 4 federally listed 

and Southwestern Region sensitive species not included in the original forest planning list, for a 

total of 69 species. The Kaibab fairy shrimp was added after the DEIS due a new regional 

sensitive species signed on September 18, 2013 adding this species as sensitive on the forest. The 

other 82 forest planning species are plants, discussed later in the Botany section of this chapter.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 67
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Description of Affected Environment (Existing 

Condition) – Wildlife

The Vegetation and Fire section in this document discusses the current vegetation conditions on 

the forest and is not repeated here.

Wildlife Species Viability – Species Considered and Evaluated

Table 9 shows the current forest ranking of each of the 68 species. The viability analysis process 

described in the viability analysis section (step 1) describes the process used to develop the forest 

ranking. 

The following is the key to the variables used in table 9.

F Rank: F? (Information insufficient to develop rank)

F1 (Extremely rare on the forest)

F2 (Very rare on the forest)

F3 (Rare and uncommon on the forest)

F4 (Widespread abundant on the forest)

F5 (Demonstrably secure on the forest) 

FP (Possibly on the forest, documented occurrences not known to occur)

FN (Non-breeding population)

FO (Off forest)

PNVT Association: CWRF: Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest; DC: Desert Communities; 

DMC: Dry Mixed Conifer; GBG: Great Basin Grassland; GOS: Gambel Oak Shrubland; MCA: 

Mixed Conifer with Aspen; MSG: Montane Subalpine Grassland; PJW: Pinyon-juniper 

Woodland; PPF: Ponderosa Pine Forest; SbS: Sagebrush Shrubland; SdG: Semidesert Grassland; 

SFF: Spruce-fir Forest; W/C: Wetland /cienega; W: Water; Multi: Multi-PNVT

Table 9. Wildlife, fish, and invertebrate species on the viability list, forest ranking and 

associated potential natural vegetation type (PNVT)

Scientific Name Common Name F Rank PNVT Association

Accipiter gentilis Northern goshawk* F3 PPF, DMC

Amphispiza belli Sage sparrow FN SbS

Aquila chrysaetos Golden eagle F2 SbS, MSG, GBG, SdG

Athene cunicularia 

hypugaea

Western burrowing owl FN MSG, GBG, SdG

Baeolophus ridgwayi Juniper titmouse F4 PJW

Buteo regalis Ferruginous hawk FN SbS, GBG, SdG

Cardellina rubrifrons Red-faced warbler F4 DMC, MCA

Coccothraustes vespertinus Evening grosbeak F3 DMC, MCA

Contopus cooperi Olive-sided flycatcher F3 PPF, DMC, MCA, SF

Dendragapus obscures Dusky (blue) grouse F3 MCA, SF

Dendroica graciae Grace’s warbler F5 PPF

68 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific Name Common Name F Rank PNVT Association

Dendroica nigrescens Black-throated gray warbler F5 PJW

Falco peregrines anatum American peregrine falcon F2 Multi

Gynmogyps californianus California condor F2 Multi

Gymnorhinus 

cyanocephalus

Pinyon jay F5 PJW

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle F2 PPF, W/C, W

Melanerpes lewis Lewis’ woodpecker F3 PPF

Oporornis tolmiei MacGillivray’s warbler F2 PPF, DMC, MCA

Oreoscoptes montanus Sage thrasher FP SbS

Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah sparrow FP MSG, GBG

Pipilo chlorurus Green-tailed towhee F4 PPF, DMC, SbS, GOS

Progne subis arboricola Purple martin (western 

spp.)

F3 PJW

Regulus satrapa Golden-crowned kinglet F3 MCA, SF

Sphyrapicus nuchalis Red-naped sapsucker F3 MCA

Spizella breweri Brewer’s sparrow F4 PJW, SbS

Strix occidentalis lucida Mexican spotted owl F2 PPF, DMC, MCA

Vermivora celata Orange-crowned warbler F3 DMC, MCA

Vireo vicinior Gray vireo F3 PJW

Meda fulgia Spikedace FO Upland terrestrial

Oncorhynchus apache Apache (Arizona) trout F1 W

Tiaroga cobitis Loach minnow FO Upland terrestrial

Bufo microscaphus Arizona toad FP W/C, CWRF, W

Crotalus Cerberus Arizona black rattlesnake F4 PJW, PP, GBG, DC

Eumeces skiltonianus Western skink F3 PJW, PPF

Hyla wrightorum Arizona (mountain) treefrog F3 PPF, W/C, W

Lampropeltis pyromelana 

infralabialis

Utah Mountain kingsnake F4 PJW, PP, SdG, GOS

Lampropeltis triangulum Milksnake F3 GBG, SdG

Rana pipiens Northern leopard frog F1 W/C, W

Spea intermontana Great basin spadefoot F3 PJW, SbS, GBG, SdG, 

W/C, W

Branchinecta kaibabensis Kaibab Fairy Shrimp F3 W/C, W

Acrolophitus nevadensis Nevada point-headed 

grasshopper

FP PPF, W/C, W

Aeshna Persephone Persephone’s darner FP PJW, SbS

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 69
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific Name Common Name F Rank PNVT Association

Callophrys sheridanii 

comstocki

Desert green hairstreak F? PJW, SbS

Cicindela terricola 

kaibabensis

Kaibab variable tiger beetle F? MSG

Libellula nodisticta Hoary skimmer F? W/C

Papilio indra kaibabensis Kaibab Indra swallowtail FP PJW, DMC, GBG

Piruna polingii Four-spotted skippering FP MSG, W/C

Speyeria Nokomis Nokomis fritillary F? PPF, DMC, MCA

Speyeria nokomis nokomis Nokomis fritillary ssp. 

nokomis

FP PPF, DMC, MCA, W/C

Antilocapra Americana Pronghorn F4 SbS, MSG, GBG, SdG

Corynorthinus townsendii 

pallescens

Pale Townsend’s big-eared 

bat

F3 Multi

Cynomys gunnisoni Gunnison’s prairie dog F3 GBG, SdG

Dipodomys microps 

leucotis

House Rock Valley chiseltoothed kangaroo ratF2 SdG

Euderma maculatum Spotted bat F3 SbS, MSG, GBG, SdG

Eumops perotis californicus Greater western mastiff bat FN MSG

Idionycteris phyllotis Allen’s lappet-browed bat F3 PPF, DMC

Microtus longicaudus Long-tailed vole F3 MSG

Lasiurus blossevillii Western red bat FO Riparian Forest

Microtus mogollonensis 

navaho

Navajo Mogollon vole F3 MSG, GBG

Myotis auriculus Southwestern myotis F4 PPF, DMC, MCA

Neotamias minimus 

consobrinus

Kaibab least chipmunk F3 MCA, SFF

Nyctinomops macrotis Big free-tailed bat FN PJW, SbS, MSG, DC

Ovis canadensis nelsoni Desert bighorn sheep F3 DC

Sciurus aberti Abert’s squirrel F4 PPF

Sciurus aberti kaibabensis Kaibab tree squirrel F4 PPF

Sorex merriami Merriam’s shrew F3 PPF, DMC

Sorex nanus Dwarf shrew F3 MSG

Tamiasciurus hudsonicus Red squirrel F4 MCA, SF

Thomomys talpoides 

kaibabensis

Kaibab northern pocket 

gopher

F3 MCA, MSG, SFF

*The F3 ranking for the northern goshawk is a conservative measure for the goshawk population due to difficulties in 

conducting population level surveys across the forest. Project level surveys and monitoring indicate the goshawk is 

actually widespread across the forest. Local research on the North Kaibab Ranger District suggests territories are 

saturated and breeding pairs are relatively stable across years (Reynolds and Joy 2006).

70 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wildlife Habitat Elements

Habitat elements are the habitat components or features that are required to support wildlife 

species. The current conditions of many of the habitat elements are based on PNVT analyses 

included in the Kaibab NF Ecological Sustainability Report (KNF 2008a) and are not repeated 

here. Some wildlife habitat elements associated with fine-scale habitat features not necessarily 

captured by course PNVT descriptions include the following: snags, natural waters, constructed 

waters, caves, and connectivity. These are described in detail below.

Snags – Several studies have been conducted to determine snag densities in coniferous forests. 

Miller and Benedict (1994) found an average of 0.6 ponderosa pine snags (12 inches d.b.h. or 

greater) per acre. Ganey (1999) found a median of two snags per acre on the Kaibab and 

Coconino NF s. The forest inventory assessment (FIA) found 0.6 ponderosa pine snags (19 inches 

d.b.h. or greater) per acre across Arizona forests in 1995 (O’Brien 2002). For that same 

assessment, there was an average of 2.9 snags per acre greater than 11 inches d.b.h. on the forest; 

these were chiefly comprised of Utah juniper and two-needle pinyon. By comparison, repeat FIA 

surveys completed in 2007 found 6.8 snags per acre across the forest. In general, the FIA surveys 

completed in 1995 and 2007 show an overall increase in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest 

snag density across the forest. 

Coarse Woody Debris – The distribution of downed wood across the landscape is spatially 

variable. Ganey and Vojta (2010) studied coarse woody debris in northern Arizona mixed conifer 

and ponderosa pine forest. Part of this study occurred on the Williams Ranger District and is the 

best information available at this time for these two habitat types. The study found coarse woody 

debris was well distributed across the landscape in both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer. This study suggests that disruption of surface fires in the study area has resulted in a more 

continuous distribution of downed wood than occurred under historical conditions. Most mixed

conifer plots met or exceeded Forest Service guidelines within the current forest management 

plan for retention of large logs with regard to wildlife. In contrast, large logs were sparse and 

patchily distributed in ponderosa pine forest. This is believed to be because the data representing 

a wide range of successional stages and large trees had been removed, so there were not as many 

present in the stand to produce large logs. 

Water – Natural waters include perennial streams, springs, and wetlands. The only known 

historic perennial streams on the Kaibab NF are North Canyon Creek and Kanab Creek. Surface 

flow in the perennial reach of North Canyon Creek historically occurred in a 1- to 6-mile reach, 

depending on precipitation, before becoming subsurface flow. This stream channel is currently 

classified as “good condition.” Historically, Kanab Creek was a perennial stream on the forest, 

but upstream water use and diversion have resulted in this stream no longer exhibiting perennial 

flow within Kaibab NF boundaries. Flooding disturbance has, therefore, been eliminated. 

Historically, livestock grazing contributed to departed conditions, but livestock have been 

excluded from grazing along the creek since 1996. 

The forest contains 167 springs. Ninety-two of these occur on the North Kaibab Ranger District, 

74 occur on the Williams Ranger District, and 1 has been identified on the Tusayan Ranger 

District. The historic extent and flow of springs and seeps are generally unknown, but are 

presumed to be approximately equal to their current extent and flow. Developed springs remove 

water from the site and reduce the extent of riparian vegetation. Several springs have been 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 71
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

documented to be at risk or nonfunctional riparian areas due to ungulate grazing, spring 

infrastructure maintenance needs, or recreational impacts.

Most of the constructed waters on the forest are in the form of stock tanks created for livestock 

and wildlife starting in the 1930s. There are approximately 490 reservoirs and stock tanks on the 

forest. Construction of these waters has increased the amount of the open water on the forest from 

the reference condition.

Caves and Mines – Compared to reference conditions, the distribution and abundance of caves 

on the forest have not changed. Mines have increased in abundance and distribution across all 

three districts from the reference time period. 

Connectivity – Connectivity is important for both terrestrial and aquatic species. It connects 

adjacent habitat and promotes healthy movement of animals between foraging and wintering 

grounds, as well as genetic flow between populations. Connectivity can occur at different spatial 

scales and among similar and different habitat patches. It is reduced by habitat fragmentation, 

which can be caused by natural (e.g., wildfire) or unnatural (e.g., human development) processes. 

An animal’s ability to move between optimal habitats is important in evaluating how well it 

responds to such disturbances over time. Before 1890, there were no real barriers to animal 

movement in northern Arizona. Since then, the State has had phenomenal population growth. The 

development of infrastructure, including roads, railroads, fences, canals, and, more recently, wind 

and solar energy developments have likely had an impact on Arizona’s wildlife populations; 

changes which affect movement corridors and dispersal potential for many species, particularly 

wide ranging animals. Connectivity has also been affected by changes in vegetation; this includes 

encroachment of trees in grassland areas, or loss of movement corridors entirely as a result of 

uncharacteristic wildfire and human development. 

Critical Habitat for Listed Wildlife Species

The forest has designated critical habitat for one federally listed wildlife species—the Mexican 

spotted owl. Critical habitat units (CHU) are found on North Kaibab and Williams Rangers 

Districts. There is one unit in Colorado Plateau (CP-10) Ecological Management Unit (EMU) and 

three units in Upper Gila Mountain EMU (UGM-13, UGM-15, and UGM-17). Table 10 describes 

the CHU acreage and how much of each unit is located on the forest. The table is displaying all 

the area within the units and the amount of critical habitat (CH) on the forest within the units. 

Within the CHUs boundaries, only areas that fit the definition of restricted or protected habitat in 

the 1995 Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl (USFWS 1995) are considered as critical 

habitat. It is estimated there is approximately 127,630 acres of critical habitat within the units.

Table 10. Mexican spotted owl critical habitat units on the Kaibab National Forest

CHU Name District CH acreage 

on the KNF

Total CHU 

acreage

Acreage on 

Forest

Percent on 

Forest

CP-10 North Kaibab 70,350 918,847 230,710 25

UGM-13 Williams 52,060 253,341 127,050 50

UGM-15 Williams 2,390 22,531 17,810 79

UGM-17 Williams 2,830 10,914 10,914 100

Total Acres 127,630 1,205,633 386,484 32

72 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The forest has potential to impact critical habitat for the loach minnow and spikedace which is 

located off-forest. Their critical habitat is located approximately 12 miles from the forest 

boundary on the Verde River in CHU 1 (USFWS 2012c). The forest occupies approximately 9% 

of the Verde River Watershed.

Amount of Occupied and Unoccupied Habitat

for Listed and Sensitive Wildlife Species

The California condor has three basic habitat needs: feeding habitat with adequate food, roosting 

sites, and adequate nesting sites. The condor requires fairly open grassland habitat for feeding and 

spends much of its time roosting on cliffs or in tall conifers. A typical roost site has rock cliffs, 

dead conifer snags or both, and is located in an isolated or at least semi-secluded area. Condors 

nest in various types of caves, crevices, and potholes. In 2010, there was a failed nesting attempt 

on the forest. The only successful nesting for condors on the forest occurred during the 2011 

nesting season. The forest is used primarily for foraging. While condors could forage across the 

entire forest, they have primarily only been found on the North Kaibab Ranger District and 

occasionally seen on Tusayan Ranger District (Peregrine Fund 2010). These two districts have 

approximately 37,632 acres of the grassland PNVT on them. Currently, the forest does not have 

data on the amount of cliff habitat on the forest. Most of this habitat is located in either canyons

or on mountains. 

The Williams and North Kaibab Ranger Districts are the only two districts that contain Mexican 

spotted owl habitat. There are six Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers on the forest, for 

a total of 4,485 acres of occupied habitat (also called protected habitat in the Revised Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 2012a)). A new pair of Mexican spotted owls was located in July 2013 on the 

Williams Ranger District. The forest is in the process of delineating the protected activity center 

for the pair. This would increase the occupied habitat by at least 650 acres in the near future. All 

of the protected activity centers are located on the Williams Ranger District. Unoccupied habitat 

for the owl is defined as recovery habitat using the habitat definition in the Revised Recovery 

Plan (USFWS 2012a). It is estimated there is 136,330 acres of recovery habitat on the forest. 

Based on VDDT modeling (see the Vegetation and Fire Specialist Report (KNF 2013a) for a 

detailed explanation of VDDT analyses) it is estimated that there are approximately 13,294 acres 

of ponderosa pine/Gambel oak habitat on the Williams Ranger District and 35,123 acres of mixed 

conifer habitat for a total of 48,417 acres of nesting and roosting habitat currently available.

The Apache trout is not native to the Kaibab National Forest; however, the Arizona Game and 

Fish Department introduced it to the forest in the 1940s. The Apache trout is found only in North 

Canyon Creek on the North Kaibab Ranger District. While the 2010 5-year review notes that 

there are 5 miles of habitat, the Apache trout is currently located within a 2-mile stretch of the 

creek. 

Neither the loach minnow nor spikedace occur on the Kaibab NF. However, the proposed and 

current critical habitat for these species, while not occurring on the forest, could be affected by 

forest management in the form of downstream effects. Consequently, there is no direct effect to 

these species, only indirect effects because all effects would be off forest.

For sensitive species on the forest, the level of knowledge varies as to how much habitat is 

actually occupied. Table 11 shows districts where each species is located, the amount of habitat 

potentially available by PNVT, and the amount of known occupied habitat for species the forest

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 73
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

has occupancy information for. Occupied habitat is a subset of the total acres shown in the PNVT 

acres. Those species not tied to a PNVT are discussed separately. Not all acres of the associated 

PNVT can support habitat components for all species. The acreage is likely an overestimate of the 

amount of habitat that is truly available for different species. For the water PNVT, the number of 

springs, seeps, reservoirs, or tanks is shown.

To determine PNVT acreage, the CER (KNF 2009) was used for most species. Where possible, 

the VDDT models for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer were used to help estimate the amount 

of potential habitat available for certain species. The species whose acreage was determined by 

VDDT are the goshawk, bald eagle, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Kaibab least chipmunk, Kaibab 

tree squirrel and Kaibab northern pocket gopher (table 11). For the goshawk, the acreage shown is 

for nesting, roosting and post-fledging family areas since these are the most limiting features for 

the goshawk. For the Kaibab tree squirrel, the table shows both general habitat use as well as 

optimum nesting habitat (see appendix B for more details on use of VDDT model).

Three sensitive species are not tied to any particular PNVT: American peregrine falcon, pale 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, and western red bat. 

The peregrine falcon and pale Townsend’s big-eared bat both forage in a variety of PNVTs. The 

primary limiting factor for the peregrine falcon is cliffs for nesting. The forest’s current GIS 

layers provide crude estimates of potential cliff features and it is not currently known how many 

acres of suitable cliff habitat are located on the forest. In general this habitat is located on 

mountains or within canyon habitats. There are 16 occupied eyries on the forest. 

Caves and mines are most limiting for the Townsend’s big-eared bat; a species that needs specific 

habitat components within these structures. While Townsend’s big-eared bat has been captured on 

the forest, there are only three records of different mine roosting sites. 

The western red bat is associated with low-elevation deciduous riparian habitat and is believed to 

be found only in the Mogollon Rim area on the Williams Ranger District. There is a limited 

amount of this habitat in portions of Sycamore Canyon on the forest. While the western red bat 

has been found on the Coconino National Forest along the Mogollon Rim, it has not been found 

on the Kaibab NF and there is no known occupied habitat on the forest. There are approximately 

21,000 acres in the Sycamore Canyon area, but it is not known how much of this is within 

deciduous riparian habitat. Note: while portions of Sycamore Canyon Wilderness are within the 

boundary of the Kaibab NF, management direction for this wilderness area is provided in the 

Coconino forest plan.

Table 11. Sensitive wildlife species and acres of associated potential natural vegetation 

type (PNVT) acres

Species District PNVT

Acres in PNVT or 

number of water 

features

Acres of 

Occupied 

Habitat

Northern goshawk All Ponderosa pine forest 

Dry mixed conifer

186,007

29,960

215,967 total

134,390

Western burrowing 

owl

All Montane subalpine 

Grassland 

Great Basin grassland

Semidesert grassland

48,584

44,181

25,115

117,880 total

Unknown

74 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species District PNVT

Acres in PNVT or 

number of water 

features

Acres of 

Occupied 

Habitat

Bald eagle All Ponderosa pine forest

Wetland/Cienega

Water

410,857

1,479

412,336 total

129 seeps/springs

492 reservoirs/tanks

One nest site on 

forest, mainly 

used in the 

winter

Northern leopard 

frog

All Wetland/Cienega

Water

1,479

129 seeps/springs

492 reservoirs/tanks

1 pond

Kaibab fairy 

shrimp

North 

Kaibab

Wetland/Cienega

Water

Unknown number of 

wetland/cienage or 

water on district

Belk (2000) 

found species 

to be common 

in numerous 

melt-water 

pools and small 

lakes on the 

Kaibab Plateau

Four-spotted 

skippering

Williams Montane subalpine 

Grassland

Wetland/Cienega

39,828

 871

40,699 total

No known

occupied 

habitat on 

forest

House Rock Valley 

chisel-toothed 

kangaroo rat

North 

Kaibab

Semidesert grassland 25,115 12,300

Spotted bat All Sagebrush shrubland

Montane subalpine 

Grassland

Great Basin grassland

Semidesert grassland

89,450

48,584

44,181

25,115

207,330 total

Unknown

Allen’s lappetbrowed batAll Ponderosa pine forest

Dry mixed conifer

410,857

 70,770

481,627 total

2 known 

maternity roost 

sites

Long-tailed vole North 

Kaibab

Montane Subalpine 

Grassland

6,545 Unknown

Navajo Mogollon 

vole

Williams

Tusayan

Montane subalpine 

Grassland

Great Basin grassland

42,039

44,180

86,219 total

40,500

Kaibab least 

chipmunk

North 

Kaibab

Mixed conifer with aspen

Spruce-fir forest

19,848

 2,828

22,676 total

Unknown

Desert bighorn 

sheep

North 

Kaibab

Desert communities 13,777 13,777

Kaibab tree squirrel North 

Kaibab

Ponderosa pine forest 102,785

(52,082 optimum 

habitat)

85,000

51,486

Merriam’s shrew All Ponderosa pine forest

Dry mixed conifer

131,299

14,606

145,905 total

Unknown

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 75
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species District PNVT

Acres in PNVT or 

number of water 

features

Acres of 

Occupied 

Habitat

Dwarf shrew North 

Kaibab

Montane subalpine 

Grassland

6,545 Unknown

Kaibab northern 

pocket gopher

North 

Kaibab

Mixed conifer with aspen

Spruce-fir forest

Montane subalpine 

Grassland

19,848

2,828

6,545

29,221 total

Unknown

Environmental Consequences to Wildlife Viability

Table 12 lists the habitat elements required to support the species listed in table 9 and provides 

the likelihood of the habitat becoming a limiting factor for the species. It also displays the 

potential management effects for each habitat element under each alternative. To assess the role 

of national forest management in minimizing viability risk associated with each habitat element, a 

management effects variable was then assigned to each habitat element by alternative. The 

management effects variable categorized the goal of management for the habitat element, the 

expected resulting trend, and any additional opportunity for minimizing viability risk.

The following is the key to the variables used in table 12 (see the Wildlife Specialist Report for a 

full description of the habitat element and rating codes). The process is explained above in the 

Viability section, step 5. Habitat element abundance and distribution variables were combined to 

create one variable to indicate the general likelihood that the habitat element would be limiting to 

populations of associated species (likelihood of limitation). Everything else being equal, quality 

habitat elements that are rare and poorly distributed are those most likely to cause risk to viability 

of associated species; those that are common and well distributed are least likely to cause risk to 

viability of associated species.

Key to Variables – see Viability section for description of the rating codes

Abundance: R (rare) – found on less than 1 percent of the planning area

O (occasional) – found on 1 to 10 percent of the planning area

C (common) – found on more than 10 percent of the planning area

Distribution: P (poor) – the habitat distribution is greatly reduced from reference level

F (fair) – the habitat distribution is well distributed but not at reference level

G (good) – the habitat is similar or better distributed from reference level

Likelihood of limitation: L (low); M (moderate); and H (high)

Management Effects: 

1 = Provide optimal protection and management for all habitat occurrences

2 = Improve habitat abundance and distribution through restoration

3 = Maintain habitat abundance and distribution that is currently on forest planning area

4 = Reduce habitat abundance and distribution as result of external factors

5 = Decline in habitat abundance and distribution as a result of management or lack of 

management.

76 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 12. Summary of expected abundance, distribution, likelihood of limitation, and 

management effects for wildlife habitat elements by forest plan revision alternatives

Habitat Element

Alternatives

A B C D

Ponderosa Pine – Uneven-aged Forest with Vertical Heterogeneity

Abundance C C C C

Distribution P G P P

Likelihood of limitation M L M M

Management effects 3 2 5 5

Ponderosa Pine – Uneven-aged Forest with Horizontal Heterogeneity

Abundance C C C C

Distribution P G F F

Likelihood of limitation M L L L

Management effects 3 2 5 5

Frequent Fire Mixed Conifer

Abundance O O O O

Distribution P F P P

Likelihood of limitation H M H H

Management effects 4 3 5 5

Mesic Mixed Conifer/Spruce fir

Abundance O O O O

Distribution P F F F

Likelihood of limitation H M M M

Management effects 4 3 3 3

Aspen - General

Abundance O O O O

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation M M M M

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Aspen – Within Ponderosa Pine and Frequent Fire Mixed Conifer (MC)

Abundance O O O O

Distribution P F F F

Likelihood of limitation H M M M

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Aspen – with Mesic Mixed Conifer and Spruce-fir

Abundance R R R R

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation M M M M

Management effects 3 3 3 3

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 77
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Habitat Element

Alternatives

A B C D

Sagebrush Shrublands

Abundance O O O O

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation L L L L

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Montane/subalpine Meadows and Grasslands

Abundance O O O O

Distribution F G G G

Likelihood of limitation M L L L

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Grasslands (General)

Abundance O O O O

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation M M M M

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grasslands

Abundance O O O O

Distribution F G G G

Likelihood of limitation M L L L

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Semidesert Grassland

Abundance O O O O

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation M M M M

Management effects 4 4 4 4

Desert Communities

Abundance R R R R

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation H H H H

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Woodlands and Savanna

Abundance R R R R

Distribution F G F F

Likelihood of limitation H M H H

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Gambel Oak Shrublands

Abundance R R R R

Distribution F F F F

78 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Habitat Element

Alternatives

A B C D

Likelihood of limitation H H H H

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Rocky Outcrops, Cliffs, and Canyons

Abundance C C C C

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation L L L L

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Wetland/Cienega

Abundance R R R R

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation H H H H

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Riparian Forest

Abundance R R R R

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation H H H H

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Cottonwood-willow Riparian Forest

Abundance R R R R

Distribution P P P P

Likelihood of limitation H H H H

Management effects 4 4 4 4

Snags

Abundance C C C C

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation L L L L

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Downed Wood

Abundance C C C C

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation L L L L

Management effects 3 3 3 3

Natural Waters

Abundance O O O O

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation M M M M

Management effects 3 2 2 2

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 79
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Habitat Element

Alternatives

A B C D

Constructed Water

Abundance C C C C

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation L L L L

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Caves and Mines

Abundance R R R R

Distribution G G G G

Likelihood of limitation M M M M

Management effects 4 4 4 4

Connectivity or “Connectedness”

Abundance C C C C

Distribution F F F F

Likelihood of limitation L L L L

Management effects 3 2 2 2

Wildlife species viability evaluation for the Kaibab NF included consideration of the species 

shown in table 9. The process is explained in detail in the Viability section above, step 6. Species 

with a forest ranking of F? and F1 through F3 were assessed for viability risk. Species ranked as 

F? were treated as F1 species to be conservative for those species for which abundance 

information is not available. For federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species, even 

species rated as having no known breeding pairs (FN) on the forest or have potential downstream 

effect (FO) were analyzed and treated as F3 species. Species that are currently abundant on the 

forest (F4, F5) are assumed to be at low risk of losing viability within the next 50 years and, 

therefore, were not further evaluated for viability risk.

Of the 69 species in table 9, 38 had a rating of F? to F3 and were carried forward in this analysis. 

In addition, five federally listed or Forest Service sensitive species had a rating of FN or FO and 

were also carried forward for a grand total of 43 species. Of the 43 species carried forward, 5 are 

federally listed and 18 are regional forester sensitive species. 

Providing for wildlife species viability requires providing abundant and well-distributed habitat in 

ways that allow existing populations to persist or expand. The ability of existing populations to 

respond to available habitat depends in part on their current robustness, which is generally a 

function of population size. In general, for a given habitat condition, small populations would be 

at greater risk than large populations. To reflect this fact, likelihood of habitat limitation variable 

(table 12) was combined with a species’ F Rank (table 9) for each species/habitat element 

interaction to generate a viability risk rating (table 13). 

Associations of very rare species with habitat elements that are likely to be most limiting were 

identified as those most at risk; associations of more common species with habitats less likely to 

80 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

be limiting received lower risk ratings. Ratings include three levels of “high” risk to ensure 

results err on the side of caution.

Table 13. Viability risk rating for wildlife species/habitat interactions as a function of 

species’ F Rank and likelihood of habitat element limitation variables

Likelihood of 

Habitat Element 

Limitations

Species F Rank

F? or F1 F2 F3 or FN

High Very High High Moderate High

Moderate High Moderate High Moderate

Low Moderate High Moderate Low

The following is the key to the variables used in table 14.

Status:

F (Federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered)

S (Regional forester’s sensitive species list)

O (Locally rare and other)

F Rank: 

F? (Information insufficient to develop rank) 

F1 (Extremely rare on the forest)

F2 (Very rare on the forest)

F3 (Rare and uncommon on the forest)

FN (non-breeding population)

FO (off forest)

Viability Risk: 

VH (Very High)

H (High)

MH (Moderately High)

M (Moderate)

L (Low)

Table 14. Risk to species viability for each wildlife species/habitat relation by forest plan 

revision alternative

Common 

Name

Status 

F Rank

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative

A B C D

Northern 

goshawk

S F3 Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Ponderosa pine – vertical heterogeneity M L M M

Ponderosa pine horizontal heterogeneity M L L L

Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH

Snags L L L L

Downed wood L L L L

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 81
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Status 

F Rank

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative

A B C D

Golden eagle O F2 Sagebrush shrubland M M M M

Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands MH M M M

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin grassland MH M M M

Semidesert grassland MH MH MH MH

Western 

burrowing owl

S FN Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands M L L L

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin grassland M L L L

Semidesert grassland M M M M

Evening 

grosbeak

O F3 Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH

Aspen – general M M M M

Aspen – mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

O F3 Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Ponderosa pine – vertical heterogeneity M L M M

Ponderosa pine – horizontal heterogeneity M L L L

Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH

Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Dusky (blue) 

grouse

O F3 Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Snags M M M M

Downed wood M M M M

American 

peregrine 

falcon

S F2 Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons M M M M

California 

condor F F Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons M M M M

Bald eagle S F2 Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass MH M H H

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak MH M H H

Snags M M M M

Constructed waters M M M M

Lewis’ 

woodpecker

O F3 Ponderosa pine – grassland M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Ponderosa pine – vertical heterogeneity M L M M

Snags L L L L

MacGillivray’s 

warbler

O F2 Aspen – general MH MH MH MH

Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir MH MH MH MH

Natural waters MH MH MH MH

Purple martin 

(western spp.)

O F3 Pinyon-juniper grasslands L L L L

Pinyon-juniper shrublands L L L L

Snags L L L L

Goldencrowned 

kinglet

O F3 Aspen – mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Springs and streams M M M M

Red-naped 

sapsucker

O F3 Aspen ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer MH M M M

Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Snags L L L L

82 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Status 

F Rank

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative

A B C D

Mexican 

spotted owl

F F2 Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak MH M MH MH

Ponderosa pine – vertical heterogeneity MH M MH MH

Ponderosa pine horizontal heterogeneity MH M M M

Frequent fire mixed conifer H MH H H

Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir H MH MH MH

Snags M M M M

Downed wood M M M M

Orangecrowned

warbler

O F3 Aspen (general) M M M M

Aspen ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer MH M M M

Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Natural waters M M M M

Gray vireo O F3 Pinyon-juniper grasslands L L L L

Pinyon-juniper shrublands L L L L

Spikedace F FO Pinyon-juniper communities (general) L L L L

Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Grasslands (general) M M M M

Apache

(Arizona) trout F F1 Natural waters H H H H

Loach minnow F FO Pinyon-juniper communities (general) L L L L

Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Western skink O F3 Pinyon-juniper grasslands L L L L

Pinyon-juniper shrublands L L L L

Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons L L L L

Downed wood L L L L

Arizona 

(mountain) 

treefrog

O F3 Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Ponderosa pine – vertical heterogeneity M L M M

Wetland/cienega MH MH MH MH

Natural waters M M M M

Constructed waters L L L L

Milksnake O F3 Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grassland M L L L

Semidesert grasslands M M M M

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons L L L L

Northern 

leopard 

frog

S F? Wetlands/cienega VH VH VH VH

Natural waters H H H H

Constructed waters MH MH MH MH

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 83
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Status 

F Rank

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative

A B C D

Great Basin 

spadefoot

O F3 Pinyon-juniper Communities L L L L

Sagebrush shrublands L L L L

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grassland M L L L

Semidesert grasslands M M M M

Wetlands/cienega MH MH MH MH

Natural waters M M M M

Constructed waters L L L L

Kaibab fairy 

shrimp

S F3 Wetland/cienega MH MH MH MH

Natural waters M M M M

Desert green 

hairstreak

O F3 Pinyon-juniper Communities L L L L

Pinyon-juniper grasslands MH MH MH MH

Sagebrush shrublands MH MH MH MH

Kaibab 

variable tiger 

beetle

O F? Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands H MH MH MH

Hoary 

skimmer

O F? Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands H MH MH MH

Natural Waters H H H H

Nokomis 

fritillary

O F? Ponderosa pine - bunchgrass H MH H H

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak H MH H H

Frequent fire mixed conifer VH H VH VH

Mesic mixed conifer/spruce fir VH H H H

Wetland/cienega VH VH VH VH

Pale 

Townsend’s 

big-eared bat

S F3 Cave and mines L L L L

Gunnison’s 

prairie dog

O F3 Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grassland M L L L

Semidesert grassland M M M M

House Rock 

Valley chiseltoothed 

kangaroo rat

S F2 Semidesert grasslands

MH MH MH MH

Spotted bat S F3 Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grassland M L L L

Semidesert grassland M M M M

Sagebrush shrublands L L L L

Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands M L L L

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons L L L L

Allen’s lappetbrowed batS F3 Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH

Snags L L L L

Cave and mines L L L L

84 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common 

Name

Status 

F Rank

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative

A B C D

Long-tailed 

vole

S F3 Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands M L L L

Wetland/cienega MH MH MH MH

Natural waters M M M M

Western red 

bat

S FO Riparian forest MH MH MH MH

Navajo 

Mogollon vole

S F3 Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands M L L L

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grassland M L L L

Downed wood L L L L

Kaibab least 

chipmunk

S F3 Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir MH M M M

Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons L L L L

Desert bighorn 

sheep

S F3 Desert communities MH MH MH MH

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons L L L L

Merriam’s 

shrew

S F3 Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass M L M M

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak M L M M

Ponderosa pine horizontal heterogeneity M L L L

Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH

Dwarf shrew S F3 Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands M L L L

Rocky outcrops, cliffs, and canyons L L L L

Kaibab 

northern 

pocket gopher

S F3 Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir MH M M M

Aspen mesic mixed conifer and spruce-fir M M M M

Montane/subalpine meadows/grasslands M L L L

In table 14, 26 species were found to have at least one element ranked as either very high, high, or 

moderate high viability risk. Table 15 summarizes those species and their associated habitat 

elements that received a very high, high, or moderately high rating in table 14. Factors that 

contributed toward these ratings are also summarized in table 15. For species that were ranked as 

moderate to low risk viability risk in all the alternatives, the proposed alternatives would provide 

for long-term viability of the species. 

The following is the key to the variables used in table 15.

Status:

F (Federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered)

S (Regional forester’s sensitive species list)

O (Locally rare and other)

Factors that contributed to the very high, high, and moderate high rating (“high rating”):

1 – Species are very rare species (F?, F1, F2) 

2 – Abundance of habitat is limiting factor (rare to occasional abundance)

3 – Habitat distribution is limiting (poor to fair distribution)

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 85
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 15. Summary of risk to species viability for wildlife species/habitat elements with a

very high, high, or moderate high rating in any alternative

Common Name

Status

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative Factors for 

“High Rating” A B C D

Northern goshawk S Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH 3

Golden eagle O Montane/subalpine meadows MH M M M 3

Colorado Plateau/Great Basin 

grassland

MH M M M 3

Semidesert grassland MH MH MH MH 1,3

Evening grosbeak O Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH 3

Olive-sided 

flycatcher

O Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH 3

Bald eagle S Ponderosa pine-bunchgrass MH M MH MH 1

Ponderosa pine-Gambel oak MH M MH MH 1

MacGillivray’s 

warbler

O Aspen – general MH MH MH MH 1,2,3

Aspen – mesic mixed conifer 

and spruce-fir

MH MH MH MH 1,2

Natural waters MH MH MH MH 1,2,3

Red-naped 

sapsucker

O Aspen – ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer

MH M M M 1,3

Mexican spotted 

owl

F Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak MH M MH MH 1,3

Ponderosa pine – vertical 

heterogeneity

MH M MH MH 1,3

Ponderosa pine – horizontal 

heterogeneity

MH M M M 1,3

Frequent fire mixed conifer H MH H H 1,2,3

Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir H MH MH MH 1,2,3

Orange-crowned 

warbler

O Aspen – ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer

MH M M M 1,3

Apache (Arizona) 

trout

F Natural waters H H H H 1,2,3

Arizona 

(mountain) 

treefrog

O Wetland/cienega MH MH MH MH 2,3

Northern leopard 

frog

S Wetlands/cienega VH VH VH VH 1,2,3

Natural waters H H H H 1,2,3

Constructed waters MH MH MH MH 1,2,3

Great basin 

spadefoot

O Wetlands/cienega MH MH MH MH 2,3

Kaibab fairy 

shrimp

S Wetlands/cienega MH MH MH MH 2,3

Desert green 

hairstreak

O Pinyon-juniper communities MH MH MH MH 1

Pinyon-juniper grasslands MH MH MH MH 1

Sagebrush shrublands MH MH MH MH 1

Kaibab variable 

tiger beetle

O Montane/subalpine meadows H MH MH MH 1

86 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Common Name

Status

Habitat Element

Viability Risk by Alternative Factors for 

“High Rating” A B C D

Hoary skimmer O Montane/subalpine meadows H MH MH MH 1,2

Natural Waters H H H H 1,2,3

Nokomis fritillary O Ponderosa pine – bunchgrass H MH H H 1

Ponderosa pine – Gambel oak H MH H H 1

Frequent fire mixed conifer VH H VH VH 1,2,3

Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir VH H H H 1,2,3

Wetland/cienega VH VH VH VH 1,2,3

House Rock 

Valley chiseltoothed kangaroo 

rat

S Semidesert grasslands MH MH MH MH 1,2,3

Allen’s lappetbrowed batS Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH 2,3

Long-tailed vole S Wetland/cienega MH MH MH MH 2,3

Western red bat S Riparian forest MH MH MH MH 2,3

Kaibab least 

chipmunk

S Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir MH M M M 2,3

Desert bighorn 

sheep

S Desert communities H H H H 2,3

Merriam’s shrew S Frequent fire mixed conifer MH M MH MH 2,3

Kaibab northern 

pocket gopher

S Mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir MH M M M 2,3

In table 15, two federally listed species, 11 Forest Service sensitive species, and 12 other species 

were found to have at least one element ranked as a “high rating” risk category. The species status 

highlights the relative role of other provisions included in law and policy that result in additional 

consideration of at-risk species during planning.

Environmental Consequences for 

Wildlife Viability Common to All Alternatives 

Probable management activities that could potentially affect wildlife communities can be grouped 

into three broad categories: (1) changes in the type, quantity, quality, and spatial arrangement of 

suitable habitat; (2) direct mortality, reduced survival, or increased susceptibility to mortality; 

and, (3) increased disturbance.

For some habitat elements, there is very limited potential to affect current abundance or 

distribution. All four alternatives would maintain the current habitat abundance and distribution 

of all pinyon-juniper associated habitat elements; aspen with mesic mixed conifer and spruce/fir; 

sagebrush shrubland; semidesert grassland; desert communities; Gambel oak shrubland; rocky 

outcrops, cliffs, and canyons; riparian forest; snags; and downed wood because the conditions and 

trends in these habitat types did not raise significant concerns and did not emerge as a priority 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 87
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

need for change. Therefore, no objectives were developed for them. The forest has, however, 

identified desired conditions for these areas and would implement management to make progress 

toward desired conditions as capacity allows. For the species in table 15 (golden eagle, 

MacGillivray’s warbler, desert green hairstreak, House Rock Valley chisel-tooth kangaroo rat, 

western red bat, and desert bighorn sheep) associated with these habitat elements, the current 

abundance and distribution would continue to provide for viable populations over time. 

Five habitat elements emerged as having a high likelihood of being a limiting factor for all 

alternatives. These include desert communities, Gambel oak shrublands, wetland/cienega, 

riparian forest, and cottonwood-willow riparian forest. All of these habitat elements naturally 

occur on less than 1 percent of the landscape across the forest. It is not the forest’s intent to make 

these naturally rare habitat features more common than they were historically. 

Some species face an additional threat simply by virtue of their relatively limited range wide 

distribution. These species can be affected by localized and/or stochastic events and would likely 

have a high viability risk, regardless of management. A species is considered to have a restricted 

distribution if it occurs to a limited extent in the Southwest; a species is considered to be a narrow 

endemic if it has extremely limited distribution and/or habitat in northern Arizona. Table 16

shows the species that have either a restricted distribution or are considered a narrow endemic as 

determined in the Species Diversity Report, v. 1.2.5 (KNF 2008d). The Kaibab fairly shrimp was 

added after the Species Diversity Report was written and after the DEIS was published.

Table 16. Forest planning species classified as having restricted distributions or narrow 

endemic species

Species Restricted Distributions Narrow Endemic

California condor X

Apache trout X

Arizona black rattlesnake X

Utah Mountain kingsnake X

Persephone’s darner X

Kaibab fairy shrimp X

Kaibab variable tiger beetle X

Kaibab Indra swallowtail X

House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat X

Kaibab least chipmunk X

Kaibab tree squirrel X

Kaibab northern pocket gopher X

For most of these species listed in table 16, their habitat elements may be common on the forest, 

but the species are naturally limited in abundance or distribution. For these species, it is not the 

intent of the forest to increase their populations outside of areas they would naturally occur. 

Species that meet these criteria include the species listed in table 16 (except Apache trout) and the 

desert green hairstreak, hoary skimmer, Nokomis fritillary, four-spotted skippering and dwarf 

shrew. 

88 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For all the action alternatives, desired conditions and guidelines for managing rare and narrow 

endemic species were developed to help reduce the risk of removing habitat or refugia for these 

species. 

• Rare and Narrow Endemics Desired Conditions: Habitat and refugia are present for 

narrow endemics or species with restricted distributions and/or declining populations. 

Location and conditions of rare and narrow endemic species are known.

• Guideline: Project design should incorporate measures to protect and provide for rare 

and narrow endemic species where they are likely to occur.

In collaboration with researchers at the Museum of Northern Arizona and Northern Arizona 

University, the forest is currently developing a guidebook, which consolidates information

regarding rare and narrow endemic species along with the desert green hairstreak, hoary skimmer, 

and Nokomis fritillary. The intent of the guidebook is to help project specialists incorporate 

appropriate guidelines and design features that will better protect habitat for these species during 

project implementation. Protective measures incorporated into project design should help provide 

for continued viability of these species. While alternative A would not have the guideline for rare 

and endemic species, the forest would still use the guidebook to help maintain these species. The 

dwarf shrew and four-spotted skippering were not shown to have a high rating for viability risk 

under any alternative. 

For several species, such as the Apache trout (which is found in less than 2 miles of natural 

waters on the forest), a limited amount of the habitat is available and the species has a low 

occurrence on the forest. As a result, these kinds of species would always have a high viability 

risk. Other species with both limited habitat abundance and low species occurrence include 

MacGillivray’s warbler, Great Basin spadefoot, Arizona treefrog, long-tailed vole, northern 

leopard frog, House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat, western red bat, and desert bighorn 

sheep. The habitat elements for most of these species, along with the Kaibab fairy shrimp, with a 

high rating are wetlands/cienegas or natural waters. The threat to most of these species is the loss 

of habitat due to change in sediment flows or waterflows, or the introduction of nonnative species 

or disease. The following forest plan desired conditions were developed to reduce these risks:

• Wetland/Cienega Desired Condition: Wetlands conditions are consistent with their 

flood regime and flood potential. Native plant and animal species that require wetland 

habitats have healthy populations within the natural constraints of the particular wetland 

community. Wetlands infiltrate water, recycle nutrients, resist erosion, and function 

properly. 

• Natural Waters Desired Condition: Stream channel stability and aquatic habitats retain 

their inherent resilience to disturbances and climate fluctuations. Stream channel 

morphology reflects changes in the hydrological balance, runoff, and sediment supply 

appropriate to the landscape setting. Springs and ponds have the necessary soil, water, 

and vegetation attributes to be healthy and functioning. Water levels, flow patterns, 

groundwater recharge rates, and geochemistry are similar to historic conditions. Within 

its capability, streamflow and water quality is adequate to maintain aquatic habitat and 

water sources for native and selected nonnative wildlife. The necessary physical and 

biological components, including cover, forage, water, microclimate, and 

nesting/breeding habitat, provide habitat for a diverse community of plant and wildlife 

species. Riparian dependent plant and animal species are self-sustaining and occur in 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 89
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

natural patterns of abundance and distribution. Within its capability, streamflow and 

water quality are adequate to maintain aquatic habitat and water sources for native and 

desired nonnative species. Native macroinvertebrates are appropriately abundant and 

diverse. Unwanted nonnative species do not exert a detectable impact on aquatic and 

wetland ecosystems. Native amphibians are free from or minimally impacted by 

nonnative predation and diseases. Springs, streams, and ponds have appropriate plant 

cover to protect banks and shorelines from excessive erosion. Hydrophytes and emergent 

vegetation exist in patterns of natural abundance in wetlands and springs in levels that 

reflect climatic conditions. Overhanging vegetation and floating plants such as water 

lilies exist where they naturally occur. Where springs or other natural waters have been 

modified for livestock and/or human consumption, developments are operational.

• Constructed Waters Desired Condition: Drinkers have escape ramps that provide safe 

access and egress for wildlife. Constructed waters do not contribute to the spread of 

chytrid fungus or unwanted nonnative species. Reservoirs maintain high water quality for 

parameters such as temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen, and water levels are within 

the seasonal range of variable conditions. Desirable nonnative fish species provide 

recreational fishing opportunities in reservoirs and constructed lakes consistent with the 

needs of native species.

• Wilderness and Recommended Wilderness Desired Condition: A reproducing 

population of Apache trout is maintained in North Canyon Creek.

In the case of the desert bighorn sheep, desert communities, or the House Rock Valley chiseltooth kangaroo rat, semidesert grasslands, the forest is not proposing management objectives for 

these habitat types in any of the alternatives that would affect these species. The desired condition 

for these PNVTs would help maintain viability for both sensitive species.

• Desert Communities Desired Condition: Desert communities are characterized by 

extensive grasses with a shrub cover less than 30 percent. Vegetation canopy cover ranges 

from 5 to 40 percent. Shrubs contribute to the native plant diversity and structure. Density 

of juniper and other shrubby species is maintained at levels that promote natural fire 

regimes and long fire return intervals. Fire occurrence is low and infrequent. Rocky 

outcroppings and shrubby plant species provide abundant browse and foraging 

opportunities for mule deer and bighorn sheep. Native ungulates are free from disease. 

Livestock are absent, except for recreation and administrative packing and riding 

animals.

• Semidesert Grasslands Desired Condition: Vegetation height and canopy cover are 

sufficient to carry fire under low wind conditions to support fire on a 10- to 30-year 

return interval.

Finally, proposed management activities would have very limited effects for some species. The 

desert bighorn sheep is limited to certain areas on the North Kaibab Ranger District. The biggest 

threats to this species are predators and disease that are typically associated with domestic goats 

and sheep. There are no domestic sheep or goat allotments on the North Kaibab or Tusayan 

Ranger Districts; therefore, there is no risk to bighorn sheep from current range management on 

the forest. Western red bat is associated with riparian habitat and is only believed to be found in 

the Mogollon Rim area on the Williams Ranger District. The habitat for this species is contained 

within the wilderness boundaries and is unlikely to be affected by management. For these two 

90 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

species, the forest management would not affect their viability in the long term and none of the 

alternatives would lead toward Federal listing of these species. 

Neither the loach minnow nor spikedace (both federally listed as endangered) occur on the 

Kaibab NF. However, the critical habitat is within an area that could be affected. There are no 

direct effects to these species; only indirect effects since all effects would be off-forest. The 

biggest threat to either fish or their critical habitat is a large uncharacterized wildfire in the 

portions of the Kaibab NF that is within the Verde River Drainage. See appendix H for desired 

conditions that would reduce the potential for these kinds of events. Generally, the overall intent 

of the desired conditions is to protect resources while maintaining multiple-use activities. Indirect 

effects from management actions such as vegetation management and fuel reductions would 

likely not be measureable or distinguishable from other off-forest activities due to the fact that 

downstream habitat is 12 miles away from the forest boundary. None of the alternatives would 

adversely affect the species or their critical habitat.

Risk to species viability is also reduced by provisions in existing law and policy. For all 

alternatives, the forest would continue to follow the intent of all recovery plans for federally listed 

species even if actions within those plans do not match the forest’s desired conditions for the 

particular resource area. These include specific consideration of effects to federally listed species 

(proposed, threatened, and endangered species) and regional forester’s sensitive species, in 

biological assessments and evaluations conducted as part of all national forest management 

decisions. These assessments and evaluations identify where additional protective measures are 

warranted to provide for continued existence of the species on NFS land. Projects that may affect 

federally listed or proposed species must be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

during the planning stage to mitigate potential impacts to listed species under Section 7(a)(2) of 

the ESA. In addition, section 7(a)(1) of the ESA directs federal agencies to use their authorities to 

carry out programs for conserving threatened and endangered species. The forest currently fulfills 

this duty in the ways described below. The forest will continue these activities. Furthermore, 

desired conditions and some guidelines will provide additional conservation measures (see the 

biological assessment for listed species and appendix H for these additional conservation 

measures).

California Condor

The Kaibab NF is an active member of the Southwest Condor Workgroup and a cooperating 

partner on an MOU which includes representatives from other agencies and organizations. The 

North Kaibab wildlife biologist is the designated forest representative and participates regularly 

on conference calls and annual meetings. The purpose of the MOU is to establish a general 

framework for cooperation and participation among all cooperators to promote the recovery of 

the California condor. The MOU applies to the Southwest California condor reintroduction 

program and designated nonessential experimental population with three primary objectives: 

1. Support a long-term program to reestablish a viable self-sustaining population of 

California condors in the southwestern United States through the release of captivereared individuals and management of the wild population. 

2. Achieve recovery goals for this species as cited in the California Condor Recovery Plan 

(USFWS 1996), following the current management recommendations established by the 

California Condor Recovery Team as authorized by the USFWS, and implement 

recommendations of the California Condor 5-year review (USFWS 2012b). 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 91
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3. Address emerging issues through the Southwest Condor Working Group’s representatives 

of the primary cooperators. 

Public outreach and education is conducted in a variety of ways. The Kaibab NF maintains a Web 

link to The Peregrine Fund’s California Condor Restoration Web site. This comprehensive Web 

site explains the goals of the restoration program, threats (e.g., health impacts posed by the use of 

lead ammunition and recommendations to reduce such impacts), and reintroduction and research 

efforts to date. It maintains a library of reports, presentations, and peer-reviewed literature 

relative to condors, as well as a contact list for key personnel and cooperating partners, which 

includes the Kaibab NF. Other outreach efforts include postings, signs, and information cards 

distributed by Forest Service personnel explaining the harmful effects of lead ammunition to the 

public. In August 2012, the forest entered into an agreement with the Arizona Game and Fish 

Department and provided $20,000 to help support the State’s voluntary lead reduction program. 

This effort helps provide educational and outreach materials on the positive impacts of lead 

reduction on the condor.

Through the special use permitting process, outfitter guides on the North Kaibab Ranger District 

are urged to use non-lead ammunition for the hunts they provide to help reduce the risk to 

condors. These provisions include: within Game Management Units 12A and 12B, the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department offers non-lead rifle ammunition to big game hunters. It is 

recommended that hunters in these units consider using 100 percent copper bullets to reduce lead 

exposure to California condors. If the hunters choose to use lead ammunition, they are strongly 

encouraged to remove all shot animals and gut piles from the field, and when this isn’t possible, 

to hide them with rocks and brush, or remove all blood-shot flesh.

The forest has worked with the USFWS to develop measures to minimize risk of harmful 

interactions with condors that could occur near project-related activities. These mitigation

measures include: 

• Project worksites will be cleaned up at the end of each day to avoid trash accumulation 

that may attract condors.

• If a condor shows up near project-related activities, a Forest Service wildlife biologist 

will be contacted immediately and any project-related activity likely to harm the condor 

will halt temporarily until the condor flies away or is driven away by permitted 

personnel.

• Project workers will be instructed to avoid any interaction with condors.

• The wildlife biologist will be notified if any project-related vehicle fluid leak or spill 

occurs that could result in condor poisoning.

The forest incorporated significant alterations to the Navajo Transmission Line EIS for the 

portion of the line crossing the Tusayan Ranger District. The EIS calls for high-visibility wire to 

minimize avian collisions and a monitoring/adaptive management approach to retrofit the line if 

collisions exceed stated limits for a variety of birds, including California condors.

Finally, the forest provides field, logistical, and funding support to The Peregrine Fund as needed 

during reintroduction and recovery actions. This includes providing equipment such as 

snowmobiles and personnel to help distribute winter feed for condors, as well as maintain 

numerous roads, which provide the necessary access for condor monitoring. In 2009, the forest

92 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

entered into a challenge-cost share agreement with The Peregrine Fund and provided critical and 

timely funding support for the North Kaibab Ranger District release efforts that year. The purpose 

of that agreement was to study the movement and locations of condors on the Kaibab NF and 

adjacent lands. Objectives were focused on increasing production, refining release techniques, 

and monitoring released birds, while minimizing mortality factors to establish a self-sustaining 

population. Additional goals included continuing education and public awareness regarding the 

deleterious effects of lead on condors, the environment, and human health implications. The 

results of that work were written up in a final report that provides valuable insight on movement 

and foraging behavior across the Kaibab Plateau and adjacent areas. The forest is currently 

working with Arizona Game and Fish Department along with The Peregrine Fund to provide 

support and funding for the further transmitter monitoring of the condors. The forest is providing 

$20,000 in 2013 toward this effort.

Mexican Spotted Owl 

• The forest works with the USFWS to establish protected activity centers for Mexican 

spotted owls using criteria set forth in the recovery plan.

• The forest conducts fuels reduction projects which may benefit the Mexican spotted owl

in the future. These projects focus on reducing the potential for stand-replacing, 

uncharacteristic wildfires that are a threat to the species while still maintaining or 

enhancing structural habitat features (e.g., large trees, snags, and downed woody 

materials). The forest is an active partner in the Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI).

• The forest monitors protected activity centers and provides the USFWS with monitoring 

and project survey results annually.

• A new population and habitat monitoring approach was developed within the recently 

published Revised Recovery Plan (USFWS 2012a). The Forest Service has agreed to 

meet with the USFWS to discuss its future participation in the Recovery Plan Monitoring 

Plan, to be done in conjunction with the USFWS and other land management agencies.

Initial discussions have taken place. 

Apache Trout 

• The forest partners with personnel from Arizona Game and Fish Department in 

monitoring Apache trout and their habitat in North Canyon Creek.

• In 2010, the Kaibab NF worked with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to improve 

in-stream structures within the Apache trout habitat. The check dams were old and 

failing, resulting in the loss of important pool habitat for the Apache trout population 

established in this stream. The new structures are providing the habitat structure required 

for the trout. 

• Trail maintenance near the trout habitat has reduced sedimentation into the creek. The 

trails are checked annually to make sure they are in good conditions. 

• The forest assesses all wildfires that start in the proximity of the North Canyon 

Watershed regarding potential impacts to the stream and the Apache trout.

In summary, the federally listed and sensitive species that were shown to have low or moderate 

viability risk due to habitat elements for all alternatives are the western burrowing owl, American 

peregrine falcon, California condor, spikedace, loach minnow, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 93
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

spotted bat, Navajo Mogollon vole, and dwarf shrew. For these species, the proposed alternatives 

would provide for long-term viability of the species.

Environmental Consequences for Wildlife Species 

Viability: Alternative A – Current Plan, Current 

Management (No Action)

Alternative A has the greatest number of species and associated habitat elements (43 total) with 

very high (4), high (10), or moderate high (29) viability risk (table 15). This alternative also has 

the greatest number of habitat elements that would be further departed from reference conditions 

(12 with fair rating and 8 with poor rating). Many of the risks associated with those species 

abundance and distribution under current management correspond with the vegetation types 

identified under “the priority needs for change” that have served to focus the forest plan revision 

effort (KNF 2009).

The current plan, as amended (KNF 1988), does not allow the use of managed wildfire in most of 

the mixed conifer types (frequent fire and mesic) to maintain or improve stand structure, 

stimulate aspen regeneration, maintain fuel loads, or to achieve other resource benefits. With the 

continued lack of fire disturbance, the risk of losing most or all of these vegetation types to standreplacing wildfire, and the resulting uncharacteristic open state, increases with each passing year 

(Vegetation and Fire Specialist Report; KNF 2013a). In addition, the decline or loss of aspen as a 

component of the mixed conifer types on the North Kaibab Ranger District is due primarily to 

lack of fire disturbance. The potential loss of habitat components due to large, high-severity 

wildfires could have a negative effect on the Mexican spotted owl, red-faced warbler, evening 

grosbeak, olive-sided flycatcher, dusky grouse, MacGillivray’s warbler, golden-crowned kinglet, 

red-naped sapsucker, orange-crowned warbler, Nokomis fritillary, Nokomis fritillary ssp. 

nokomis, southwestern myotis, Kaibab least chipmunk, red squirrel, and Kaibab northern pocket 

gopher. 

Most of the standards and guidelines that have the potential to benefit wildlife in the current plan 

are also found in the action alternatives in the form of desired conditions, guidelines, or 

management approaches. In many places, the current plan reiterates existing law, regulation, or 

policy, but these are incorporated by reference in the action alternatives and are considered at the 

project level. 

The current forest plan lacks a description of desired conditions for many of the habitat elements. 

This lack of description makes it harder to ensure projects are implemented in a consistent 

manner and that projects are moving toward a common set of desired conditions. Alternative A 

does not contain guidelines that would retain wildlife habitat components such as mistletoe 

brooms and partial snags; promote interconnected habitats for wide ranging species; and provide 

guidance for rare and narrow endemic species. It also does not include prevention measures for 

the spread of certain wildlife diseases (e.g., white nose syndrome, chytrid fungus) or guidance 

that influences animal movement, such as wildlife friendly fence improvements (e.g., pronghorn), 

or bat gates.

The current plan has very prescriptive (restrictive) standards and guidelines that make it difficult 

to apply adaptive management based on our understanding about management effects on 

ecosystems and wildlife. Adaptive management will be essential to effectively manage for 

climate change and invasive species in changing and uncertain conditions. As a result the action 

94 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

alternatives include a monitoring plan designed to better inform the effects and effectiveness of 

management and progress towards desired conditions.” 

The Wildlife Society with the Inkley et al. report (2004) recommended several actions to help 

wildlife adapt to changing climate and its potential effects on wildlife. Most of these 

recommendations are not easily implemented under the current plan. These include: (1) managing 

for diverse conditions; (2) reducing nonclimate stressors on ecosystems; (3) reducing the risk of 

uncharacteristic high-intensity fires; (4) conducting medium- and long-range planning; 

(5) ensuring ecosystem processes; and (6) employing monitoring and adaptive management. 

Another recommendation is the control of invasive plant species. Impacts to invasive species 

prevention and control would initially remain similar to alternative B forest-wide, with potential 

increases over time to invasive species populations correlating with increased stand-replacing 

fires (see Nonnative Invasive Plant section). Climate change has the potential to affect all wildlife 

species, and influences the likelihood of large-scale disturbance (e.g., fire, bark beetle outbreaks) 

across the landscape. The current forest plan (alternative A) does not recognize climate change, 

and offers limited guidance associated with management activities (e.g., salvage logging) related 

to such disturbance events. The forest would continue to follow existing law, regulation, policy 

and best management practices to address species viability concerns in areas affected by largescale disturbance.

In addition to federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species, the evening grosbeak, 

olive-side flycatcher, golden eagle, red-naped sapsucker, and orange-crowned warbler all had a 

moderate high viability rating for the current plan (table 15). All of these wildlife species are 

found in multiple habitat elements with most of the habitat elements having a low to moderate 

viability rating. The evening grosbeak and olive-sided flycatcher both have the high rating in 

frequent fire mixed conifer habitat element. The golden eagle high rating was for both 

montane/subalpine meadows and Colorado Plateau/Great Basin grasslands. The red-naped 

sapsucker and orange-crowned warbler high rating was for aspen in ponderosa pine and frequent 

fire mixed conifer habitat elements. For all the species, except for the golden eagle, this rating is 

based on the limited amount of habitat improvement (progress toward desired conditions) 

expected under the current forest plan. For golden eagle, the rating is due to the rarity of the 

species and the limited amount of work occurring within grasslands and montane meadows. For 

these habitat elements, the forest currently has ongoing habitat improvement projects, such as 

removing pinyon-juniper in historic grasslands, restoring frequent fire mixed conifer stands, and 

fencing aspen clones to reestablish aspen stands on the Williams Ranger District. However, at the 

current rate of implementation, these projects maintain current amounts and are not likely to have 

a substantive increase in quality or quantity for the habitat elements. The viability of the species 

would be maintained through the habitat elements that are at a low or moderate viability rating, 

and the level of habitat treatment occurring within the habitat elements at a high viability rating.

Federally Listed Species and Sensitive Species 

The current forest plan would have impacts to threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and 

critical habitat for the Mexican spotted owl. All species require evaluation of projects to 

determine effects to the species and for listed species to determine if consultation with USFWS is 

appropriate. The current land management plan has numerous standards and guidelines that 

require the evaluation and protection of federally listed and regionally sensitive species. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 95
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The California condor is federally endangered. The condor population on the Kaibab NF is 

further classified as a §10(j) experimental nonessential population under ESA section 10. By 

definition, a nonessential experimental population is not essential to the continued existence of 

the species. While the 10(j) rule provides considerable discretion and management flexibility to 

address potential conflicts with existing human land uses and activities (e.g., hunting) in the 

reintroduction area, that discretion must not preclude recovery of the species. California condors 

have rarely been found on the Kaibab NF outside of the §10(j) area. If any condors are found 

outside of the §10(j) area, they are protected as a federally endangered species. Most of the 

standards and guidelines for protection of wildlife and forest management are beneficial for the 

condor. The primary threat to the Arizona population of condors is ingestion of lead ammunition. 

As noted in Chapter 1, the ability of the forest to affect the use of lead ammunition is outside the 

scope of this document; therefore, this is not a forest management activity used to determine 

viability risk from the implementation of the forest plan. (see Cumulative Environmental 

Consequence section for effect from lead shot). See the ESA section 7(a)(1) discussion above in 

the Effects Similar for All Alternatives for actions the forest has taken to help reduce the effects 

of lead ammunition to the condor. 

Of the 69 fatalities noted in the current Five Year Review on the condor reintroduction program 

(USFWS 2012b), a collision (mainly with power lines) is the only threat affected by forest 

management actions. There are standards and guidelines that limit development of utility 

corridors. Utility corridor easements would have some impacts on the condors. The current plan 

contains a guideline that allows recreation use to continue at current levels includes hunting and 

could be viewed as a negative impact. However, because the forest only provides access for 

hunting, and does not manage harvest of game animals, there is little influence from forest 

management. The condor has a moderate viability risk rating for the one habitat element shown 

for them. This is based on the limited impacts to this habitat element and the forest ranking for 

the condor. While some individual birds could be impacted by actions on the forest and 

cumulatively there is a negative effect to the Southwest population from lead shot, the alternative 

management activities would not adversely affect the viability of the species. It is estimated the 

amount of grasslands would not change under this alternative; however, it is predicted that the 

overall condition of grasslands would continue to decline. 

Mexican spotted owl (federally threatened) and its designated critical habitat is protected by the 

standards and guidelines that were included in the 1996 plan amendment (KNF 1988, as 

amended). The forest recognizes that projects and program activities implemented under the 

current plan may occur near or within Mexican spotted owl protected activity centers and within 

critical habitat. While the standards and guidelines provide protection for the owl and maintain 

their viability on the forest, activities may be permitted, authorized, or funded which may 

negatively affect individuals or affect designated critical habitat. There are moderate high

viability risk for ponderosa pine habitat elements and high viability risk to mixed conifer habitat 

elements for the Mexican spotted owl. These risks are based on the limited ability of the forest to 

make progress toward the desired conditions and the increased risk of losing these habitat 

elements to wildfires by having unnaturally high fuel loads in these stands. Based on VDDT

modeling, it is estimated that the amount of mixed conifer available for nesting and roosting 

would increase in 15 years by approximately 640 acres to 35,760 acres and ponderosa 

pine/Gambel oak stands would stay the same at approximately 13,294 acres for a total of 49,054

acres (see appendix B for all results by alternative).

96 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Saddle Mountain Wilderness, in North Canyon Creek, contains the only population of Apache 

trout (federally threatened) on the forest. Alternative A would retain the standard that the 

maximum size objective for any fire within a 2-mile radius of North Canyon Spring is 5 acres. 

The intent of the standard is to prevent a high-severity fire in Apache trout habitat, so it would 

positively affect the trout in that regard. Alternatively, the standard does not allow for lowintensity fire (which could benefit the trout by helping prevent a high-intensity fire), so this 

limitation could negatively affect the Apache trout because the greatest risk to the species is a 

high-severity wildfire in the canyon. The resulting sedimentation and potential loss of shaded 

canopy from such an event could cause a loss of the local population. The forest is currently 

limited (unable) to use mechanical fuel reduction methods in this area due to wilderness 

management regulations. Because of this limitation imposed on the fuels reduction program, the 

overstory canopy would continue to close and the forested areas around the creek could become 

unnaturally dense. As the forest density increases and moves toward a closed state, there would 

be an increased risk for high-intensity fires because canopy fuel volumes would increase as stands 

became increasingly dense. Further, an increase in tree density would also put the forest at greater 

risk for bark beetle attacks, which could increase the potential for high-severity wildfire due to 

the increased amount of susceptible fuels (drier vegetation and greater fuel loads). Increased 

frequency and extent of high-severity wildfires could greatly affect Apache trout habitat by 

removal of shade trees near the stream and increased sediment in the water. Depending on the 

severity of the fires, amount of habitat loss, and location of fire within the watershed, there would 

be a potential to affect the viability of this population.

Sensitive species that depend on ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat would be affected by 

the 1996 plan amendment. The standards and guidelines for the goshawk and Mexican spotted 

owl would provide for the goshawk, bald eagle, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, Kaibab least 

chipmunk, Kaibab tree squirrel, Merriam’s shrew, and Kaibab northern pocket gopher. Table 15

shows that alternative A has a low to moderate viability risk for these habitat elements for the 

Kaibab squirrel and a moderate high ranking for bald eagle in ponderosa pine. The VDDT model 

(summarized in table 17) shows the following changes for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer:

• Goshawk ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 10,942 acres for a total of 

196,949 acres.

• Bald eagle and Allen’s lappet-browed bat ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 

4,942 acres for a total of 415,781 acres.

• Kaibab least chipmunk and Kaibab northern pocket gopher mixed conifer with aspen

habitat is estimated to stay approximately the same.

• Kaibab tree squirrel overall ponderosa pine habitat would decrease by 1,685 acres for a 

total of 101,100 acres; optimum habitat would increase by 3,064 acres for a total of 

55,146 acres.

• Merriam’s shrew ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 82,062 acres for a total of 

213,361 acres.

The goshawk, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, and Merriam’s shrew show moderate to high viability 

rating only within the frequent fire mixed conifer habitat element (table 15). This habitat element 

is only one of several different habitat elements these species use. Based on VDDT modeling, the 

following shows the change in frequent fire habitat conditions in 15 years:

• Goshawk habitat would increase by 3,832 acres for a total of 39,593 acres.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 97
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Allen’s lapped-browed bat habitat would decrease by 4,010 acres for a total of 

80,463 acres.

• Merriam’s shrew habitat would increase by 3,584 acres for a total of 18,190 acres. 

The Kaibab least chipmunk and Kaibab northern pocket gopher show moderate high viability 

rating only within the mesic mixed conifer/spruce fir habitat element (table 15). This habitat 

element is only one of several different habitat elements these species use. Based on VDDT

modeling, the following shows the change in mesic mixed conifer/spruce fir habitat conditions in 

15 years:

• Kaibab least chipmunk and Kaibab northern pocket gopher habitat would show an 

increase of 694 acres for a total of 3,522 acres.

Based on the risk to viability rating and the amount of habitat provided for each of the above 

species, viability would be maintained for each of these species dependent on conifer habitat 

under the no action alternative. While individual animals could be impacted by the actions under 

this alternative, the alternative would not lead toward Federal listing of the above sensitive 

species.

Sensitive species that depend on riparian or wetland habitat and either constructed or natural 

waters have several standards and guidelines in the current plan that protect wetland habitat on 

the forest. These include invasive weed management, riparian habitat protection, and grazing 

requirements. These requirements would improve the viability of the bald eagle, Kaibab fairy 

shrimp, northern leopard frog, and long-tailed vole. The bald eagle had a low to moderate 

viability risk for all habitat elements. The desired condition discussed above in the Effects Similar 

for All Alternatives section for the water elements would mitigate impacts to Kaibab fairy shrimp, 

northern leopard frog and long-tailed vole. The amount of habitat is not likely to change from the 

current condition, but the quality of habitat would be expected to increase. As wetlands and 

springs are surveyed and monitored, the forest would be able to better assess which areas are no 

longer in proper functioning condition and improvements can be made. While individual species 

could be impacted from actions under the no action alternative, it would not lead toward Federal 

listing for any of these species.

The current plan has very few standards or guidelines that relate directly to features needed by 

sensitive species that depend on grasslands, meadows, shrublands, desert communities, caves and 

mines, rocky outcrops, or cliffs and canyons. These species and features are indirectly affected by 

standards and guidelines for recreational uses and mineral development. Their main protection is 

the requirements to protect sensitive species which are addressed outside the plan. The species 

that depend on these habitat elements are the western burrowing owl, peregrine falcon, pale 

Townsend’s big-eared bat, House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat, spotted bat, Allen’s 

lappet-browed bat, long-tailed vole, Navajo Mogollon vole, Kaibab least chipmunk, desert 

bighorn sheep, dwarf shrew, and Kaibab northern pocket gopher. Table 15 shows that alternative 

A (no action) has a low to moderate viability risk for these habitat elements for all of these 

species except House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat and desert bighorn sheep. These 

two species are discussed above in the Effects Similar for All Alternatives section. 

Shrublands, desert communities, caves and mines, and rock outcrops, cliffs and canyon habitat 

are not expected to change under the current forest plan. The forest has actively been removing 

pinyon-juniper in grasslands on the Williams Ranger District. On average, the forest is restoring 

98 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

approximately 2,000 acres a year. Over 15 years, this rate would restore approximately 

30,000 acres. While this would improve habitat conditions, it would not increase the amount of 

the PNVT. Active management activities could affect individual animals, but would not lead 

toward Federal listing or affect viability of the populations.

Other Federal Law Compliance 

There would be no programmatic take under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. There 

was one bald eagle nest site on the forest. In 2012, the bald eagles nested and fledged young on 

the Williams Ranger District. However, in 2013, one of the pair was found dead and no nesting 

occurred on the forest. The forest will monitor the site for nesting to see if the eagles will return 

in the future. If nesting occurs, then the Arizona Eagle Watch volunteers and the forest will 

monitor the nest site and work with the public at the recreation site about the need to avoid the 

nesting area. Most of the use on the forest is migrating bald eagles that use the forest during the 

winter with no known established winter roost sites. There are golden eagle nest sites on the 

forest, but there are no management activities within the plan that adversely affect these nest 

sites.

Alternative A was implemented before Executive Order 13186 – Responsibilities of Federal 

Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds was signed January 10, 2001, to promote the conservation of 

migratory birds. As a result, many of the topics that must be considered pursuant to this order 

were not incorporated into existing plan direction. However, during the planning stage of any 

project, under the current plan, project-led planning under NEPA requires a review of effects and 

development of mitigations to reduce impacts to migratory birds.

Wildlife Species Viability: Effects 

Common to All Action Alternatives

A fine filter approach was used to develop plan components to improve the viability of species 

populations on the forest. Appendix H is a crosswalk that shows how desired conditions, 

objectives, standards, and guidelines were developed to reduce threats and to meet species’ 

specific habitat needs. These fine filter measures were developed in addition to the broader coarse 

filter plan components that provide for the viability of all species. The high-risk species would be 

conserved through desired conditions, standards, and guidelines, as well as through forestwide 

objectives related to forest health and ecosystem restoration. For listed species, this also meets the 

requirements to develop conservation actions under ESA Section 7(a)(1). 

All of the action alternatives address some of the strategies identified by Inkely et al. (2004) for 

coping with the challenges of climate change through desired conditions, objectives, standards, 

guidelines, or management approaches. All action alternatives (1) recognize that climate change 

may affect wildlife; (2) do not rely on historical weather and species data; (3) control invasive 

species; (4) conduct medium- and long-range planning; and (5) employ monitoring and adaptive 

management. 

Related to climate change is the increasing potential for large-scale disturbance (e.g., widespread 

drought, uncharacteristic fire, bark beetle epidemics) events which have the potential to affect a 

number of ecosystems, in particular forest and woodland communities. The action alternatives 

recognize the increased potential for these events in the future through a post-disturbance 

response strategy that includes guidelines and objectives to ensure important wildlife habitat is 

specifically considered and retained during activities such as salvage logging operations. While 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 99
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

there is the potential for some negative effects on wildlife during salvage operations (e.g.,

incidental crushing, disturbance), those effects would be outweighed by the overall goal of longterm ecosystem recovery. Current knowledge regarding effects of salvage logging on wildlife and 

associated ecosystems continues to evolve. For all management activities, the forest intends to 

use the best available science. The forest would consult the scientific literature and or area experts 

to be sure current thinking is incorporated into project design and implementation. In addition, 

during salvage operations the forest would mitigate for wildlife threats through specific plan 

components as mentioned below and appropriate best management practices (BMPs). The 

guidelines and objectives for large-scale disturbance are in addition to existing law, regulation 

and policy, and relevant plan components (e.g., desired conditions for the respective vegetation 

types; guidelines for vegetation management in forested communities; and guidelines for 

threatened, endangered, and sensitive species etc.).

In addition to federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species, golden eagle, rednaped sapsucker, and orange-crowned warbler all had a moderate viability rating for all action 

alternatives (table 15) for some habitat elements. The golden eagle moderate rating was for both 

montane/subalpine meadows and Colorado Plateau/Great Basin Grasslands. The red-naped 

sapsucker and orange-crowned warbler rating was for aspen in ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer habitat element. 

Federally Listed Species and Sensitive Species 

The action alternatives would have the same impacts to the federally listed and sensitive species 

except for those species that depend upon ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer forest. 

The action alternatives specify the same desired conditions, objectives, and standards for all the 

other habitat elements. The guideline for presettlement tree retention, the differing amounts of 

land managed for timber production, and lands recommended for wilderness are the substantive 

differences between alternative B and alternatives C and D. For some areas, the guidance for 

alternatives C and D would have the same effect as alternative B. All other plan components are 

the same for the three action alternatives.

• Wildlife Desired Condition: Native wildlife are distributed throughout their potential 

natural range. Desirable nonnative wildlife are present and in balance with healthy, 

functioning ecosystems. Habitat is available at the appropriate spatial, temporal, 

compositional, and structural levels such that it provides adequate opportunity for 

breeding, feeding, nesting, and carrying out other critical life cycle needs for a variety of 

vertebrate and invertebrate species. Species with specific habitat needs (e.g., snags, logs, 

large trees, interlocking canopy, and cavities) are provided for. Grasses, forbs, and shrubs 

provide forage, cover, and fawning and nesting sites. Interconnected forest and grassland 

habitats allow for movement of wide ranging species and promote natural predator-prey 

relationships, particularly for strongly interactive species (e.g., mountain lions). Habitat 

configuration and availability allow wildlife populations to adjust their movements (e.g., 

seasonal migration, foraging, etc.) in response to climate change and promotes genetic 

flow between wildlife populations. Human-wildlife conflicts are minimal. Hunting, 

fishing and other wildlife-based recreation opportunities exist, but do not compromise 

species populations or habitat.

• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species Desired Condition: Threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive species have quality habitat, stable or increasing populations, 

and are at low risk for extirpation. Goshawk nest areas are multi-aged forests dominated 

100 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

by large trees with interlocking crowns and are generally denser than the surrounding 

forest.

• Guidelines for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species: Project activities and 

special uses occurring within federally listed species habitat should integrate habitat 

management objectives and species protection measures from approved recovery plans. 

Project activities and special uses should be designed and implemented to maintain 

refugia and critical life cycle needs of Forest Service sensitive species. Activities 

occurring near areas used by bald eagles should follow recommendations identified in the 

National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines and Arizona Conservation Assessment and 

Strategy for the Bald Eagle. A minimum of six goshawk nest areas (known and 

replacement) should be located per territory.

The following desired conditions and guidelines were developed to help mitigate the potential of 

habitat loss or disturbance to the federally listed and sensitive species from the implementation of 

management activities. These desired conditions and guidelines were developed to help ensure 

that habitat components for these species are incorporated into management activities on the 

forest. For example the livestock grazing guidelines help to ensure that grasses and forbs are 

available to provide habitat for grassland or understory species. These guidelines are in addition 

to livestock grazing manual and handbook policy and direction. Operating instructions for 

livestock grazing permittees are reviewed annually and an adaptive management strategy is used 

to adjust use with capacity and minimize any adverse effects. Beside the listed or sensitive 

species that are associated with these habitat types, it also provides habitat for prey species for 

some listed or sensitive species that forage on grassland or understory species. 

• Recreation and Scenery Desired Conditions: A wide spectrum of high-quality 

recreations settings exist. Use levels are compatible with other resource values. 

Opportunities for off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding and driving for pleasure are 

available on the designated system of NFS roads and motorized trails. 

• Guidelines for Recreation and Scenery: Any new motorized trailheads should be 

located in front-country areas, incorporate or convert existing roads, protect open space, 

and protect natural and cultural resources. Group uses should be concentrated in frontcountry areas. Resource impacts should be reduced in front and back-country areas by 

directing camping to existing dispersed and designated campsites. New campsites are 

designated only when necessary to further reduce resource damage.

• Livestock Grazing Desired Condition: Grasses and forbs provide adequate forage for 

permitted livestock. Livestock use is consistent with other desired conditions.

• Guidelines for Livestock Grazing: Livestock management should favor the 

development of native cool season grasses and forbs. Annual operating instructions for 

livestock grazing permittees should ensure livestock numbers are balanced with capacity 

and address any relevant resource concerns (e.g., forage production, weeds, fawning 

habitat, soils, etc.). Post-fire grazing should not be authorized until Forest Service range 

staff confirms range readiness. Livestock use in aspen areas should be authorized at 

levels that are consistent with the desired conditions for aspen regeneration and 

establishment. Livestock use in and around wetlands should be evaluated on an allotment 

specific basis. Mitigation measures such as deferment and fencing (full or partial) should 

be implemented as needed to minimize potential livestock effects.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 101
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Forestry and Forest Products Desired Condition: Wood products (e.g., wood pellets 

for home and industrial heating, wood molding, pallets, structural lumber, firewood, 

posts, poles, biomass for electricity) and other products (e.g., Christmas trees, boughs,

wildflowers, mushrooms, grasses, seeds, nuts, cones, etc.) are available to businesses and 

individuals in a manner that is consistent with other desired conditions on a sustainable 

basis within the capacity of the land.

• Guidelines for Forestry and Forest Products: Timber harvest activities should be 

carried out in a manner consistent with maintaining or making progress toward the 

desired conditions in this plan. Harvesting systems should be selected based on their 

ability to meet desired conditions and not on their ability to provide the greatest dollar 

return. On suitable timber lands, timber harvest activities should only occur when there is 

reasonable assurance of restocking within 5 years after final regeneration harvest. On 

suitable timber lands, even-aged stands should have reached or surpassed 95% of the 

culmination of mean annual increment prior to having a regeneration harvest, unless it is 

needed to reduce fire hazard within the wildland-urban interface, or would contribute 

toward achieving the desired uneven aged vegetation conditions over the long term. On 

lands classified as not suited for timber production, timber harvesting should only be used 

for making progress toward desired conditions or for salvage, sanitation, public health, or 

safety.

• Transportation and Forest Access Desired Conditions: Forest roads, bridges, and trails 

provide safe, legal, and reasonable access for recreation opportunities and resource 

management. Resource impacts from roads and trails are balanced with the benefits of 

having the road or trail available for use. All designated routes open to wheeled 

motorized vehicles are shown on a motor vehicle use map (MVUM) that is readily 

available to the public. The inventoried roadless areas are free from activities that would 

alter their roadless character.

• Standard for Transportation and Forest Access: Motor vehicle use off the designated 

system of roads, trails, and areas is prohibited, except as identified on the MVUMs and as 

authorized by law, permits, and orders in connection with resource management and 

public safety.

• Guidelines for Transportation and Forest Access: Motorized uses in semiprimitive 

nonmotorized areas should be restricted, except for necessary minimal administrative 

activities, permitted activities, and emergency access needs. Construction of permanent 

roads or temporary roads in semiprimitive nonmotorized areas should be avoided unless 

required by a valid permitted activity. If authorized, roads should be constructed and 

maintained at the lowest maintenance level needed for the intended use. Roads should be 

decommissioned when no longer needed.

• Standard for Recreation Special Uses: Competitive OHV and motorized events are not 

permitted on the forest.

• Guideline for Lands Special Uses: Uses should be combined to the extent possible in 

light of technical and environmental constraints.

• Guidelines for Communication and Electronic Sites: The number of communication 

and electronic sites should be the minimum that is consistent with appropriate public 

services that require the use of forest lands. Environmental disturbance should be 

minimized by co-locating communications and electronic sites.

102 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Energy Transmission and Development Desired Conditions: Energy transmission and 

development on the forest meets the legal mandates to facilitate the transmission and 

development of energy resources in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts and does 

not detract from meeting other desired conditions applicable to the area. Energy 

transmission lines are not visible (usually underground) across the landscape.

• Standard for Energy Transmission and Development: Major utility corridor

development is confined to the area identified and mapped in the West-wide Energy 

Corridor Programmatic EIS.

• Guidelines for Energy Transmission and Development: Environmental disturbance 

should be minimized by co-locating pipelines, power lines, fiber optic lines, and 

associated infrastructure. Existing energy corridors should be used to their capacity with 

compatible upgraded power lines, before evaluating new routes. When compatible with 

protection of heritage resources, the use of below-ground utilities should be optimized in 

order to avoid potential conflicts with wildlife, scenery, wildfire, and long-term 

vegetative management.

• Minerals and Mining Activities Desired Condition: Minerals and mining activities 

meet legal mandates to facilitate production of mineral on the forest in a manner that 

minimizes adverse impacts to surface and groundwater resources, and that do not detract 

from meeting other desired conditions applicable to the area.

• Guidelines for Minerals and Mining Activities: Surface use should be restricted or 

prohibited in areas with habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal 

species, and for heritage resources nominated or posted to the National Register. Use and 

occupancy should be restricted yearlong in areas supporting populations of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant species.

The threats to the California condor are the same as discussed in the alternative A section. Most of 

the standards and guidelines for protecting wildlife and for range management are beneficial for 

the condor. Utility corridor easements would have some impacts on the condor. There is a small 

threat to the condor from rock climbing or blasting if it was allowed to occur within nesting or 

roosting areas. While some individual birds could be impacted by management actions on the 

forest, the species would continue to be viable. Table 15 shows there is moderate viability risk to 

the California condor habitat element. The desired condition, guidelines, and standards that 

provide protection for the condor from utility development and other activities are as follows:

• Cliffs and Rocky Features Desired Condition: Cliff ledges provide cover and nesting 

habitat for wildlife such as American peregrine falcon, California condor, snakes, bats, 

birds, and small mammals. Rock climbing and related recreational activities do not 

disrupt the life processes of rare or threatened species or diminish the function of 

specialized vegetation, such as mosses, lichens, and fleabanes.

• Guidelines for Cliffs and Rocky Features: Activities involving heavy machinery or 

blasting should minimize impacts to habitat associated with rocky features and cliffs. 

Near known active raptor nest sites, temporary closures, and use restrictions should be 

implemented for rock climbing and other potentially disruptive activities.

• Recreation and Scenery desired conditions: Visitors have access to information that 

enriches their recreation experiences and contributes to an understanding of their role in 

public land stewardship. Leave No Trace, Tread Lightly, fire prevention, wildlife 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 103
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

awareness (e.g., lead reduction, Bear Aware, Animal Inn, etc.), and archaeological 

resource protection principles are promoted and practiced by the visiting public.

• Lands Special Uses Guideline: Uses should be combined to the extent possible in light 

of technical and environmental constraints.

• Communications and Electronic Sites Guideline: The number of electronic sites 

should be the minimum that is consistent with appropriate public services that require the 

use of forest lands. Environmental disturbance should be minimized by co-locating 

communications and electronic sites.

• Energy Transmission and Development Desired Conditions: Energy transmission and 

development on the forest meets the legal mandates to facilitate the transmission and 

development of energy resources in a manner that minimizes adverse impacts and does 

not detract from meeting other desired conditions applicable to the area. Energy 

transmission lines are not visible (usually underground) across the landscape.

• Standard: Major utility corridor development is confined to the area identified and 

mapped in the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS.

• Guidelines: Environmental disturbance should be minimized by colocating pipelines, 

power lines, fiber optic lines, and associated infrastructure. Existing energy corridors 

should be used to their capacity with compatible upgraded power lines before evaluating 

new routes. When compatible with protection of heritage resources, the use of belowground utilities should be optimized to avoid potential conflicts with wildlife, scenery, 

wildfire, and long-term vegetative management.

Two Mexican spotted owl habitat elements have the same viability risk for all three action 

alternatives. Ponderosa pine horizontal heterogeneity has a moderate viability risk rating and 

mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir has a moderate high viability risk rating. 

Besides the desired conditions discussed above in the Effects Similar to All Alternatives section, 

the Apache trout would no longer have the standard that the maximum size objective for any fire 

within a 2-mile radius of North Canyon Spring is 5 acres. This would benefit the trout by allowing 

for managed fires that could reduce the risk of large-scale wildfires within the watershed. None of 

the alternatives would increase the amount of habitat available for the trout. Because of the limited 

habit and the population being in only one small section of the stream, there would be a high 

viability risk for this species. The proposed forest management would continue to provide for the 

viability of this species. 

Sensitive species that depend on ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat elements would be 

affected by desired conditions and guidelines for ponderosa pine and mixed conifer. The desired 

conditions and guidelines for these PNVTs would provide for the goshawk, bald eagle, Allen’s 

lappet-browed bat, Kaibab least chipmunk, Kaibab squirrel, Merriam’s shrew, and Kaibab northern 

pocket gopher. Table 15 shows that all the action alternatives have a low to moderate viability risk 

for these habitat elements for the bald eagle, Kaibab least chipmunk, Kaibab squirrel, and Kaibab 

northern pocket gopher. While individual species could be negatively impacted by some 

management activities, the populations for these species on the forest would still be viable. Threats 

to the species include loss of the following habitat components; mature trees, snags, down logs, 

removal of mistletoe, and oak trees/mast. There are differences in the amount of acreage for these 

habitat elements due to the differences in the presettlement tree guidelines between alternative B 

and alternatives C and D, acreage for these habitat elements are shown in the next sections. 

104 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

However, all other desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines would be the same for 

all three action alternatives. 

The goshawk, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, and Merriam’s shrew show a high viability rating only 

within the frequent fire mixed conifer habitat element (table 15). This habitat element is only one 

of several different habitat elements these species use. For the rest of their habitat elements, there 

is low to moderate viability risk for all action alternatives. In addition, the following desired 

conditions, objectives, and guidelines would reduce the threat to species from habitat loss and 

would provide long-term viability for the species that depend on the following habitat elements 

(including Mexican spotted owl). For a full description of the vegetation desired condition, see 

appendix H. This section highlights some of the important wildlife components.

• Ponderosa Pine Desired Condition: Fine Scale: Crowns of trees within the mid-aged to 

old groups are interlocking or nearly interlocking and consist of approximately 2 to 40 

trees per group. Gambel oak mast (acorns) provides food for wildlife species. Where 

Gambel oak comprises more than 10 percent of the basal area, it is not uncommon for 

canopy cover to be greater than 40 percent. Isolated infestations of southwestern dwarf 

mistletoe may occur, but the degree of severity and amount of mortality varies among the 

infected trees. Witch’s brooms may form on infected trees, providing habitat and food for 

wildlife and invertebrate species. Mid-Scale: Forest conditions in some areas contain 10 

to 20 percent higher basal area in mid-aged to old tree groups than in the general forest 

(e.g., goshawk post-fledging family areas, nesting/roosting habitat, drainages, and steep 

north-facing slopes). Snags 18 inches diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) or greater average 

1 to 2 snags per acre. Snags and green snags of various sizes and forms are common. 

Downed logs (greater than 12 inches diameter at mid-point, and greater than 8 feet long) 

average 3 logs per acre. Coarse woody debris greater than 3 inches in diameter (including 

downed logs), ranges from 3 to 10 tons per acre. Landscape Scale: The ponderosa pine 

forest is composed predominantly of vigorous trees, but declining trees are present. 

Snags, green snags, and coarse woody debris occur across the landscape. Where it 

naturally occurs, Gambel oak is present with all age classes represented. It is reproducing 

and maintaining or expanding its presence within its natural range. Old growth occurs 

throughout the landscape, generally in small areas as individual old growth components, 

or as clumps of old growth. Old growth components include old trees, dead trees (snags), 

downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structural diversity. The location of old growth 

shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and disturbance (tree growth 

and mortality).

• Objectives for Ponderosa Pine: To make progress toward the desired conditions and 

reduce the potential for active crown fire in ponderosa pine communities at a rate that 

would maintain the desired conditions over time: (1) mechanically thin 11,000 to 19,000 

acres annually, and (2) treat an average of 13,000 to 55,000 acres annually using a 

combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited wildfires.

• Frequent Fire Mixed Conifer Desired Condition: Fine Scale: Dwarf mistletoe 

infections may be present on ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, and rarely on other tree 

species, but the degree of infection severity and rate of mortality vary among infected 

trees. Witch’s brooms may be present with these infestations, providing habitat for 

wildlife. Mid-scale: Forest conditions in some areas contain 10 to 20 percent higher basal 

area in mid-aged to old tree groups than in the general forest; these include goshawk 

post-fledging family areas, Mexican spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat, and northFEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 105
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

facing slopes. The mosaic of tree groups generally comprises an uneven-aged forest with 

all age classes and structural stages. Where they naturally occur, groups or patches of 

aspen and all structural stages of oak are present. Snags and green snags, 18 inches d.b.h. 

or greater average 3 per acre. Downed logs (greater than 12 inches diameter at mid-point 

and greater than 8 feet long) average 3 per acre within the forested area of mid-scale 

units. Coarse woody debris, including downed logs, ranges from 5 to 15 tons per acre. 

Landscape Scale: Old growth occurs throughout the landscape, generally in small areas 

as individual old growth components, or as clumps of old growth. Old growth 

components include old trees, dead trees (snags), downed wood (coarse woody debris),

and structural diversity. The location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a 

result of succession and disturbance (tree growth and mortality). The frequent fire mixed 

conifer forest community is composed predominantly of vigorous trees, but declining 

trees are present and snags, top killed, lightning- and fire-scarred trees, and coarse woody 

debris (greater than 3-inch diameter) are well-distributed throughout the landscape. 

Dwarf-mistletoe is present and infects ponderosa pine and Douglas-fir, but occurs at 

endemics levels, which allows for the establishment and sustainability of the desired 

uneven aged forest structure over time.

• Objectives for Frequent Fire Mixed Conifer: To reduce the potential for active crown 

fire and restore frequent fire mixed conifer communities, burn an average of 1,000 to 

13,000 acres annually, using prescribed fire and/or naturally ignited wildfires. 

Mechanically thin 1,200 to 2,100 acres annually.

• Mesic Mixed Conifer/Spruce-Fir Desired Conditions: Fine scale: Mid-aged and older 

trees are typically variably spaced with crowns interlocking (grouped and clumped trees) 

or nearly interlocking. Dwarf mistletoe infections may be present on Douglas-fir or 

spruce and rarely on other tree species, but the degree of infection severity and amount of 

mortality vary among infected trees. Witch’s brooms may be present with these 

infestations, providing habitat for wildlife. Mid-scale: Forest conditions in some areas 

contain higher basal area than the general forest; examples include goshawk postfledgling family areas, Mexican spotted owl nesting/roosting habitat, and north-facing 

slopes. The number of snags and downed logs (greater than 12-inch diameter at midpoint, greater than 8 feet long) and coarse woody debris (greater than 3-inch diameter)

vary by seral stage. Snags 18 inches or greater d.b.h. typically range from 1 to 5 snags per 

acre, with the lower range associated with early seral stages and the upper range 

associated with late seral stages. Coarse woody debris varies by seral stage, but ranges 

from 5 to 20 tons per acre for early seral, 20 to 40 tons per acre in mid seral, and 35 tons 

per acre in late seral areas. Landscape scale: The forest landscape is a functioning 

ecosystem that contains all components, processes, and conditions that result from 

endemic levels of disturbances (e.g., insects, diseases, wind, snow, and fire), including 

snags, downed logs, and old trees. Dwarf mistletoe infestations may be present in stands 

that are composed of Douglas-fir or spruce and rarely in other tree species. Witch’s 

brooms may be scattered throughout the infestations providing structural diversity in the 

stand and improved foraging and nesting habitat for wildlife species such as small 

mammals (e.g., tree squirrels), and raptors (e.g., goshawks, spotted owls).

• Guidelines for Vegetation Management in All Forested Communities: Projects in 

forested communities that change stand structure should generally retain at least historic 

frequencies of trees by species across broad age and diameter classes at the mid-scale. As 

such, the largest and oldest trees are usually retained. Project design and treatment 

106 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

prescriptions should generally not remove: (1) Mature trees with large mistletoe brooms 

suitable for wildlife nesting, caching, and denning, except where retaining such trees 

would prevent the desired development of uneven-aged conditions over time; (2) Large 

snags, partial snags and trees (greater than 18 inches d.b.h) with broken tops, cavities, 

sloughing bark, lightning scars greater than 4 inches wide, and large stick nests (greater 

than 18 inches in diameter); and (3) Known bat roost trees. Trees established after 1890 

should generally not be retained in areas where biophysical conditions would have 

supported stable openings over time. Vegetation management should favor the 

development of native understory species in areas where they have the potential to 

establish and grow.

• Objectives Following Large-scale Disturbances: To reestablish conifer trees in areas 

with inadequate seed source and reduce the time to achieve the desired forest structure: 

Plant 300 to 700 acres annually.

• Large-scale Disturbance Events in Forest and Woodland Communities Desired 

Conditions: Recovery and restoration project design should seek to establish a trajectory 

toward the desired conditions for the affected vegetation type. Where conifer seed 

sources are lost or poorly distributed due to high severity fire, artificial regeneration 

(planting, etc.) should be implemented to promote the desired forest structure and 

accelerate the recovery of habitat conditions for native wildlife species. Some snags and 

coarse woody debris should be retained to provide for wildlife habitat, soil stabilization, 

and other resource benefits. Some clumps of large (18 inches d.b.h.) standing dead trees 

should be retained. Project design should incorporate measures to protect regeneration 

and reforestation investments.

• Guidelines for Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species: A minimum of six 

nest areas (known and replacement) should be located per territory. Nest areas should be 

25 to 30 acres in size. Goshawk territories (post-fledging family areas) of approximately 

420 acres in size should be designated surrounding the nest areas. Potentially disturbing 

project-related activities should be minimized in occupied goshawk nest areas during 

nesting season of March 1 through September 30. Potentially disturbing project-related 

activities should be restricted within 300 yards of active raptor nest sites between April 1 

and August 15.

Sensitive species that depend on riparian or wetland habitat and either constructed or natural 

waters have several desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines in the action alternatives that 

protect wetland habitat on the forest and are designed to reduce threats to the species. These 

threats include invasive weeds, loss of riparian habitat, and grazing. These desired conditions, 

objectives, and guidelines would help provide for viability of the bald eagle, northern leopard 

frog, and long-tailed vole. The bald eagle had a low to moderate viability risk for all habitat 

elements. In addition, the desired condition discussed above in the Effects Similar for All 

Alternatives section for the water elements, the following objectives and guidelines also mitigate 

impacts to northern leopard frog and long-tailed vole.

• Objective for Wetlands/Cienegas: Restore native vegetation and natural waterflow 

patterns on at least 6 acres of wetlands within 5 years of plan approval.

• Objective for Natural Waters: Protect and/or restore at least 10 individual springs 

within 5 years of plan approval. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 107
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Guidelines for Natural Waters: Access to natural waters should be restricted to 

designated trails and points of entry to mediate erosion and prevent trampling and 

inadvertent introduction of nonnative and undesirable biota and disease. Activities in and 

around waters should use decontamination procedures to prevent the spread of chytrid 

fungus. Diversions of water sources that recharge wetlands should be assessed and 

appropriate actions should be identified to mitigate or minimize effects. Spring source 

areas should be preferentially protected. Water rights for springs should be secured where 

there are no existing water rights or claims. The impacts of management activities on 

springs, streams, and wetlands should be evaluated and minimized.

• Guidelines for Constructed Waters: Scholz Lake should not be managed for 

recreational sport fishing in riparian aquatic areas, current protocols for preventing the 

spread of chytrid fungus should be followed. If new drinkers are necessary, they should 

be constructed in areas that reduce ungulate impact to sensitive vegetation or soils such as 

riparian, aspen, and wet meadow areas.

• Nonnative Invasive Species Desired Condition: Invasive species are contained and/or 

controlled so that they do not disrupt the structure or function of ecosystems.

• Guidelines for Nonnative Invasive Species: All ground-disturbing projects should 

assess the risk of noxious weed invasion and incorporate measures to minimize the 

potential for the spread of noxious and invasive species. New populations are detected 

early, monitored, and treated as soon as possible. Treatment approaches should use 

integrated pest management (IPM) practices to treat noxious and nonnative invasive 

species. IPM includes manual, biological, mechanical, and herbicide/pesticide treatments. 

Use of pesticide, herbicide, and biocontrol agents should minimize impacts on non-target 

flora and fauna.

• Guidelines for Livestock Grazing: Livestock use in and around wetlands should be 

evaluated on an allotment specific basis. Mitigation measures such as deferment and 

fencing (full or partial) should be implemented as needed to minimize potential livestock 

effects. The concentrated use of montane meadows for livestock grazing should be 

minimized when soils are saturated to reduce grassland impacts. When no other options 

are available, use should be rotated annually.

The amount of riparian or wetland habitat and waters could have a slight increase from the 

current amount of habitat due to restoration work. The quality of existing habitat should increase 

as wetlands and springs are surveyed and monitored. The forest would be able to better assess 

which areas are no longer in proper functioning condition and improvements can be done. The 

listed desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines should provide long-term viability for the 

Kaibab fairy shrimp, northern leopard frog and long-tail vole and would not lead toward Federal 

listing of these species. 

Sensitive species that depend on grasslands, meadows, shrublands, desert communities, caves and 

mines, and rocky outcrops, cliffs and canyons have desired conditions, objectives, standards, and 

guidelines to help protect these habitat elements or species dependent on them (see appendix H). 

The species that depend on these habitat elements are the western burrowing owl, peregrine 

falcon, pale Townsend’s big-eared bat, House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat, spotted 

bat, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, long-tailed vole, Navajo Mogollon vole, Kaibab least chipmunk, 

desert bighorn sheep, dwarf shrew, and Kaibab northern pocket gopher. Table 15 shows that the 

action alternatives have a low to moderate viability risk for these habitat elements for all of these 

108 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

species except House Rock Valley chisel-toothed kangaroo rat and desert bighorn sheep. These 

two species are discussed above in the Effects Similar for All Alternatives section. In addition, the 

forest will continue to protect bighorn sheep from disease that may result from being in contact 

with domestic sheep or goats with the following guideline.

• Livestock Grazing Guideline: Grazing of domestic sheep and goats should not be 

authorized on the Tusayan and North Kaibab Ranger Districts due to the proximity of 

bighorn sheep in Grand Canyon and Kanab Creek to prevent the spread of disease 

between domestic and wild populations.

Shrublands, desert communities, caves and mines, and rock outcrops, cliffs and canyons habitat 

are not expected to increase under any of the three action alternatives. The objective for restoring 

grassland is stated as following: “Reduce tree and shrub density to less than 10 percent on 5,000 

to 10,000 acres of historic grasslands annually.” This would restore between 75,000 to 150,000 

acres of grasslands and meadows in 15 years. This work would shift the existing vegetation from 

ponderosa pine or pinyon-juniper stands to grasslands. These areas are within the grassland 

PNVT for grasslands because they were historically grasslands. It would not change the amount 

of the PNVT, but would improve the quality of the habitat. Species that depend on grassland 

habitat elements would maintain their viability for all three action alternatives, and none of the 

alternatives would lead toward Federal listing of these species.

Other Federal Law Compliance

No programmatic take will be requested under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act for any 

of the three action alternatives. Migrating bald eagles use the forest during the winter with no 

known established winter roost sites. There are golden eagle nest sites on the forest, but no 

management standards or guidelines within the plan that would promote removing these nest 

sites. In addition, the following guidelines would provide protection for these species.

• Vegetation Management in All Forested Communities: Projects in forested 

communities that change stand structure should generally retain at least historic 

frequencies of trees by species across broad age and diameter classes at the mid-scale. As 

such, the largest and oldest trees are usually retained. Project design should manage for 

replacement structural stages to assure continuous representation of old growth over time. 

Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not remove: Large snags, 

partial snags and trees with broken tops (greater than 18 inches d.b.h), sloughing bark, 

lightning scars greater than 4 inches wide, and large stick nests (greater than 18 inches

diameter).

• Wildlife Management: Project activities and special uses should be designed and 

implemented to maintain refugia and critical life cycle needs of wildlife, particularly for 

raptors. Project activities and special uses should incorporate recommended measures for 

golden eagle management such as closures to limit human disturbance in the vicinity of 

golden eagle nests. Potentially disturbing project-related activities should be restricted 

within 300 yards of active raptor nest sites between April 1 and August 15.

• Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species: Activities occurring near areas used 

by bald eagles should follow recommendations identified in the National Bald Eagle 

Management Guidelines and Arizona Conservation Assessment and Strategy for the Bald 

Eagle.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 109
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Activities On or Near Cliffs and Rocky Features: Activities involving heavy 

machinery or blasting should minimize impacts to habitat associated with rocky features 

and cliffs. Near known active raptor nest sites, temporary closures, and use restrictions 

should be implemented for rock climbing and other potentially disruptive activities.

• Communication and Electronic Sites: The number of communication and electronic 

sites should be the minimum that is consistent with appropriate public services that 

require the use of forest lands. Environmental disturbance should be minimized by colocating communication and electronic sites.

• Energy Transmission and Development: Environmental disturbance should be 

minimized by co-locating pipelines, power lines, fiber optic lines, and associated 

infrastructure. Existing energy corridors should be used to their capacity with compatible 

upgraded power lines, before evaluating new routes. When compatible with protection of 

heritage resources, the use of below-ground utilities should be optimized to avoid 

potential conflicts with wildlife, scenery, wildfire, and long-term vegetative management.

Requirements of Executive Order 13186 were followed while developing plan components that 

provide for migratory birds. During the development of plan components, migratory birds were 

considered and desired conditions and guidelines were incorporated to help provide for their 

conservation. The Important Bird Areas Program is a global effort lead by the Audubon Society 

that focuses on the identification and conservation of areas that are vital to birds and other 

biodiversity. No important bird areas are identified on the Kaibab NF. During the planning stage 

of all national forest management decisions, a review of effects and development of mitigations

to reduce impacts to migratory birds is required. The following are steps that were taken in 

compliance with Executive Order 13186 and the MOU with the USFWS: 

• Where desired conditions coincide with reference conditions, returning habitats to desired 

conditions should protect, restore, and conserve habitat of migratory birds.

• The forest worked with the Fish and Wildlife Service, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, and non-Federal partners to develop the forest planning species list, which 

includes migratory birds that are Fish and Wildlife Service Birds of Conservation 

Concern (2008), on the Arizona Partner in Flight list, and are Arizona Species of Greatest 

Conservation Concern.

• Numerous desired conditions and guidelines provide for and protect migratory bird 

habitat (see appendix H). 

• The monitoring plan (chapter 5) also addresses some migratory birds; Wildlife and Fish 

(MIS) by asking the question: “What is the estimated population trend for Grace’s 

warbler, western bluebird, and ruby-crowned kinglet?” The forest does not just survey for 

these species within their habitat type. While collecting point data for these species, all 

bird species located are recorded. For species that have enough detections, population 

density estimates can be calculated. Species information will vary by location.

Environmental Consequences for Wildlife 

Species Viability: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

Alternative B has the fewest number of species and associated habitat elements (27 total) that rate 

out in a very high (2), high (6), or moderate high (19) viability risk rating (table 15). It would also 

result in the smallest number of habitat elements that are departed from reference conditions 

(12 with fair rating and 1 with poor rating). The fair and poor ratings are primarily due to effects 

110 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and/or conditions that are outside of the Kaibab NF’s control, such as the legal framework and the 

need to work with other agencies, or the vegetation type is of lower priority for management and

the forest is unlikely to receive the additional funding required to improve these habitat types to 

reference conditions. 

Desired conditions are based on the best scientific information available that describes reference 

conditions for the different vegetation types of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and woodlands and 

savannas. Alternative B is the alternative that would set these vegetation types on a trajectory that 

would be most likely to achieve reference conditions. Restoring habitat elements to reference 

conditions or at least toward reference conditions should provide for viable species populations 

for those species that evolved within these systems. 

The following is the presettlement tree retention guideline for ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer for alternative B: “Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not 

remove: large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow, wide platy bark, flattened tops, with 

moderate to full crowns, and large drooping or knarled limbs (e.g., Thomson’s age class 4, 

Dunning’s tree class 5 and/or Keen’s Tree Class 4, A and B).”

Beside the recommendations for coping with climate change that were discussed in the Effects 

Similar for All Action Alternatives section, this alternative is better suited to meeting the 

following: (1) reducing nonclimate stressors on ecosystems; (2) managing for more diverse 

conditions; (3) maintaining healthy, connected diverse populations; (4) reducing risk of 

catastrophic fires; and (5) reducing likelihood of catastrophic events affecting populations. 

Alternative B is better at meeting the above recommendations because it has a greater ability to 

create desired openings, which should promote greater regeneration of the herbaceous understory. 

Over time this should increase the likelihood of restoring natural fire regimes and achieving 

desired vegetation densities. 

According to the Nonnative Invasive Species section, alternative B is the most beneficial for 

preventing and controlling invasive species. Although the preferred alternative proposes the 

highest amount of vegetation treatments and planned disturbance out of the four alternatives, 

thereby creating the highest risk of the spread or introduction of invasive species, it also generates 

the highest potential for long-term native understory enhancement. This, in turn, increases the 

ability for native species to out-compete invasive species over the long term, decreasing 

susceptibility to uncharacteristic fire.

In addition for federally listed species and Forest Service sensitive species, the evening grosbeak 

and olive-side flycatcher both had a moderate viability rating for the frequent fire mixed conifer 

habitat element under the preferred alternative (table 15). This alternative has the lowest viability 

risk to these species. 

Federally Listed Species and Sensitive Wildlife Species 

The Mexican spotted owl has a moderately high viability rating in the frequent fire mixed conifer 

and a moderate viability rating for the ponderosa pine/Gambel oak, ponderosa pine vertical 

heterogeneity, and horizontal heterogeneity habitat components in alternative B. Overall for 

alterative B, in 15 years the Mexican spotted owl habitat ponderosa pine/Gambel oak habitat 

component would increase by 1,477 acres for a total of 14,771 acres and mixed conifer habitat 

would decrease by 639 acres for a total of 34,484 acres. However, while the VDDT model shows 

a decline in mixed conifer habitat, the model likely overstated the amount of habitat loss. Most of 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 111
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the loss habitat is due to wildfires within closed canopy systems. The rest of the habitat loss is 

due to individual thinning or logging projects however, this loss would likely not occur due to 

project-level mitigations employed to meet the recovery plan for the owl. The viability of the 

species would continue under this alternative.

The goshawk, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, and Merriam’s shrew have a moderate viability rating 

for the frequent fire mixed conifer habitat element (table 15). 

For all sensitive species within the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat, in 15 years the 

VDDT modeling (summarized in table 17) shows the following changes in habitat acreage from 

current conditions: 

• Goshawk ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 49,237 acres for a total of 235,244 

acres. Frequent fire mixed conifer would increase by 5,350 acres for a total of 35,310 

acres. Overall goshawk habitat would increase 54,587 acres for an overall total of 

270,554 acres. 

• Bald eagle and Allen’s lappet-browed bat ponderosa pine habitat would decrease by 

6,018 acres for a total of 404,839 acres. Allen’s lappet-browed bat frequent fire mixed 

conifer habitat would decrease by 3,253 acres for a total of 67,517 acres. The total change 

in habitat for the bat would be a decrease of 9,271 acres for a total of 472,356 acres of 

habitat. 

• Kaibab least chipmunk and Kaibab northern pocket gopher mixed conifer with aspen

habitat acreage is estimated to stay the same. Both species would have an increase of 

4,279 acres for a total of 7,107 acres of mesic mixed conifer/spruce fir habitat. This 

would provide for a total of 27,005 acres of conifer habitat for both species.

• Kaibab tree squirrel ponderosa pine habitat would decrease by 1,685 acres for a total of 

101,100 acres; optimum habitat would increase by 13,756 acres for a total of 65,868

acres.

• Merriam’s shrew ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 142,241 acres for a total of 

273,540. Frequent fire mixed conifer would increase by 22,095 acres for a total of 

36,701. Overall Merriam’s shrew habitat would increase 164,336 acres for a total of 

310,241 acres. 

Based on the risk to viability rating and the amount of habitat provided for each of the above 

species, viability would be maintained for each of these species under this alternative. While 

individual species could be impacted by the actions under this alternative, the alternative would 

not lead toward Federal listing of the above sensitive species. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Wildlife Species Viability: Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D would have similar effects for all the wildlife forest planning species; as a 

result, they are analyzed together. While the effects to the viability ratings are the same between 

both alternatives, there is a difference in the amount of habitat affected between alternatives C 

and D.

While the alternatives are similar in the expected total number of habitat elements departed from 

reference conditions as in alternative A, they would have more in fair condition and less in poor 

112 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

condition (13 in fair and 5 in poor). These alternatives have more species rated as very high, high, 

or moderate high viability risk than alternative B and less than alternative A (table 15).

The presettlement tree retention guideline for alternatives C and D would replace the following 

guideline in alternative B: “Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not 

remove: large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow, wide platy bark, flattened tops, with 

moderate to full crowns, and large drooping or knarled limbs” with “Projects should retain trees 

with physical characteristics typical of those that were established prior to 1890 (i.e., generally 

larger than 16 inches in diameter at breast height, with yellowing platy bark).”

The presettlement tree retention guideline would likely be implemented as a diameter cap of a 

particular size (based on site conditions). Because all coniferous trees above the diameter cap 

would be retained, treatment would likely be less effective than alternative B for developing the 

desired conditions for ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, and aspen (Williams Ranger 

District) habitat elements for the following reasons:

• In order to achieve the desired mix of clumps and openings (horizontal heterogeneity) in 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer stands that have many large trees, it 

becomes necessary to remove most or all of the smaller trees. This results in more singlestoried, even-aged stands and reduces vertical and horizontal heterogeneity.

• Retaining and regenerating aspen would not be as effective if some of the larger, older 

conifers cannot be removed to reduce shading and competition. 

• Restoration treatments of grasslands would be less effective at restoring historic reference 

conditions in some areas because some trees which may not have been present 

historically would be retained.

• Restoration treatments of woodlands and savannas would be less effective at restoring 

historic reference conditions in some areas because some trees which may not have been 

present historically would be retained, limiting the ability to create openings and 

movement corridors in those areas.

The combined effect of the above guideline and the increased risk of stand-replacing fires is one 

which could negatively impact wildlife species through a reduction in foraging, breeding, and 

nesting habitat. The following species could be negatively impacted by implementing this 

guideline: Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk, evening grosbeak, Grace’s warbler, olivesided flycatcher, Lewis’ woodpecker, McGillivray’s warbler, green-tailed towhee, goldencrowned kinglet, red-naped woodpecker, orange-crowned warbler, Arizona black rattlesnake, 

Arizona treefrog, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, southwestern myotis, Abert’s squirrel, Kaibab tree 

squirrel, and Merriam’s shrew. While these species could be negatively affected at the local scale, 

overall, the other habitat improvements within these vegetation types would still help maintain 

overall viability for each of these species. 

Alternatives C and D are the least effective at controlling and preventing invasive weeds for 

several reasons. The Vegetation and Fire section notes the potential for increased stand-replacing 

fire that would occur at later time intervals due to potential guidelines in alternatives C and D. 

Because invasive species populations are correlated with increased stand-replacing fires (see 

Nonnative Invasive Plants section), there is the potential for invasive species to increase over 

time under these alternatives. This also negatively affects the forest’s ability to cope with climate 

change. Finally, the following species would be directly affected by an increase in invasive 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 113
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

weeds: golden eagle, western burrowing owl, milksnake, Great Basin spadefoot, Gunnison’s 

prairie dog, House Rock Valley chisel-tooth kangaroo rat, and Navajo Mogollon vole. Invasive 

weeds have the potential to out-compete native plants necessary for foraging, nesting, and 

burrowing by these species.

Both the evening grosbeak and the olive-sided flycatcher are found in multiple habitat elements 

that have a low to moderate viability rating. The viability of these species would be maintained 

through the habitat elements that are at a lower risk and the level of habitat treatment occurring 

within the habitat element at a high risk of viability.

Federally Listed Species and Sensitive Wildlife Species 

The Mexican spotted owl has a moderate high viability risk for ponderosa pine/Gambel oak and 

vertical heterogeneity habitat elements, and a high viability risk for the frequent fire mixed 

conifer habitat element. These risks are based on the potential effect of the presettlement tree 

retention guideline in areas that have an abundance of large trees within stands, limiting the 

forest’s ability to restore those areas. Overall for alterative C, in 15 years the Mexican spotted owl 

habitat ponderosa pine/ Gambel oak would decrease by 985 acres for a total of 12,309 acres and 

mixed conifer habitat would decrease by 7,025 acres for a total of 28,098 acres. For alterative D, 

in 15 years the Mexican spotted owl habitat ponderosa pine/Gambel oak would decrease by 1,477

acres for a total of 11,817 acres and mixed conifer habitat would decrease by 9,579 acres for a 

total of 25,544 acres. However, while the VDDT model shows a decline in both conifer habitats, 

the model likely overstated the amount of habitat loss. While most of the remaining habitat loss is 

due to wildfires, the rest of the habitat loss is due to individual projects that would not likely 

occur due to project level mitigations used to meet the recovery plan for the owl. 

The goshawk, Allen’s lappet-browed bat, and Merriam’s shrew show moderate to high viability 

rating only within the frequent fire mixed conifer habitat element (table 15). This habitat element 

is only one of several different habitat elements these species use. 

For all sensitive species within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat, in 15 years the VDDT

modeling (summarized in table 17) shows the following changes from current conditions for 

alterative C:

• Goshawk ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 5,471 acres, for a total of 191,478 

acres. Frequent fire mixed conifer would decrease by 3,745 acres, for a total of 26,215. 

Overall goshawk habitat would increase by 1,726 acres, for a total of 217,693 acres. 

• Bald eagle and Allen’s lappet-browed bat ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 4,924

acres, for a total of 415,781 acres. The Allen’s lappet-browed bat frequent fire mixed 

conifer habitat would decrease by 4,430 acres, for a total of 66,340 acres of habitat. The 

total change in habitat for the bat would be an increase of 443 acres for a total of 482,121

acres of habitat.

• Kaibab least chipmunk and Kaibab northern pocket gopher mixed conifer with aspen

habitat acreage is estimated to stay the same. For mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir habitat 

both species would have an increase of 3,491 acres, for a total of 6,319 acres. This would 

provide a total of 26,167 acres of conifer habitat for both species.

• Kaibab tree squirrel overall ponderosa pine habitat would decrease by 4,748 acres for a 

total of 98,037 acres; optimum habitat would increase by 1,532 acres for a total of 53,614

acres.

114 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Merriam’s shrew ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 125,829 acres for a total of 

257,128. Frequent fire mixed conifer would increase by 18,029 acres for a total of 

32,635. Overall, Merriam’s shrew habitat would increase 143,858 acres for a total of 

289,763 acres. 

For all sensitive species within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat, in 15 years the VDDT

modeling shows the following changes from current conditions for alterative D:

• Goshawk ponderosa pine habitat would decrease by 10,941 acres, for a total of 175,066 

acres. Frequent fire mixed conifer would decrease by 4,280 acres, for a total of 25,680. 

Overall, goshawk habitat would decrease by 15,221 acres, for a total of 200,746 acres. 

• Bald eagle and Allen’s lappet-browed bat ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 4,924

acres, for a total of 415,781 acres. The Allen’s lappet-browed bat frequent fire mixed 

conifer habitat would decrease by 6,570 acres, for a total of 64,200 acres of habitat. The 

total change in habitat for the bat would be a decrease of 1,646 acres, for a total of 

479,981 acres of habitat.

• Kaibab least chipmunk and Kaibab northern pocket gopher mixed conifer with aspen

habitat acreage is estimated to stay the same. Both species would have an increase of 

3,491 acres, for a total of 6,319 acres of mesic mixed conifer/spruce-fir habitat. This 

would provide a total of 26,167 acres of conifer habitat for both species.

• Kaibab tree squirrel overall ponderosa pine habitat would decrease by 7,812 acres, for a 

total of 94,973 acres; optimum habitat would decrease by 3,064 acres, for a total of 

49,018 acres

• Merriam’s shrew ponderosa pine habitat would increase by 131,299 acres, for a total of 

262,598 acres. Frequent fire mixed conifer would increase by 20,062 acres, for a total of 

34,668. Overall, Merriam’s shrew habitat would increase 151,361 acres, for a total of 

297,266 acres.

Based on the risk to viability rating and the amount of habitat provided for each of the above 

species, viability would be maintained for each of these species under both alternatives. While 

individual species could be impacted by the actions under both alternatives, neither alternative 

would lead toward Federal listing of the above sensitive species.

Summary of Comparison of Alternatives – Wildlife

Alternative A has the greatest potential to negatively affect wildlife species because it lacks clear 

desired conditions and guidelines developed using the best available science. It also does not 

reflect advances in scientific understanding and changes in social, economic and ecological 

conditions that have occurred since it was signed and it is the least able to adapt to changing 

conditions.

Alternative B has the greatest ability for maintaining viable wildlife populations over time. This 

alternative is the best at setting the vegetation types on a trajectory toward achieving desired 

conditions. Alternative B best meets the recommendations proposed to help wildlife species adapt 

to climate change because it includes specific guidance that provides for resilient ecosystems. 

The main difference between alternative B and alternatives C and D is the presettlement tree 

retention guideline. This guideline would affect all vegetation management activities associated 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 115
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

with ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, woodlands, and savannas. In areas that currently 

contain a high number of large trees, this guideline has the potential to inadequately provide for 

the desired clumps and openings within conifer stands. This guideline could also affect savanna 

and woodland habitat restoration by retaining a higher density of conifer trees than would 

naturally occur in these areas. Alternatives C and D are better than alternative A in providing for 

species viability and promoting the ability to cope with climate change for most species, but not 

as good as alternative B. 

Table 17. Changes in acres of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitat by alternative 

Species

Change in Habitat Acres by Alternative

Current Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

Mexican spotted owl

(nesting/roosting habitat) 48,417 49,054 49,255 40,407 37,361

Northern goshawk 215,967 236,542 270,554 217,693 200,746

Bald eagle 410,857 415,781 404,839 415,781 415,781

Allen’s lappet-browed bat 481,627 496,244 472,356 482,121 479,981

Kaibab least chipmunk 22,676 23,370 27,005 26,167 26,167

Kaibab northern pocket gopher 22,676 23,370 27,005 26,167 26,167

Kaibab tree squirrel

All habitat 102,785 101,100 101,100 98,037 94,973

Optimum habitat 52,082 55,146 65,868 53,614 49,018

Merriam’s shrew 145,905 231,551 310,241 289,763 297,266

Management Indicator Species

The current planning rule requires that species shall be selected as management indicator species 

(MIS) to contrast the effects of the planning alternatives on wildlife populations. The regulatory 

language concerning MIS is found in the provisions of the 1982 NFMA forest planning 

regulations (several sections). 

The Kaibab NF four priority “needs for change” that were identified during the analysis of the 

management situation (AMS) guided the selection process for MIS. Based on these priority needs 

for change, complimentary lines of evidence, proposed action, and plan alternatives, the forest

identified four MIS species it believes would serve as strong indicators of management (table18).

The four species were selected because they have special habitat needs that may be influenced 

significantly by planned management under the alternatives. The results are summarized below. 

The full selection process and rationale for selecting these species is outlined in Management 

Indicator Species Selection for the Kaibab NF Plan Revision (appendix I). 

The Kaibab NF current forest-wide population and habitat trend information for pronghorn (KNF 

2010a) was used as a foundation to help determine potential effects between the alternatives for 

that species. To help determine population and habitat trends for the three bird species proposed 

as MIS, occupancy modeling, an analytical tool which correlates existing presence/absence data 

with meaningful habitat covariates, was used in conjunction with existing forest-wide density 

116 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

estimates collected on songbirds since 2005. In the future, the occupancy models will help to 

show changes of habitat over time with 2010 data used as a baseline. For the three species of 

songbirds, the models predict occupancy dynamics (e.g., probabilities of detection, occupancy, 

colonization, and local extinction) by estimating the proportion of area on the forest occupied by 

each species. Over time this would provide complementary information on both habitat and 

species trends.

Table 18. Management indicator species used in the evaluation of all alternatives 

Species What They Are an 

Indicator For

Priority Need for 

Change

Difference Between 

Plan Alternatives

Grace’s warbler

(Setophaga graciae)

Clumps of mature 

ponderosa pine/pine-oak 

forests, yellow pine, 

(parklike environments, 

such as reference 

condition).

Modify stand structure 

and density toward 

reference conditions and 

restore historic fire

regimes.

Stand structure in 

ponderosa pine. 

Western bluebird

(Sialia mexicana)

Understory development 

within openings in 

ponderosa pine stands.

Modify stand structure 

and density toward 

reference conditions and 

restore historic fire

regimes.

Openings in ponderosa

pine.

Ruby-crowned kinglet

(Regulus calendula)

Mixed conifer (frequent 

fire) mature forest, 

overstory. 

Modify stand structure 

and density toward 

reference conditions and 

restore historic fire

regimes.

Would show the potential 

for moving toward 

reference conditions.

Pronghorn

(Antilocapra americana)

Grasslands Restore historic 

grasslands conditions by 

reducing shrub and tree 

encroachment and 

restoring fire.

Would show the potential 

for moving toward 

reference conditions.

Background Information for Management 

Indicator Species under

Alternative A: Current Plan, Current 

Management (No Action)

In 1988, the Kaibab NF selected 18 MIS species, all of which are still MIS under the current plan

(see table 19). Each species was selected to represent a particular habitat or habitat characteristic 

found on the forest. As indicators, they were selected to represent all wildlife and rare plant 

species found or associated with habitat or habitat components thought to indicate forest health 

and effects of management activities. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 117
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 19. Current management indicator species for the Kaibab National Forest and the 

habitat or habitat components they represent

Management Indicator Species Habitat or Habitat Component

Aquatic macroinvertebrates Riparian

Cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera) Late-seral wetlands

Northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) Late-seral ponderosa pine

Pygmy nuthatch (Sitia pygmaea) Late-seral ponderosa pine

Turkey (Meleagris gallopavo) Late-seral ponderosa pine

Mexican spotted owl (Strix occidentalis lucida) Late-seral mixed conifer and spruce-fir

Red squirrel (Tamiasciurus hudsonicus) Late-seral mixed conifer and spruce-fir

Lucy’s warbler (Vermivora luciae) Late-seral, low-elevation (below 7,000 ft) riparian

Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens) Late-seral, low-elevation (below 7,000 ft) riparian

Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospia lincolnii) Late-seral, high-elevation (above 7,000 ft) riparian

Hairy woodpecker (Picoides villosus) Snags in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and spruce-fir

Juniper titmouse (Baeolophus ridgwayi) Late-seral pinyon-juniper and snags in pinyon-juniper

Red-naped sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) Late-seral aspen and snags in aspen

Elk (Cervis elaphus) Early-seral ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, spruce-fir

Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) Early-seral aspen and pinyon-juniper

Pronghorn (Antilocapra americana) Early- and later seral grassland

Tassel-eared squirrel (Sciurus aberti) Early-seral ponderosa pine

Arizona bugbane (Actea arizonica) Forest plan describes habitat where the plant is found

When the MIS were originally selected, the forest plan called for even-aged timber management. 

As a result, the MIS were selected to represent various seral stages of the vegetation types. The 

1996 amendment to the 1988 forest plan added provisions for the northern goshawk and Mexican 

spotted owl, and called for a shift from even-aged to uneven-aged management. Following the 

1996 amendment, the descriptions of seral stage were no longer applicable, reducing the 

relevance of most of the original MIS. 

It is important to note that not all of the species selected in 1988 specifically have value as MIS 

on the Kaibab NF. Some of the selected MIS do not actually occur on the forest or occur too 

infrequently to be reliable indicators for the habitats they were selected to represent. Habitats for 

these species are either limited in frequency or only occur in areas too limited to maintain a 

population of the species. Some species have proven to be impractical to monitor, and others are 

poor indicators of management effects on the forest. As a result, the current MIS list has been 

shown to provide limited utility in supporting adaptive management. The forest-wide assessment 

for MIS (KNF 2010a) provides the documentation on why certain species on the current list do 

not make a good MIS. The following is a summary for each of those species.

118 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Cinnamon teal – Kaibab NF supports individual birds rather than a population of 

cinnamon teal on the forest. No ability to reasonably estimate a population trend and 

associate any changes to management actions.

• Northern goshawk – Difficult to effectively assess population trends. Population 

fluctuations are typically more closely tied to variable weather conditions and the 

interrelated response by the species’ mammalian prey base. Habitat generalist.

• Mexican spotted owls – Species is not well distributed in the planning area. Limited to 

seven protected activity centers on the Williams Ranger District. Difficult to assess 

population trends and relate to habitat changes and assess differences between 

management alternatives.

• Lucy’s warbler – Very limited habitat. Little is known about how habitat changes affect 

this bird, and it is likely to have individual birds rather than a population of Lucy’s 

warbler on the forest. 

• Yellow-breasted chats – Very limited habitat and it is unknown if the species occurs on 

the forest.

• Lincoln’s sparrows – Habitat is limited and there is no resident population.

• Tassel-eared squirrel – Shown as an indicator for early-seral ponderosa pine when in fact 

this is not the habitat type they use. 

Besides the species discussed in the forestwide MIS assessment, elk and mule deer also do not 

make good MIS. They both use a wide variety of habitats and have many outside factors that 

affect population trends. It is not possible to tie management activities with forestwide population 

trends for these two species. 

Pronghorn was the only species retained as an MIS from the previous forest plan. Besides being 

responsive to grassland restoration, the pronghorn is a species that has strong local interest 

because it is hunted. 

Under alternative A, the forest would continue to use the current MIS list. However, for the 

purposes of analysis and comparison, only the proposed MIS are used to evaluate the alternatives. 

Management Indicator Species

Current Population and Habitat Trends

For the three bird species, the Wildlife Specialist Report (KNF 2013c) provides detailed 

information on the species and how the current habitat and population trend was developed. 

Grace’s Warbler 

The main concern for this species across its range is habitat alteration and fragmentation. Presentday ponderosa pine forests differ greatly from pre-settlement forests because of logging, firewood 

harvest, fire suppression, grazing, and urban development. Size class distributions are now 

skewed to smaller trees, with a more closed canopy, higher levels of disease, depleted 

understories, and high susceptibility to crown fires (Stacier and Guzy 2002). On the Kaibab NF, 

this is seen more on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts than on the North Kaibab Ranger 

District. Information suggests that pine forests that more closely mimic naturally open parklands 

with stands of large, mature trees would eventually benefit this species. Previous research 

suggests that some manipulation of dense, nonvirgin stands may be beneficial. In northern 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 119
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Arizona, Grace’s warbler was most abundant in a silviculturally thinned forest than in unthinned, 

dense forest. Greater levels of thinning, however, resulted in lower abundance (Stacier and Guzy 

2002).

Current Habitat and Population Trend

Grace’s warbler is an indicator for ponderosa pine mature clumps within stands. On the forest

ponderosa pine covers approximately 515,148 acres. The PNVT for ponderosa pine covers 

541,000 acres (KNF 2009 and 2010b). The main difference between cover type and PNVT is that 

cover type reflects what is currently found on the forest, while PNVT reflects what was on the 

forest historically, depending on soil type, fire regime, and nature disturbance. Occupancy model 

results for the Grace’s warbler show that 245,417 acres are of high quality and 132,161 acres are 

of moderate quality, for a total of 377,578 acres within ponderosa pine, based on occupancy 

potential. 

The ponderosa pine forest on the Kaibab NF is highly departed from reference condition (KNF 

2010b). The amount and arrangement of forest developmental stages, and increased tree 

density/canopy cover are the primary characteristics that are departed. Only 19 percent of the 

PNVT is currently in the reference condition. The reference condition is defined as mature to old 

forest with various sized patches of young regenerating forest. With the current rate of treatment 

within ponderosa pine forest, the current habitat trend would be considered stable; however, there 

would not be progression toward the habitat reference condition.

The forest has conducted bird surveys since 2005. Population trends based on forest monitoring 

appear to be stable within ponderosa pine habitats. Trends in occupancy for Grace’s warbler 

indicate an initial decrease in occupancy from 2006 to 2007 followed by an increase in 

subsequent years. As more bird surveys are done, this may help influence the model results 

(Dickson et al. 2011). 

Occupancy modeling results for Grace’s warbler indicate basal area and canopy cover to be 

strong positive predictors of occupancy for that species. Northeastern orientation, while not a 

“strong” predictor, did appear to negatively affect occupancy and indicated an affinity for more 

xeric habitat conditions. These results are consistent with other studies that have generally found 

Grace’s warbler in xeric pine or pine-oak dominant habitats with a diversity of tree size classes 

(Stacier and Guzy 2002). 

In summary, the current forestwide habitat and population trend for the Grace’s warbler is stable. 

Western Bluebird 

Western bluebirds are typically found in open, park-like forests, edge habitats, and burned areas 

and where moderate amounts of logging have occurred, provided a sufficient number of larger 

trees and snags remain to provide nest sites and perches. The species does not favor large, open 

meadows. Clear cutting, snag removal, fire suppression, and any changes in land use that cause 

open forest and edge habitat to be diminished adversely affect western bluebird populations 

(Guinan et al. 2008). Restoration of ponderosa pine forests by prescribed thinning of dense 

stands, followed by controlled burns and reseeding, should benefit this species through increased 

nest and fledgling success, and decreased predation. Guinan et al. (2008) recommended long-term 

measures to develop and provide habitat for the western bluebird. Silvicultural practices that 

retain snags, sufficient numbers of mature trees to ensure adequate snag recruitment for the 

120 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

future, and smaller saplings and scattered shrubs for cover and foraging perches would provide 

suitable habitat in managed forests. Habitat restoration treatments include: increasing herbaceous 

ground cover; reducing ponderosa pine density to less than or equal to 270 stems per hectare (no 

lower threshold established, but suggested to range from 57 to 150 stems per hectare); and retain 

Gambel oak trees and snags where present. Recommendations for fire management include: 

mimicking of natural fire regimens (size, timing, frequency, and severity), including allowing for 

stand-replacement burns where historic; and consideration of effects of burn geometry (size, 

heterogeneity in terms of burn severity, and burn-to-edge ratio) in management policies.

In several studies conducted locally in northern Arizona the western bluebird has shown a strong 

positive response to burning and prescribed thinning in ponderosa pine forest (Wightman and 

Germaine 2006, Hurteau et al. 2008, Dickson et al. 2009, Chambers and Kalies 2011). Wightman 

and Germaine (2006) found that blue bird productivity and nest success were significantly 

affected by tree density (ponderosa pine and Gambel oak) and adequate ground cover (grasses, 

forbs, and bare ground combined total of at least 20 percent). A resident species, bluebirds can be 

found forestwide.

Current Habitat and Population Trend

The western bluebird, a ground-foraging species, which depends largely on the understory for 

capture of invertebrate prey, is an indicator for understory development within openings in mature 

ponderosa pine. On the forest, ponderosa pine covers approximately 515,148 acres and the PNVT

for ponderosa pine covers 541,000 acres (KNF 2009 and 2010b). Occupancy model results for the 

western bluebird show that 417,111 acres within the ponderosa pine are high quality habitat while 

64,315 acres are of moderate habitat quality, for a total of 481,426 acres with potential occupancy.

Vegetation models created for the forest plan revision process suggest that the ponderosa pine 

forest on the Kaibab NF is highly departed from reference condition. Under current management, 

these forests would remain highly departed from reference conditions. The amount and 

arrangement of developmental stages and increased tree density/canopy cover are the primary 

characteristics that are departed. While the forest is out of reference condition, the current rate of 

treatment within ponderosa pine should keep the habitat condition stable; however, it would not 

move the habitat toward reference condition.

Population trends based on forestwide monitoring for this species appear stable. Western bluebird 

occupancy was positively associated with both basal area and those locations with canopy cover

less than 30 percent. This is consistent with the species preference for more open, park like, 

forested settings. Occupancy models for the forest show the presence of ponderosa pine habitat as 

a strong predictor for western bluebird (Dickson et al. 2011). Occupancy was fairly steady 

throughout the analysis period, with the exception of decline in 2007 and subsequent increase in 

2008.

In summary, the current forestwide habitat and population trend for the western bluebird is stable.

Ruby-crowned Kinglet 

During the breeding season, ruby-crowned kinglets typically forage and nest in dense foliage high 

in the conifer forest treetops. In Arizona, they reach their highest densities in mixed conifer 

forests. Breeding ruby-crowned kinglets are most abundant and widespread on the Kaibab Plateau 

and in the White Mountains. They are also found regularly in the San Francisco Mountains, and 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 121
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Sitgreaves and Bill Williams Mountains (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005). This species breeds in 

dry, open coniferous and mixed forests at high elevations. 

While this species is not a mixed conifer obligate (Swanson et al. 2008), it does appear to be 

strongly associated with this habitat type. Predicting the effects of future forest management 

action on this species would require information at fine scales as management actions are more 

likely to impact existing forest structure for the species at that level. 

Current Habitat and Population Trend

The ruby-crowned kinglet is an indicator for mature overstory in frequent fire mixed conifer. On 

the forest, there is approximately 39,130 acres of mixed conifer cover type and the PNVT for 

mixed conifer covers 127,900 acres (KNF 2009 and 2010b). These numbers also include mesic 

mixed conifer, which is too difficult to differentiate based on the sampling and modeling methods 

used for forest planning. However, the majority of the acreage in the mixed conifer PNVT is 

classified as frequent fire mixed conifer (approximately 107,000; KNF 2008a) and for this 

analysis, the whole PNVT is treated as frequent fire mixed conifer. This is consistent with

analyses in the Vegetation and Fire section. The occupancy modeling results for the ruby-crowned 

kinglet show that 17,112 acres within mixed conifer are of high quality habitat while 2,997 acres 

are moderate quality, totaling 29,103 acres of potential habitat occupied.

The majority of the mixed conifer cover type and PNVT occurs at high elevations on the North 

Kaibab Ranger District with a small amount (approximately 14,200 acres) on the Williams 

Ranger District. This PNVT is younger and denser than during the reference period. About 

5 percent of the area exists in a mature uneven-aged state and only 23 percent of the area is 

composed of uneven-aged groups. Recent management has focused on moving toward reference 

conditions. The prescriptions have primarily thinned small trees around or under older trees. In 

some cases, group selection cuts have removed patches of large trees to promote regeneration 

within larger uneven-aged areas. Wildland fires within this PNVT are currently suppressed (KNF 

2009 and 2010b). While the forest is out of reference condition, the current rate of treatment 

within the mixed conifer stands should keep the current habitat trend stable; however, it would 

not move the habitat toward reference conditions over a large portion of the forest.

The forest has collected data on the ruby-crowned kinglet since 2005. Trends based on forest 

monitoring from 2005 to 2009 suggest this species appears to be increasing at this time. 

Occupancy model results suggest that variation in vegetation type is the strongest predictor of 

ruby-crowned kinglet occupancy, with the species strongly associated with the mixed-conifer 

habitat type. However, occupancy trends were not presented for the ruby-crowned kinglet due to 

a sharp change in detectability from 2006 to 2007 and insufficient sample sizes (Dickson et al.

2011).

In summary, the current forestwide habitat trend for the ruby-crowned kinglet is stable. While 

forest monitoring data seem to imply an increasing population trend, the occupancy modeling 

could not confirm this at this time. To be conservative, the forestwide population trend is 

considered stable.

Pronghorn 

Pronghorn is the only current MIS retained for the revised plan. In the current plan, pronghorn are 

an indicator of early- and late-seral grasslands. For this analysis, they are an indicator of 

122 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

grasslands. The 2010 forestwide MIS assessment (KNF 2010a) provided information about 

pronghorn on the forest and is incorporated by reference in this report. 

Causes of decline in pronghorn herds across Arizona are numerous, but generally consistent. 

Paramount to the persistence of any wildlife species is presence of quality habitat. Continued 

urban sprawl and associated highway construction has fragmented and damaged quality 

pronghorn habitat (the latter continues to cause direct mortality via collision with vehicles). 

Grasslands historically dependent upon regular fire return intervals have been reduced in size by 

invasion of juniper and shrub species resulting from decades of fire suppression. Past livestock 

grazing and historic fencing practices have reduced habitat quality and created barriers that 

pronghorn cannot maneuver. Finally, persistent drought and predation has impacted pronghorn 

populations to varying degrees statewide. The combination of these factors has led to a reduction 

in habitat availability and quality, a substantial decline in fawn recruitment, and a correlated 

increase in efficiency of pronghorn predators (AGFD 2011a).

Current Habitat and Population Trend

During forest plan revision, the grassland PNVT included all grasslands including 

montane/subalpine grassland. Part of this habitat type is not suitable for pronghorn and is not 

considered as part of the habitat trend for this analysis. Within the PNVTs, there are 

approximately 112,250 acres of grassland habitat for the pronghorn. Not all of these acres provide 

habitat for the pronghorn at this time. Currently, forestwide pronghorn habitat appears to be stable 

(KNF 2010a). 

In 2010, the Arizona Game and Fish Department began a new process for determining population 

trends for Game Management Units (GMU) 7, 8, and 9 (see table 20). Trends are determined 

using population models. The inputs for the models are harvest, male-female ratios, and youngfemale ratios, estimated mean mortality rates, and estimated starting populations. The best model 

is estimated by changing mortality rates of the starting population so that the predicted malefemale ratios from the models for each year match those that are based on surveys (McCall 2011).

Table 20. Trends in pronghorn populations based on Arizona Game and Fish Department

data (2012)

Game Management Unit 3-Year 10-Year

7 Stable Stable

8 Decreasing Decreasing

9 Increasing Increasing

Besides the above-listed GMUs, pronghorn are also found in GMU 10 and 12A. All of these 

game units have a portion of the unit on the forest. Pronghorn numbers on GMU 12A appear to 

have an increasing trend (KNF 2010a) and, overall, GMU 10 appears to be decreasing. However, 

the Kaibab NF has about 25 to 35 square miles of good quality pronghorn habitat located on the 

southeast corner of GMU 10. Pronghorn inhabiting this area frequently exhibit the highest level 

of fawn survival in the unit as a whole (AGFD 2011a). All of the units have a hunting season for 

pronghorn, even those with a decreasing trend. When looking at the overall forest contribution to 

the pronghorn population trend, the forestwide population trend appears to be stable at this time. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 123
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In summary, the current forestwide trend for pronghorn habitat and population is stable.

Comparison of Alternatives

Management Indicator Species in Ponderosa 

Pine and Frequent Fire Mixed Conifer

Environmental Consequences for Management

Indicator Species – Alternative A (No Action)

Under the no action alternative, no changes would be made to the current Kaibab NF Land and 

Resource Management Plan, and current management practices would continue at current rates. 

The following excerpt is from the Vegetation and Fire section: 

“Currently, the forest treats around 2,100 acres a year in ponderosa pine with 

mechanical treatments to alter or restore stand structure, and around 200 acres 

per year in frequent fire mixed conifer. The current plan was signed in 1988, 

before the 1995 Federal Wildland Fire Policy was enacted, and no objectives for 

acres burned by beneficial fire exist in the current plan. Currently fire managers 

are burning about 8,500 acres per year with prescribed fire, and manage wildfires 

to achieve multiple objectives on around 11,700 acres per year. This equates to 

just over 20,000 acres per year that receive beneficial fire disturbance. Due to the 

restriction of having managed fire with mixed conifer stands, most of the fire 

acreage occurs outside of the frequent fire mixed conifer habitat.” While these 

treatments would improve habitat quality for Grace’s warbler, western bluebird, 

and ruby-crowned kinglet, there would not be an increase in the amount of 

ponderosa pine or frequent fire mixed conifer within the PNVTs. 

“In the mixed conifer vegetation types, suppression action must be taken on all 

wildfires in accordance with the terms and conditions associated with the 

wildland fire use amendment to the plan in 2000. For the North Kaibab Ranger 

District, frequent fire mixed conifer stands are at a high risk of moving most or 

all of this vegetation type to an uncharacteristic open state, with minimal natural 

regeneration, as the result of one or several high-severity wildfire incidents. This 

has been demonstrated by wildfires that have occurred during the past 15 years. 

The current plan restrictions also encumber cross-boundary fire management of 

wildfires burning on the Kaibab Plateau between Grand Canyon National Park 

and the forest that could otherwise be used to reduce the risk of stand-replacing 

fires. Objectives for wildfires must change from resource benefit to protection 

when fires cross the fence from the park onto the forest; conversely wildfires 

initiated on the forest that could benefit park lands must be suppressed and so 

they do not cross onto the Park.”

The forestwide assessment for MIS (KNF 2010a) shows that the current level of forest treatments 

is maintaining a stable forestwide habitat trend for both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer habitats. This trend is not expected to change over time.

With the forestwide habitat trend staying the same for the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

habitat, it is likely that the forestwide population trends for Grace’s warbler, western bluebird, and 

124 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ruby-crowned kinglet would not change and all three population trends would remain stable. 

However, this alternative has the highest potential for uncharacteristic wildfires and insect 

outbreaks. If these would occur within the next 15 years, population trends for the three species 

would experience a downward trend. 

Description of Action Alternatives

Under all three action alternatives, the highest priority need for change is to modify forest stand 

structure and density toward reference conditions and restore historic fire regime. Since the 

desired conditions are based on the reference condition for ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer, projects which move the forest toward this condition would be beneficial to 

Grace’s warbler, western bluebird, and ruby-crown kinglet. The main difference between the 

alternatives is how long it would take and how well they would meet the desired conditions. 

Objectives under all alternatives would be similar for ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

confer. In ponderosa pine, the forest proposes to “Mechanically thin 11,000 to 19,000 acres 

annually using a combination of group selection cuts with matrix thinning and all-size free 

thinning. Treat an average of 13,000 to 55,000 acres annually using a combination of prescribed 

fire and naturally ignited wildfires.” Within frequent fire mixed conifer, the forest would “Burn 

an average of 1,000 to 13,000 acres annually using prescribed fire and/or naturally ignited 

wildfires. Mechanically thin 1,200 to 2,100 acres annually in frequent fire mixed conifer.” 

Proposed guidelines for vegetation management in all forested communities include: 

• Projects in forested communities that change stand structure should generally retain at 

least historic frequencies of trees by species across broad age and diameter classes at the 

mid-scale. As such, the largest and oldest trees are usually retained. 

• Project design should manage for replacement structural stages to assure continuous 

representation of old growth over time.

• Project design and treatment prescriptions should generally not remove: 

◦ Large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow, wide platy bark, flattened tops, 

with moderate to full crowns, and large drooping or knarled limbs (alternative B 

only).

◦ Mature trees with large mistletoe brooms suitable for wildlife nesting, caching, and 

denning, except where retaining such trees would prevent the desired development of 

uneven-aged conditions over time.

◦ Large snags, partial snags and trees (greater than 18 inches d.b.h.) with broken tops, 

sloughing bark, lightning scars (greater than 4 inches wide), and large stick nests 

(greater than 18 inches in diameter). 

◦ Gambel oak greater than 8 inches diameter at root collar (d.r.c.).

◦ Known bat roost trees. 

• The location and layout of vegetation management activities should effectively 

disconnect large expanses of continuous predicted active crown fire.

• Vegetation management prescriptions should provide for sufficient canopy breaks to limit 

crown fire spread between groups, allow for the redevelopment and maintenance of a 

robust understory, and mimic the spatial arrangement of the reference conditions.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 125
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Vegetation management activities in mixed conifer forests should incorporate 

experimental design features and monitoring to accelerate learning and adaptive 

management. 

• Trees established after 1890 should generally not be retained in areas where biophysical 

conditions would have supported stable openings over time.

• Vegetation management activities should meet or exceed goals for scenic beauty (scenic 

integrity objectives) by creating natural patterns, structure, and composition of trees, 

shrubs, grasses, and other plants.

• Vegetation management should favor the development of native understory species in 

areas where they have the potential to establish and grow.

• Even-aged silvicultural practices may be used as a strategy for achieving the desired 

conditions over the long term, such as bringing dwarf mistletoe infection levels to within 

a sustainable range, or old tree retention.

• Seed and plants used for revegetation should originate from the same PNVT and general 

ecoregion (i.e., Southern Colorado Plateau) as the project area.

• Heavy equipment and log decks should not be staged in montane meadows.

Alternatives C and D would replace the management guideline in both ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer “Large, old ponderosa pine trees with reddish-yellow, wide platy bark, 

flattened tops, with moderate to full crowns, and large drooping or knarled limbs” for 

presettlement trees with the following guideline: “Projects should retain trees with physical 

characteristics typical of those that were established prior to 1890 (i.e., generally larger than 

16 inches in diameter at breast height, with yellowing platy bark, and full crowns).”

Environmental Consequences for 

Management Indicator Species: Alternative B

Over a 15-year period, the alternative would treat between 360,000 and 541,000 acres of 

ponderosa pine and between 33,000 and 127,900 acres of frequent fire mixed conifer. These areas 

were historically either ponderosa pine or frequent fire mixed conifer in the past and are already 

shown as part of the PNVTs for these vegetation types, so it would not change the amount of the 

PNVTs, but would improve the quality of the habitat.

Based on the VDDT modeling done for the Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter, alternative 

B would result in more area in the mid-scale desired condition than the other alternatives. It is 

also the best for creating clumps and openings desired within the ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer vegetation types. The vegetation analysis also showed that the preferred alternative 

is the best at creating interspersions and relative understory diversity for both vegetation types. 

The preferred alternative also has the lowest temporal departure from the mid-scale desired 

conditions. 

The Vegetation and Fire section shows that the preferred alternative maintains the highest 

percentage of open states and fine-scale interspersions for both ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer. It has the lowest risk for stand-replacing fires at all time marks (10, 15, 50, and 

250 years). Overall, this alternative would likely not increase the amount of ponderosa pine or 

mixed conifer stands, but would improve the quality of the habitat to meet the needs of species 

that evolved in these systems.

126 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In summary, the preferred alternative would be the best at moving the ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types toward reference conditions over time. This would 

change the forestwide habitat trend for both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer to an 

increasing trend under alternative B. 

Since it is believed that Grace’s warbler populations have been affected by the loss of ponderosa 

pine habitat (Stacier and Guzy 2002), it is reasonable to expect that if the habitat is restored, 

populations at the local level would increase. This would likely change the forest wide population 

trend from stable to increasing for alternative B.

Based on studies that show an increase in local populations of western bluebirds following habitat 

improvement (Guinan et al. 2008), it is expected that if the habitat is restored, populations at the 

local level would increase. This would change the forestwide population trend for western 

bluebird from stable to increasing for alternative B. 

Heterogeneity within the mixed conifer stands is a strong predictor for ruby-crowned kinglet, so it 

is likely that an increase in the habitat trend would result in the preferred alternative having a 

change in forestwide population trend from stable to increasing over time. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Management Indicator Species: 

Alternatives C and D

Over a 15-year period, the alternatives would treat between 360,000 and 541,000 acres of 

ponderosa pine and between 33,000 and 127,900 acres of frequent fire mixed conifer. These areas 

were historically either ponderosa pine or frequent fire mixed conifer in the past and are already 

shown as part of the PNVTs for these vegetation types, so it would not change the amount of the 

PNVTs, but would improve the quality of the habitat. The main difference between the three 

action alternatives is how much ponderosa pine or frequent fire mixed conifer quality would be 

improved to provide habitat for the MIS species under each alternative.

Alternatives C or D would result in less of the forest being in the desired condition. This is 

because some areas have contiguous areas of presettlement trees. In these areas, there would be a 

need to remove most or all of the smaller trees to achieve the desired openness or result in denser 

conditions than desired. This would result in more even-aged single-storied stands. Group 

selection cutting with matrix thinning (preferred alternative) is more effective at creating 

multistoried, uneven-aged states than treatments that retain most of the larger trees. With a 

presettlement tree retention guideline, it would likely take longer to achieve an uneven-aged 

multistoried state. Alternatives C and D would result in forest conditions that are denser, more 

contiguous, and susceptible to stand-replacing fire (see Vegetation and Fire section of this 

chapter). 

The presettlement tree retention guideline in alternatives C and D would only restrict treatments 

where there are currently many contiguous presettlement trees. In areas where larger, older trees 

are underrepresented or within the range of historic variation, all of the action alternatives would 

likely result in similar progress toward the desired conditions as the preferred alternative. This 

would change the forestwide habitat trend for ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer to 

an increasing trend for alternatives C and D, although alternative B would likely also provide for 

more acres of suitable habitat over time. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 127
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

While the habitat trend would change from stable to increasing, it is not clear how the 

presettlement tree retention guideline in alternatives C and D would affect the forestwide

population trend for Grace’s warbler and western bluebird. It is not known if there would be 

enough habitat improvement for the forestwide population trends for Grace’s warbler and western 

bluebird to change from stable to increasing. The forestwide population trend for both species for 

these alternatives is expected to be between stable to increasing in the long term. The higher 

likelihood for stand-replacing fire associated with these alternatives has the potential to decrease 

forestwide population trends for both species.

Variation within the mixed conifer stands is a strong predictor for ruby-crowned kinglet, so it is 

possible that alternatives C and D would not substantially change forestwide population trends for 

the ruby-crowned kinglet. The population trend for this species is expected to be stable to 

increasing. It is possible that stand homogeneity created as a result of the presettlement tree 

retention guideline in alternatives C and D would lead to a decreased population trend for rubycrowned kinglet over time.

Management Indicator Species in Grasslands

Environmental Consequences for 

Management Indicator Species: Alternative A

One of the priority needs for change is to restore historic grasslands by reducing tree 

encroachment and meadows. State and transition models developed during the forest plan 

revision process suggest that all grasslands on the Kaibab NF are trending away from historic 

reference conditions. The trend away for Great Basin grasslands and semidesert grasslands was 

found to be low to moderate, while the trend for montane grasslands was high. Conifer 

encroachment is expected to continue to negatively affect montane grasslands, while pinyonjuniper encroachment is expected to reduce Great Basin and semidesert grasslands (KNF 2009). 

On average, the forest is restoring approximately 2,000 acres a year. Over 15 years, this would 

restore approximately 30,000 acres. While this would improve habitat conditions, it would not 

increase the amount of the PNVT.

Alternative A has no specific plan direction for the removal of encroaching conifers from 

grasslands, nor are there any plan objectives. The Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts have 

implemented some grassland restoration projects, subject to available funding. It is not expected 

that the current rate of implementation is enough to change trends shown in the models. The 

vegetation models show that the forestwide habitat trend for pronghorn would change from stable 

to decreasing under alternative A. 

Pronghorn need open grasslands with good forage availability to provide for fawning habitat and 

health of the adults. If the current forestwide habitat trend changes from stable to decreasing, this 

would result in the loss of these important habitat components on the forest. Based on these facts, 

the forestwide population trend for pronghorn would change from stable to decreasing under 

alternative A. 

128 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Management Indicator Species: 

Action Alternatives B, C, and D

Under all three action alternatives, the priority need for change is to restore historic grasslands by 

reducing tree encroachment and meadows. Desired conditions, objectives, and guidelines are the 

same for all three action alternatives.

Objectives for restoring grasslands under all alternatives include:

• Reduce tree and shrub density to less than 10 percent on 5,000 to 10,000 acres of historic 

grasslands annually.

• Modify fences and/or install crossings to facilitate pronghorn movement on 50 miles of 

fence within 10 years of plan approval.

Proposed guidelines that affect pronghorn include: 

• Restoring Grasslands: Pronghorn fence crossings should be installed along known 

movement corridors.

• Livestock Grazing: Livestock management should favor the development of native cool 

season grasses and forbs. New construction and reconstruction of fences should have a 

barbless bottom wire and be at least 18 inches high. Annual operating instructions for 

livestock grazing permittees should ensure livestock numbers are balanced with capacity 

and address any relevant resource concerns (e.g., forage production, weeds, fawning 

habitat, soils, etc.) and make adjustments as appropriate. 

The Kaibab NF works closely with the Arizona Game and Fish Department to meet the needs of 

pronghorn antelope. The forestwide guideline above meets current recommendations for all 

wildlife species (AGFD 2011b). However, where needed, in areas that pronghorn are known to 

use, the bottom wire may be higher (e.g., 20 inches) and goat bars may be installed to facilitate 

pronghorn passage.

All three alternatives would restore between 75,000 and 150,000 acres of grasslands in 15 years. 

Some of this acreage would change the current land designation of ponderosa pine or pinyonjuniper stands to grasslands. These areas were historically grasslands in the past and are already 

shown as part of the PNVT for grasslands, so it would not change the amount of the PNVT but 

would improve the quality of the habitat.

All action alternatives have a tree retention guideline. The guideline would apply to all vegetation 

management activities including removing encroaching conifers from grasslands. In some areas, 

this could reduce the effectiveness of grassland restoration work.

In alternative B, the guideline for large tree retention would generally retain only the largest and 

oldest trees that provide for quality raptor perches. Alternatives C and D would add the 

management guideline that projects should retain trees with physical characteristics typical of 

those trees established prior to 1890. For some projects, this guideline may be implemented as a 

diameter cap, which could result in all trees over a certain size being retained. The effectiveness 

of treatments is likely to be reduced in grasslands that would have a higher number of trees over a 

certain size. Overall, the amount of grassland restoration treatment is not expected to be vastly 

different between the action alternatives (see Vegetation and Fire section). 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 129
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

It is expected that an increased focus on grassland treatments would change the forestwide habitat 

trend for pronghorn for all three action alternatives from stable to increasing in the future. The 

resulting improvement of habitat should help local populations of pronghorn on the forest. 

However, since pronghorn are also affected by drought and predators, the habitat improvement 

alone might not be enough to change the forestwide trend, but it should at least help maintain the 

local populations. The forestwide population trend for all three alternatives is expected to be 

stable to increasing in the long term. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Wildlife

Cumulative effects from implementation of the Kaibab NF LMP include potential effects of forest 

management on the wildlife resource, plus potential effects from land management on adjacent 

lands of other ownership (i.e., private, State, tribal, other Federal agencies, county, etc.). In 

general, cumulative effects include impacts from past activities and potential future activities, 

such as agricultural use, forestry, fire, human development, and recreation. Past activities/actions 

are only considered if their contribution to the existing condition is still ongoing. 

To compare the effects of Kaibab NF proposed management to the surrounding landscape, 

cumulative effects are evaluated considering the management actions of other entities of a similar 

planning scope within a relevant spatial and temporal context. The analysis area for wildlife 

includes the Kaibab NF, and relevant portions of Arizona Game and Fish Region II and Bird 

Conservation Regions 16 (Southern Rockies/Colorado Plateau) and 34 (Sierra Madre Occidental). 

This encompasses the three counties immediately adjacent to and/or surrounding the Kaibab NF

(Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave Counties) and is of a spatial extent that should account for 

effects on wide ranging species such as big game and migratory birds: animals that can travel 

across numerous land jurisdictions. The analysis area encompasses similar habitat types as 

identified in the proposed action area and reflects similar ecological settings which wildlife 

species referenced in this report could or would use. These effects were evaluated for the life of 

the forest plan, approximately 10 to 15 years.

Departures from reference conditions exist in all vegetation types on the forest, and most continue 

to trend further from reference conditions. This trend is also common on adjacent lands. Forests 

have become denser, and conifers are invading grasslands. The landscape has become more 

fragmented as a result of activities that include urban development, ranching, and fire 

suppression. As a result, there has likely been a net loss of intact, potential habitat and an 

increased risk to viability for wildlife on adjacent lands; this trend is expected to continue in the 

future. As a result, the Kaibab NF will play an increasing role in the conservation of these habitats 

and associated wildlife species on NFS lands.

The action alternatives strive to create and maintain natural communities and habitats in the 

amounts, arrangements, and conditions capable of supporting viable populations of existing 

native and desired nonnative plants, aquatic, and wildlife species within the planning area, while 

contributing to broader landscape scale initiatives where appropriate. As such, wildlife and fish 

are distributed throughout their natural potential range. The adaptive management process should 

also help to inform and realize these conditions on the ground. 

130 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wildlife Habitat Restoration

Under the action alternatives, prescribed fires and mechanical thinning would continue across the 

forest (and adjacent lands) in the coming years to reduce accumulated fuels that can cause 

uncharacteristic wildfire. Cumulatively, these actions are expected to improve habitat while 

decreasing the overall long-term viability risk to wildlife species that evolved with fire-adapted 

ecosystems. 

Under the action alternatives, wildfires could be managed more consistently with Grand Canyon 

National Park by allowing them to move across forest-park boundaries to achieve similar 

restoration objectives. This continuity would improve overall resiliency of the mixed conifer type 

on the plateau and should benefit numerous wildlife species. Barriers to such cross-boundary 

management do not exist outside of current plan restrictions because an interagency fire 

management organization composed of both Park Service and Forest Service personnel is 

responsible for all fire management on the Kaibab Plateau. 

These goals and strategies are consistent with and complementary to strategies identified in 

Arizona’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy: 2005−2015, as well as the State 

Wildlife Action Plan (AGFD 2012). These plans both emphasize sustainability, a return to historic 

(reference) conditions, and are based on the principles of best science, best management 

practices, and an adaptive management process that includes measurable goals, objectives, 

strategies, and approaches.

The Arizona Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan (Latta et al. 1999) and the Intermountain 

West Joint Venture Agreement, which provide overall statewide direction for managing migratory 

land birds, shorebirds, and waterfowl in Bird Conservation Regions 16 and 34, emphasize 

protection of key habitats for birds and outline goals and objectives for inventory and monitoring, 

research, information and education, management, and issues involving neotropical migratory 

bird species. Federal recovery plans for the California condor (USFWS 1996) and the Mexican 

spotted owl (USFWS 2012a) further guide activities for those species. 

Mechanical thinning and fire can affect wildlife habitat in various ways. Projects are mitigated on 

a site-specific basis to reduce negative effects that might result from habitat modification. 

Collectively, projects can affect foraging, nesting, hiding and thermal cover, and potentially daily 

movements on a short-term basis, but most wildlife species would benefit over the long term. 

Much of the forest and woodland across northern Arizona has become denser than under historic 

(presettlement conditions) because of decreased wildfire frequency (Swetnam et al. 1999, 

Covington and Moore 1994, Covington 2003). Forest restoration activities identified in the 

preferred alternative are likely to move habitat structure and composition back to conditions more 

consistent with conditions that occurred during the recent evolutionary past for wildlife species 

on the Kaibab NF and adjacent lands. 

Because wildlife species are subject to movement (frequently over great distances), efforts on 

adjacent lands are important considerations in this process. Continuity is important and projects 

which span land management jurisdictions will likely be most effective in providing adequate 

habitat distribution for wildlife over time, further minimizing viability risk. This requires 

collaboration among various organizations and stakeholder groups. 

Similar forest planning efforts are underway on two neighboring forests, the Coconino National 

Forest and the Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests. Both are also revising their land management 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 131
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

plans concurrently with the Kaibab NF, based upon the same regional vegetative desired 

conditions, standards, and guidelines, and similar objectives for ponderosa pine and mixed 

conifer. The cumulative restoration activities from the action alternatives from these plans could 

have a pronounced effect on modifying stand structure to be less susceptible to stand-replacing 

fire in these vegetation types, while promoting resiliency with regard to climate change. 

Collectively, the net result of these revised LMPs should be positive and beneficial for wildlife 

species by ensuring the persistence of these habitats into the future and by providing continuity of 

suitable habitats. This should decrease the overall risk to species viability.

Another large-scale planning effort in the analysis area focused on improving resiliency in fireadapted ecosystems is the 4FRI. If implemented, the 4FRI could treat up to 55,000 acres annually 

across the Kaibab NF and adjacent NFS lands. The cumulative effect of this process could have 

widespread beneficial outcomes in restoration across the forest including decreased susceptibility 

to large disturbances (e.g., uncharacteristic wildfire and insect outbreaks) and increased water 

yields from winter snowfall through the creation of interspaces. The scale of this project is such 

that these changes could have a meaningful impact on wildlife habitat by improving adaptability 

of ponderosa pine type to a changing climate and providing for it well into the future. 

Additionally, the General Land Management plan for the Grand Canyon National Park (United 

States Department of the Interior National Park Service 1995) and the Approved Resource 

Management Plan for the Arizona Strip (United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management 2008) which manages public lands in the northern portions of Coconino and 

Mohave Counties, Arizona, north and west of the Colorado River, focus on desired conditions 

and monitoring and adaptive management with mutually common goals of promoting native 

vegetative communities and ecological processes. These goals should help to provide healthy 

habitat for wildlife and sustainable, resilient ecosystems over the greater landscape.

Wildlife, Development and Connectivity

Some wildlife species are especially at risk with regard to development. For example: birds, bats, 

and wide ranging species can be affected by transmission lines, turbines, roads, and other 

activities associated with renewable energy endeavors. These types of activities, which occur on 

lands of different ownerships and jurisdictions, are anticipated to increase in the future. The Fish 

and Wildlife Service has issued interim guidelines for site specific development of wind energy 

facilities that may affect wildlife (USFWS 2011). On the Kaibab NF, proposals for development 

are dealt with on a case-by-case basis through special uses and the permitting process. In general, 

no new development is being encouraged on the forest. To that end, the Kaibab NF management 

strategy includes working closely with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the county, 

Arizona Department of Transportation, and other entities to help preserve open spaces and 

connectedness of wildlife habitat. Much of the land surrounding the forest consists of a 

checkerboard of State and private land inholdings. Existing collaborations between the Arizona 

Game and Fish Department and Coconino County generally encourage the protection of open 

lands and the preservation of the land’s natural character within local and regional contexts. 

Cumulatively, these strategies should decrease the potential for future land fragmentation, while

improving the overall integrity of the landscape. This should also provide for more resilience with 

regard to climate change for those wildlife species that may need to adjust migration routes, 

foraging corridors, or breeding grounds. 

132 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Riparian systems have decreased in size over the past 100 years, largely a result of human 

development. There has been a 90 percent reduction of this habitat type in Arizona compared to 

historic (reference) conditions. On the Kaibab NF, this vegetation community is located only 

within the Kanab Creek Wilderness. Historically, annual flooding was a major disturbance needed 

to maintain the historic vegetation levels necessary for many wildlife species, which utilize this 

habitat type. This community is currently departed from historic conditions due to upstream 

diversions, impoundments, and tamarisk invasion. This watershed is not wholly contained within 

the forest and the Kaibab NF has little control over upstream water management. For this reason, 

it will be difficult for the forest to fully restore this habitat to reference conditions. Water resource 

management activities, including maintaining perennial water quality, quantity, and timing of 

flows contribute a very important role in overall ecological function and sustainability of these 

watersheds. Most of these activities are regulated outside the boundary of the forest. Although the 

Kaibab NF manages what it can in terms of riparian health, cumulatively when combined with 

management activities of other jurisdictions, these actions would not likely be sufficient to 

maintain the ecological integrity of riparian habitat over time. For this reason, it will be difficult 

for the forest to fully restore this habitat to reference conditions. As a result, riparian-dependent 

species such as the western red bat and the Arizona toad, which could use this habitat, would not 

realize their full potential. Detailed information on natural flooding regimes and water use can be 

found in the Soils and Watershed Specialist Report (KNF 2013e).

Wildlife and Recreation

A wide ranging species that could be negatively affected by the use of lead for hunting is the 

California condor, a federally listed species which primarily occurs within and along the south 

rim of the Grand Canyon, the Kaibab Plateau on the north side of Grand Canyon, Marble Canyon, 

the Vermillion Cliffs, and parts of southern Utah (Southwest Condor Review Team 2007). The 

Peregrine Fund has extensive radio-tracking data, which documents heavy use of the Kaibab 

Plateau (North Kaibab Ranger District) for travel and forage (Peregrine Fund 2010). While 

condors are common a few miles to the north along the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, birds 

have rarely been observed on the southern portion of the forest. The condor’s primary use of the 

forest is for dispersal habitat and foraging; condors are opportunistic scavengers that feed 

primarily on large dead mammals such as deer, elk, bighorn sheep, and domestic livestock. 

The proposed action and alternatives would not affect the amount or distribution of carrion. The 

biggest threat to the condor is lead poisoning (USFWS 2012b). The Arizona Game and Fish 

Department regulates hunting in the State and actively encourages the use of non-lead 

ammunition. This voluntary lead reduction program and related hunter education campaign 

includes free distribution of non-lead ammunition to hunters in the condor range and thus far has 

been very successful with an 80 to 90 percent participation rate. The Department is optimistic that 

this trend will continue. Although voluntary lead reduction efforts have significantly reduced the 

amount of lead available to condors in Arizona, the condor reintroduction program has yet to 

observe a corresponding reduction in condor lead exposure rates (USFWS 2012b). Although 80 to 

90 percent of hunters in much of the Arizona portion of condor range have participated in the 

voluntary program since 2007, hunter participation rates in southern Utah’s lead reduction 

program are significantly lower. Condor foraging in southern Utah has increased considerably 

since 2004. Additionally, foraging in Utah during the fall hunting season has risen consistently 

since 2005. This shift in condor movement provides a likely explanation for why lead exposure 

levels have remained essentially static throughout this reporting period rather than declining 

(USFWS 2012b). The Kaibab NF will continue to support this program focused on heavy 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 133
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

advocacy, hunter education, and readily available non-lead ammunition. The net result of these 

collaborations should be positive for the condor.

The third 5-year review (USFWS 2012b) notes that lead poisoning is affecting the southwest 

population from becoming a reproductively self-sustaining population. While it was expected that 

deaths from lead and other sources of mortality would occur when the condors were released, it 

was noted these deaths would be compensated for by both natural and captive reproduction 

(USFWS 1996). To date, this compensation has come primarily from captive reproduction. Any 

change to the hunting regulations in the experimental population area in Arizona or Utah would 

require action by the states (USFWS 2012b). Cumulatively, this is having a negative effect on the 

Southwest condor population.

In summary, the cumulative effect of these planning efforts, when combined with the preferred 

alternative, is expected to be a beneficial one for wildlife by providing for better coordination 

across the landscape and perpetuating the habitat conditions necessary to ensure species viability 

into the future. Alternatives C and D would have similar effects, however, in some areas in 

ponderosa pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, and woodlands and savannas, there would be less 

benefit than in alternative B. Alternative A (no action) would not contribute to a cumulative 

benefit for wildlife species.

Botanical Resources

This analysis evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on the botanical 

resources that may result from the adoption of a revised land management plan. It examines four 

different alternatives in detail for revising the 1988 Kaibab NF Land and Resource Management 

Plan. This is a summary of the information provided in the Botany Specialist Report (KNF 

2013d), which documents the potential effects on forest planning plant species, including 

threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive (TECS) plant species and other rare and/or 

endemic plant species. It provides brief summaries of the ecology and distribution of the TECS 

and other plant species and addresses the concerns and mitigation for potential treatment effects 

on such species. The findings of impacts for the selected alternative have been addressed in the 

biological assessment, which has been prepared for the final EIS.

Habitat elements described in this analysis are the habitat components or features that are 

required to support plant species. Many of the current conditions, risks, and trends of the habitat 

elements are the same as their associated PNVT, which were analyzed in the Kaibab NF

Ecological Sustainability Report (KNF 2008a) and the Vegetation section of this chapter and are 

not repeated here.

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition) – Botanical Resources

All PNVTs analyzed in the terrestrial vegetation report (KNF 2008a) were departed from 

reference conditions, suggesting that the associated species’ habitat needs were not being met,

and therefore, not sustainable given current management practices. Plant habitat elements

associated with fine-scale habitat features not captured by coarse PNVT descriptions include: 

rocky outcrops, cliffs and canyon; and basalts and other soil types. Current conditions of the 

habitat elements that provide the affected environment particularly related to the forest plan 

analysis plant species are described below.

134 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In the pinyon-juniper woodlands and ponderosa pine forest, severe wildfire effects represent a 

significant threat, particularly when combined with secondary threats of uncharacteristic insect or 

drought-related die-off and invasive plants (KNF 2009). There are 29 forest planning plant 

species that reside in pinyon-juniper woodlands; important species currently being affected by 

these changes and threats to the PNVT are paradine plains cactus, disturbed rabbitbrush, cliff 

milkvetch, Kaibab beardtongue, and western flameflower. There are 25 forest planning plant 

species associated with the ponderosa pine forest, notable ones include: Rusby milkvetch, hairy 

clematis, Kaibab beardtongue, and eastern flameflower.

The mixed conifer forests are highly departed from reference condition. Dieback and decline of 

aspen across northern Arizona began in June of 1999, when over 100,000 acres of aspen were 

affected by a severe frost event (Fairweather et al. 2008). Tree mortality was even heavier from 

the 2002−2003 drought period. Secondary agents included cytospora canker, bronze poplar borer, 

other canker fungi, and insects. Once trees started to decline, they did not improve with the 

weather, but kept declining until they died. Arizona bugbane, Colorado blue columbine, Rusby 

milkvetch, and mountain whitlow-grass occur in the mesic mixed conifer with aspen vegetation 

type.

Current tree density and canopy cover are substantially greater than during the reference period in 

the spruce-fir PNVT (KNF 2008a). However, on Bill Williams Mountain within the Arizona 

Bugbane Botanical Area, large old Douglas-fir trees are dying (Phillips and Johnson, pers. obs.).

Douglas-fir beetles are the main culprit for Douglas-fir deaths. They initially attack those trees 

most severely infected by dwarf mistletoe, and then move into the uninfected or lightly infected 

trees. There is typically an association with root disease (Armillaria) infection and Douglas-fir 

beetle attacks as well (Fairweather et al. 2006).

The primary threats to the sagebrush shrublands are lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited 

nutrient cycling, and closed-canopy shrub states resulting from juniper encroachment. These 

interrelated threats create large areas susceptible to stand-replacing fire events. Further departure 

from reference conditions are predicted under the current management and disturbances. Bison

herbivory may pose a secondary threat on the North Kaibab Ranger District. Fires occurring 

under current conditions may lead to negative outcomes for native species composition. Increased 

invasive plant cover after wildfire is considered a moderate risk (KNF 2009). Paradine plains

cactus is a very rare plant that occurs in this vegetation type on the North Kaibab Ranger District

and is managed under a conservation agreement with the USFWS. Both agencies are currently 

working to update this agreement.

The primary threats to montane/subalpine meadows are the lack of characteristic fire disturbance 

and limited nutrient cycling. Under the current disturbance regime and current rate of 

management, further departures are expected. Excessive ungulate pressure may also play a 

substantial role in some areas (KNF 2009). The subalpine/montane meadows on the North Kaibab 

Ranger District are linear, and as a result, are at a higher risk of loss because trees encroach from 

the edges and the openings close more quickly. Kaibab Indian paintbrush, Kaibab bladderpod,

and Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort are three Forest Service sensitive plant species in the subalpine 

grasslands of the North Kaibab Ranger District. 

The Colorado Plateau/Great Basin grasslands show some degree of departure. This grassland type 

is greatly departed off-forest. The primary threat is the lack of characteristic fire disturbance and 

limited nutrient cycling. Conifers are also encroaching. Excessive ungulate pressure may also 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 135
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

play a substantial role in some areas (KNF 2009). Disturbed rabbitbrush is an important forest

planning plant species that is currently being affected by these changes.

Semidesert grasslands are much less abundant than they were historically, which reduces the 

amount of available habitat for grassland-associated species. Bigelow’s onion grows in this 

vegetation type. 

The desert communities occupy a proportionally small area of the forest, but provide habitat for a 

number of unique and endemic plant species not found in other areas of the forest. The primary 

threats to the desert communities are the invasion of exotic plant species such as cheatgrass, and 

closed shrub states becoming more common. These threats increase the risk of uncharacteristic 

fire disturbance. This could further reduce native plant diversity and structure, increasing invasive 

plant cover and erosion. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed rare cactus, Fickeisen

plains cactus, as well as Utah agave and Utah century plant grow in the desert communities.

Bebb’s willow and pond lily are two rare plant species on the Kaibab NF in wetland/cienegas 

PNVT. The primary threats are the lack of characteristic fire disturbance, limited nutrient cycling, 

and reduced water input (KNF 2009). Tree encroachment and high tree density in adjacent 

vegetation types may lower the water table and reduce water flow in this system. Fire disturbance 

under current conditions may lead toward invasive plants. Drought is a secondary threat.

The following is the key to the forest rankings in table 21:

Forest Rank: F? (Information insufficient to develop rank) 

F1 (Extremely rare on the forest) 

F2 (Very rare on the forest) 

F3 (Rare and uncommon on the forest)

F4 (Widespread abundant on the forest)

F5 (Demonstrably secure on the forest)

FP (Potential habitat on forest but species not known to occur) 

FO (Off forest)

Vegetation Types: CWRF: Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest; DC: Desert Communities; 

GBG: Great Basin Grassland; MCA: Mixed Conifer with Aspen; MSM: Montane Subalpine 

Meadows; PJW: Pinyon-juniper Woodland; PPF: Ponderosa Pine Forest; SbS: Sagebrush 

Shrubland; SdG: Semidesert Grassland; SFF: Spruce-fir Forest; W/C: Wetland/Cienega; W: 

Water.

136 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 21. Forest planning plant species list, forest ranks, and associated vegetation types

Scientific Name Common Name Forest 

Rank

Vegetation 

Types

Actaea arizonica Arizona bugbane F1 MCA

Agave utahensis var. kaibabensis Utah century plant F1 PJW

Agave utahensis var. utahensis Utah agave F2 DC

Allium bigelovii a Bigelow’s onion FO DC, SdG

Aquilegia caerulea var. pinetorum Columbine F1 MCA, SFF

Arenaria aberrans Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort F1 MSM

Asclepias hallii Hall’s milkweed F1 PJW, PPF

Asclepias quinquedentata Slimpod milkweed F1 PPF

Astragalus amphioxys var. modestus Aladin’s slippers FO PJW, SbS

Astragalus ampullarius Gumbo milkvetch FP DC, PJW

Astragalus cremnophylax var. hevronii Hevron’s milkvetch FP DC

Astragalus cremnophylax var. myriorraphis Cliff milkvetch F1 PJW

Astragalus episcopus var. lancearius Lancer milkvetch F1 PJW, SbS

Astragalus humistratus var. tenerrimus Groundcover milkvetch F3 PPF, SFF

Astragalus lentiginosus var. oropedii Freckled milkvetch FP PJW, PPF

Astragalus lentiginosus var. vitreus Freckled milkvetch F? PJW, SbS, GBG

Astragalus pinonis var. atwoodii A milkvetch F1 PJW

Astragalus rusbyi Rusby’s milkvetch F1 MCA, PPF

Astragalus subcinereus Silver milkvetch F2 PJW, SbS, PPF

Astragalus titanophilus Limestone milkvetch FP GBG

Astragalus troglodytus Creeping milkvetch F1 PJW, SbS, PPF

Botrychium echo Reflected moonwort FO MSM

Camissonia gouldii Diamond Valley suncup FO PJW

Carex oreocharis A sedge F1 MSM

Castilleja kaibabensis Kaibab Indian-paintbrush F1 MSM

Chrysothamnus molestus Disturbed (Tusayan) 

rabbitbrush F2 GBG, PJW

Cirsium rothrockii Rose-color thistle FP PPF

Clematis hirsutissima var. hirsutissimab Hairy clematis F1 PPF

Cleome lutea var. jonesii Jones’ spider-flower FO CWRF, PJW

Cordylanthus wrightii ssp. kaibabensis Wright’s bird’s-beak F1 PJW, PPF, SbS

Cryptantha abata Dent-nut cat’s-eye FO PJW, PPF

Cystopteris utahensis Utah bladder fern F? PJW, PPF

Draba asprella var. asprella Rough whitlow-grass FO PPF

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 137
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific Name Common Name Forest 

Rank

Vegetation 

Types

Draba asprella var. kaibabensis Rough whitlow-grass F1 PJW, PPF

Draba asprella var. stelligera Rough whitlow-grass FO PPF

Draba rectifructa Mountain whitlow-grass F1 MCA

Erigeron saxatilis Cliff fleabane F1 PPF

Eriogonum corymbosum var. glutinosum c Wild buckwheat FO PJW, PPF

Eriogonum darrovii Darrow’s wild buckwheat F1 GBG

Eriogonum pulchrum (= Eriogonum 

ericifolium var. pulchrum) 

Yavapai wild buckwheat FO PJW, PPF

Eriogonum jonesii Jones’ wild buckwheat F? PJW

Eriogonum mortonianum Morton wild buckwheat FP SbS

Eriogonum thompsoniae var. atwoodii Atwood’s wild buckwheat FP SbS

Escobaria vivipara var. kaibabensis d Spinystar F5 PJW

Gaillardia parryi Parry’s blanket-flower F1 PJW

Hedeoma diffusa Flagstaff pennyroyal F1 PPF

Helianthus arizonensis Arizona sunflower FP PJW

Heuchera novomexicana New Mexico alum-root FP PJW

Ivesia arizonica e Arizona whitefeather FO PJW, PPF

Ivesia arizonica var. arizonica Arizona whitefeather F? PJW, PPF

Lepidium montanum var. glabrum Mountain pepperweed FO DC, PJW

Lesquerella arizonica Arizona bladderpod F2 PJW, PPF

Lesquerella kaibabensis Kaibab bladderpod F1 MSM

Lotus mearnsii var. mearnsii Mearns lotus F? DC, SdG

Macromeria viridiflora var. viridifloraf Giant-trumpets F4 PPF

Mertensia macdougalii Macdougal’s bluebells F1 MWR, PPF

Moneses uniflora Wood nymph FO MCA, PPF, SSF

Myosurus nitidus Western mouse-tail F1 PJW, PPF

Nuphar lutea Pond lily F1 W

Pediocactus paradinei Paradine Plains cactus F1 PJW, SbS

Pediocactus peeblesianus var. fickeiseniae Fickeisen Plains cactus F1 GBG, DC

Pediomelum mephiticum Skunk-top scurfpea FO DC, PJW, SdG

Penstemon caespitosus var. desertipicti Mat penstemon F2 PJW

Penstemon laevis Southwestern beardtongue F1 PJW, PPF

Penstemon nudiflorus Flagstaff beardtongue F1 PJW, PPF

Penstemon pseudoputus Kaibab beardtongue F2 PPF, MSM

Penstemon rydbergiig Rydberg’s penstemon F4 MSM

138 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific Name Common Name Forest 

Rank

Vegetation 

Types

Perityle congesta Compacted rock daisy F1 PJW, PPF

Perityle gracilis Grass-like rockdaisy F? PJW

Phacelia serrata Serrate phacelia FP PJW, PPF

Phemeranthus validulus (=Talinum 

validulum)

Western flameflower F2 PJW, PPF

Phlox amabilis Arizona phlox F1 PJW, PPF

Potentilla crinita var. lemmonii Bearded cinquefoil F2 PPF

Ranunculus oreogenes Oregon buttercup F1 PPF

Rosa stellata ssp. abyssa Grand Canyon rose F1 PJW, SbS

Salix bebbiana Bebb’s willow F1 W/C

Shepherdia rotundifolia Roundleaf buffaloberry F1 PJW

Sporobolus interruptus Black dropseed F? MSM, PPF

Stachys rothrockii Rothrock’s hedge-nettle F? PJW, PPF

Thelypodiopsis ambigua var. ambigua Long Valley tumblemustard FO DC, PJW

Thelypteris puberula Showy maidenfern FO CWRF

Triteleia lemmoniae Oak Creek triteleia F? PPF

a

 Forest Service sensitive species that do not occur on the Kaibab NF (FO or FP) are not carried forward for viability 

analysis.

b

 Variety arizonica has been combined with the typical variety, hirsutissima. Not considered in this analysis. c

 Recent investigation revealed this taxon is more widespread and common than previously determined. No locations 

are documented for the Kaibab NF. d

 Escobaria vivipara var. kaibabensis is now included in Coryphantha vivipara, “the most widespread, abundant and 

variable member of the genus....” (Morin 1997, Flora North America, pp. 235-236). Not considered further in this 

analysis. 

e

 Not considered further because the variety on the forest is var. arizonica (included in table). f Recent investigation revealed this taxon is more widespread and common than previously determined. NatureServe 

ranking G4?T3?. Not considered further in this analysis.

g Recent investigation revealed this taxa is more widespread and common than previously determined. NatureServe 

ranking G4T5. Not considered futher in this analysis.

Critical Habitat for Listed Plant Species

The forest has no designated critical habitat for plants at this time. However, the July 8, 2013 

Federal Register has the proposed listing and designation of critical habitat for Fickeisen plains 

cactus (Pediocactus peeblesian var. fickeiseniae). There is one CHU proposed for the Fickeisen 

plains cactus that is located on the North Kaibab Ranger District. The CHU 4 (South Canyon) is 

entirely located on the forest and contains 272 acres within the unit. The unit contains at least 62 

individuals scattered among six areas along the rim of South Canyon Point. 

Environmental Consequences to Plant Species Viability

The plant species viability assessment focuses on information relevant to the Kaibab NF. This 

evaluation used the Species Viability Process (described previously in this chapter under the 

Species Viability Analysis section) to identify species for which there are substantive risks to 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 139
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

maintenance of viable populations, and to ensure consideration of appropriate habitat 

management strategies to reduce those risks to acceptable levels where feasible. 

From the 81 plant species used as Forest Planning species, 53 species had a rating of F?-F3 (table 

21) and will be carried forward in this viability analysis. This list includes one Federal listed

species and 14 Regional Forester Sensitive Species known to occur on the Kaibab NF.

Consequences unique to each alternative and the differences among the action alternatives for the 

forest planning plant species are compared in table 22. Ratings of risk to viability for each 

species/habitat relationship by alternative are also presented in the table.

The following is a key to variables used in table 22 (see appendix H for a more detailed 

description of the rating codes):

Status: F (Federally listed or proposed as threatened or endangered)

S (Regional forester’s sensitive species list)

O (Locally rare and other)

F Rank: F? (Information insufficient to develop rank) 

F1 (Extremely rare on the forest)

F2 (Very rare on the forest) 

F3 (Rare and uncommon on the forest)

Viability Risk: VH (Very High)

H (High)

MH (Moderately High)

M (Moderate)

L (Low)

As table 22 shows, the one listed species, 14 regional forester sensitive species, and 36 other 

forest plan analysis plant species were found to have at least one element ranked as a high rating 

risk category.

Table 22. Risk to plant species viability for each species/habitat relation by forest plan 

revision alternative

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Status

F Rank

Habitat 

Element/Feature

Viability Risk by 

Alternative

A B C D

Actaea 

arizonica

Arizona 

bugbane

S F1 Aspen within mesic 

mixed conifers 

H H H H

Canyons MH MH MH MH

Agave utahensis 

var. kaibabensis

Utah century 

plant

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Desert Communities VH VH VH VH

Cliffs and ledges MH MH MH MH

Agave utahensis 

var. utahensis

Utah agave O F2 Pinyon-juniper woodland M M M M

Desert communities H H H H

Cliffs and ledges M M M M

140 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Status

F Rank

Habitat 

Element/Feature

Viability Risk by 

Alternative

A B C D

Aquilegia 

caerulea var.

pinetorum

Columbine O F1 Aspen with mesic mixed 

conifer and spruce

H H H H

Seeps H H H H

Arenaria 

aberrans

Mt. 

Dellenbaugh 

sandwort

S F1 Montaine subalpine 

grassland

H H H H

Limestone Soils MH MH MH MH

Asclepias hallii Hall’s 

milkweed

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Asclepias 

quinquedentata

Slimpod 

milkweek

O F? Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Astragalus 

cremnophylax 

var.

myriorraphis

Cliff milkvetch S F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Astragalus 

episcopus var. 

lancearius

Lancer 

milkvetch

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Sagebrush shrubland MH MH MH MH

Astragalus 

humistratus var.

tenerrimus

Groundcover 

milkvetch

O F3 Ponderosa pine M L M M

Spruce/fir forest M M M M

Astragalus 

lentiginosus var.

vitreus

Freckled 

milkvetch

O F? Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Sagebrush shrubland MH MH MH MH

Great Basin grassland H MH MH MH

Astragalus 

pinonis var. 

atwoodii

A milkvetch O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Astragalus 

rusbyi

Rusby’s 

milkvetch

S F1 Aspen within mesic 

mixed conifers

H H H H

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Astragalus 

subcinereus

Silver 

milkvetch

O F2 Pinyon-juniper woodland M M M M

Sagebrush shrubland M M M M

Astragalus 

troglodytus

Creeping 

milkvetch

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Sagebrush shrubland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Carex 

oreocharis

A sedge O F1 Montaine subalpine 

Grassland

H MH MH MH

Castilleja 

kaibabensis

Kaibab IndianpaintbrushS F1 Montaine subalpine 

Grassland

H MH MH MH

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 141
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Status

F Rank

Habitat 

Element/Feature

Viability Risk by 

Alternative

A B C D

Chrysothamnus 

molestus

Disturbed 

(Tusayan) 

rabbitbrush

S F2 Great Basin grassland MH M M M

Pinyon-juniper woodland M M M M

Calcareous soils M M M M

Clematis 

hirsutissima 

var. 

hirsutissima

Hairy clematis S F1 Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Dolomitic limestone soils MH MH MH MH

Cordylanthus 

wrightii ssp. 

kaibabensis

Wright’s 

bird’s-beak

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Sagebrush shrubland MH MH MH MH

Cystopteris 

utahensis

Utah bladder 

fern

O F? Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Wet ground H H H H

Cliffs and ledges MH MH MH MH

Draba asprella 

var. kaibabensis

Rough 

whitlow-grass

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Cliffs and ledges MH MH MH MH

Draba 

rectifructa

Mountain 

whitlow-grass

O F1 Aspen within mesic 

mixed vonifers

H H H H

Erigeron 

saxatilis

Cliff fleabane S F1 Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Cliffs and ledges MH MH MH MH

Eriogonum 

darrovii

Darrow’s wild 

buckwheat

O F1 Great Basin grassland H MH MH MH

Eriogonum 

jonesii

Jones’ wild 

buckwheat

O F? Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Gaillardia 

parryi

Parry’s 

blanket-flower

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Hedeoma 

diffusa

Flagstaff 

pennyroyal

S F1 Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Rocky dolomitic cliffs 

and ledges

MH MH MH MH

Limestone MH MH MH MH

Ivesia arizonica 

var. arizonica

Arizona 

whitefeather

O F? Pinyon-juniper eoodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Rocky limestone MH MH MH MH

Lesquerella 

arizonica

Arizona 

bladderpod

O F2 Pinyon-juniper woodland M M M M

Ponderosa pine MH M MH MH

142 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Status

F Rank

Habitat 

Element/Feature

Viability Risk by 

Alternative

A B C D

Lesquerella 

kaibabensis

Kaibab 

bladderpod

S F1 Montane subalpine 

grassland

H MH MH MH

Rocky slopes MH MH MH MH

Lotus mearnsii 

var. mearnsii

Mearns lotus O F? Semidesert grassland H H H H

Mertensia 

macdougalii

Macdougal’s 

bluebells

O F1 Montaine willow riparian

forest

H MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Myosurus 

nitidus

Western 

mousetail

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Seasonally wet ground H H H H

Nuphar lutea Pond lily O F1 Water H H H H

Pediocactus 

paradinei

Paradine Plains 

cactus

S F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Sagebrush shrubland MH MH MH MH

Limestone MH MH MH MH

Pediocactus 

peeblesianus 

var. fickeiseniae

Fickeisen

Plains cactus

F F1 Desert communities VH VH VH VH

Limestone MH MH MH MH

Penstemon 

caespitosus var.

desertipicti

Mat penstemon O F2 Pinyon-juniper woodland M M M M

Penstemon 

laevis

Southwestern 

beardtongue

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Penstemon 

nudiflorus

Flagstaff 

beardtongue

S F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Basalt soils MH MH MH MH

Penstemon 

pseudoputus

Kaibab 

beardtongue

O F2 Ponderosa pine MH M MH MH

Montaine subalpine 

grassland

MH M M M

Perityle 

congesta

Compacted 

rock daisy

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Limestone MH MH MH MH

Cliffs and ledges MH MH MH MH

Perityle gracilis Grass-like 

rockdaisy

O F? Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 143
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Scientific 

Name

Common 

Name

Status

F Rank

Habitat 

Element/Feature

Viability Risk by 

Alternative

A B C D

Phemeranthus 

validulus 

=Talinum 

validulum

Western flameflowerO F2 Pinyon-juniper woodland M M M M

Ponderosa pine MH M MH MH

Seasonally wet MH MH MH MH

Limestone soils M M M M

Phlox amabilis Arizona phlox S F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Limestone soils MH MH MH MH

Potentilla 

crinita var.

lemmonii

Bearded 

cinquefoil

O F2 Ponderosa pine MH M MH MH

Ranunculus 

oreogenes

Oregon 

buttercup

O F1 Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Rosa stellata 

ssp. abyssa

Grand Canyon 

rose

S F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Sagebrush shrubland MH MH MH MH

Limestone MH MH MH MH

Cliffs and ledges MH MH MH MH

Salix bebbiana Bebb’s willow O F1 Wetland/Cienega VH VH VH VH

Shepherdia 

rotundifolia

Roundleaf 

buffaloberry

O F1 Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Sporobolus 

interruptus

Black dropseed O F1 Montane subalpine 

grassland

H MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Stachys 

rothrockii

Rothrock’s 

hedge-nettle

O F? Pinyon-juniper woodland MH MH MH MH

Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Sandstone MH MH MH MH

Triteleia 

lemmoniae

Oak Creek 

Triteleia

O F? Ponderosa pine H MH H H

Wet soils H H H H

Table 23 shows that alternative B would provide habitat improvement for 34 habitat relationships, 

almost three times as many as would alternatives C and D. No alternative would provide optimal 

protection and management for all occurrences to habitat relationships that were ranked as VH, H 

and MH. However, all the other species except one which is affected by external factors, would 

have habitat abundance and distribution maintained. No species would suffer a decline in habitat 

abundance and distribution resulting from management under any of the alternatives. Alternative 

A would not provide improvement of habitat, but habitat abundance and distribution would be 

maintained.

Table 24 summarizes species with a high rating and their associated status by each planning 

alternative. The species status highlights the relative role of other provisions included in law and 

144 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

policy that result in additional consideration for at-risk species during planning. Only the highest 

rating for each species for each alternative is shown.

Table 23. Number of plant species/habitat relationships rated as very high, high, and 

moderately high risk to viability for each category of management effect by forest plan 

revision alternative

Management Effect/Risk

Alternatives

A B C D

1. Provide Optimal Protection and Management for All Habitat Occurrences

Very High 0 0 0 0

High 0 0 0 0

Moderately High 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0

2. Improve Habitat Abundance and Distribution Through Restoration

Very High 0 1 1 1

High 0 5 5 5

Moderately High 0 28 7 7

Total 0 34 13 13

3. Maintain Habitat Abundance and Distribution

Very High 3 2 2 2

High 49 15 36 36

Moderately High 48 42 46 46

Total 100 59 84 84

4. Reduce Habitat Abundance and Distribution as a Result of External Factors

Very High 0 0 0 0

High 1 1 1 1

Moderately High 0 0 0 0

Total 1 1 1 1

5. Decline in Habitat Abundance and Distribution as a Result of Management

Very High 0 0 0 0

High 0 0 0 0

Moderately High 0 0 0 0

Total 0 0 0 0

Total for All Management Effect Categories

Very High 3 3 3 3

High 50 21 42 42

Moderately High 48 70 53 53

Total 101 94 98 98

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 145
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 24. Number of plant species rated as very high, high, and moderately high risk to 

viability for each category of species status, by forest plan revision alternative

Management Effect/Risk

Alternatives

A B C D

Federal Listed Species

Very High 1 1 1 1

High 0 0 0 0

Moderately High 0 0 0 0

Total 1 1 1 1

Regional Forester’s Sensitive Species

Very High 0 0 0 0

High 10 2 5 5

Moderately High 4 13 9 9

Total 14 15 14 14

Rare and Endemic Species

Very High 2 2 2 2

High 24 8 22 22

Moderately High 10 20 10 10

Total 36 30 34 34

Total for All Management Effect Categories

Very High 3 3 3 3

High 33 10 27 27

Moderately High 14 33 19 19

Total 50 46 49 49

There are 50 forest plan analysis plant species that have at least one habitat element with one of 

the three high rankings to viability risk. The other three forest plan analysis plant species had risk 

ratings of low to moderate and are not shown in the table. Forest plan analysis species have lower 

risk ratings under alternative B, than under action alternatives C and D and no action alternative 

A. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Botanical Resources Common to All Alternatives 

Planning for, and evaluation of, plant species viability for forest plan revision has focused 

primarily on providing desired abundance and distribution of habitat elements, in compliance 

with NFMA regulations. Risks to species viability can be much further reduced by additional 

provisions present in existing law, regulation and policy. These include specific consideration of 

effects to federally listed threatened and endangered species, those proposed for such listing, and 

regional forester’s sensitive species. These effects are disclosed in biological assessments and 

146 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

evaluations conducted as part of all national forest management decisions. These assessments and 

evaluations identify where additional protective measures are warranted to provide for continued 

existence of the species on national forest land. Projects that may affect federally listed or 

proposed species must be coordinated with the USFWS.

In support of these requirements, these species are often the focus of inventory and monitoring 

efforts. Additional species-based provisions included in all forest plan revision alternatives 

supplement existing law and policy. Many of the high risk species will be conserved through rare 

community requirements included in this forest plan, as well as through forestwide objectives 

related to forest health and community restoration. All alternatives would continue to manage the 

Arizona Bugbane and Paradine Plains Cactus Botanical Areas to prevent further listing of that 

species.

Five habitat elements emerged as having a high likelihood of being a limiting factor for all 

alternatives. These include desert communities, Gambel oak shrublands, wetland/cienega, 

riparian forest, and cottonwood-willow riparian forest. All of these habitat elements naturally 

occur on less than 1 percent of the landscape across the Kaibab NF. It is not the forest intent to 

make these naturally rare habitat features more common than they were historically. For most of 

the species listed in table 22, their habitat elements may be common on the Kaibab NF, but the 

species are naturally limited in abundance or distribution due to micro-habitat needs. For these 

species, it is not the intent of the forest to increase their populations outside of areas they would 

naturally occur. 

There would be continued treatment of noxious and/or nonnative invasive plants under all 

alternatives. Recreation, livestock grazing, special uses, mining and minerals development, and 

energy development would continue to occur under all alternatives. These actions would follow 

manual and handbook policy and direction. Livestock grazing under all alternatives would 

provide for continued availability of forage for domestic livestock. Operating instructions for 

livestock grazing permittees are reviewed annually. Because an adaptive management strategy is 

used to adjust use with capacity and minimize any adverse effects, the consequences associated 

with continued grazing use is minimal (see Grazing Section of this chapter). 

In addition to following existing law, regulation, and policy as mentioned above, projects would 

implement (BMPs) (FSM2530.2) and other mitigation measures designed to protect soils and 

watershed resources. BMPs and soil and water conservation practices (SWCPs) (FSH 2509.22 

R3, FS-990a) have been designed to mitigate ground disturbance from forest mechanical 

treatments and these practices would help to mitigate any potentially negative impacts and would 

provide for viability of botanical resources affected by large-scale disturbance. See the Soils and 

Watershed section for additional information.

The Grand Canyon Game Preserve, which occurs on portions of the North Kaibab Ranger 

District, was established by presidential proclamation. No mining or minerals development is 

allowed in that area as a result of this designation. This would afford some protection from threats 

associated with mining activity for those species which occur in that area, including Fickeisen

plains cactus and Paradine Plains cactus.

There are also limited threats to the Fickeisen plains cactus from livestock or bison grazing. The 

South Canyon population is located in an area where this is no authorized livestock grazing and 

there is no evidence of bison grazing within this area. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 147
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Botanical Resources 

for Alternative A – Current Plan, 

Current Management (No Action) 

Alternative A has the greatest number of species with risk to viability from each category of 

management effect (50 total) that rate out in a very high (3), high (33), or moderate high (14) 

viability risk rating (table 24).

If alternative A is selected, there would be no change in management actions on the Kaibab NF. 

The current forest plan was approved in 1988, and has been amended several times. Many of the 

rare plant species that were identified in the plan in 1988 are no longer considered rare, due to 

new information that has been gained from floristic surveys or project-specific surveys. The 

current Region 3 Sensitive Species List (USDA Forest Service 2013) is used for surveys and 

input to projects. Information on other rare plant species, such as the analysis species used in the 

current planning process, would not be gathered under alternative A.

Alternative A would continue to address uses and resources separately without recognition of 

interrelationships. Management direction would be lacking when guidance is needed to deal with 

more complex situations such as those arising after uncharacteristic wildfires. Several rare plants 

occur in areas that have been affected by wildfires, such as the Warm Fire. In the current forest 

plan, desired conditions are missing for land management areas and are either missing or 

inadequate at guiding projects in many of the forest’s vegetation types and special areas. The 

current plan does not integrate desired disturbance processes and is typically written in terms of 

standards and guidelines, rather than desirable conditions to move toward.

The current plan does not acknowledge or attempt to address climate change. It fails to emphasize 

the restoration of natural ecological processes and ecosystems that will be resilient to such 

change. Related to climate change is an increased likelihood for large-scale disturbance events 

(e.g., bark beetle outbreaks, widespread uncharacteristic fire, and drought). The current plan 

offers little direction for management activities and botanical resources associated with largescale disturbance, but would continue to provide for plant species viability in the ways mentioned 

in the Environmental Consequences Common to All Action Alternatives section.

Under alternative A, objectives would continue to be focused on outputs, rather than progress 

toward desired conditions. The priority needs for change have been identified as: modifying stand 

structure and density toward reference conditions and restoring historic fire regimes; protecting 

and regenerating aspen; protecting natural waters; and restoring grasslands and meadows. These 

priorities are important for ensuring viability of many rare plant species and would not be met 

under alternative A. Many rare plant species occur in vegetation types that lack characteristic fire 

disturbance. Aspen regeneration is a concern for species associated with the mesic mixed conifer 

vegetation type. The current forest plan offers little guidance for managing springs and ephemeral 

wetlands, which are rare and ecologically important resources. Actions to protect natural waters 

are relatively inexpensive and easy to accomplish, provide important benefits, and have a high 

concordance with social and economic needs.

Standards and guidelines under alternative A would not support attaining desired conditions or 

accomplishing objectives. The standards and guidelines are often very prescriptive about how to 

accomplish a project instead of focusing on the project outcome and read as more of a “one size 

148 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

fits all approach,” leaving little management flexibility with regard to variation among sitespecific conditions and limited ability to respond to emerging threats such as climate change. The 

standards and guidelines under alternative A provide minimal guidance for mineral exploration 

and development, a potential threat to Fickeisen Plains cactus, (Federally endangered species), as 

well as other rare plant taxa (e.g., Utah century plant, Utah agave, and Grand Canyon rose). 

In alternative A, standards and guidelines are based on outdated science and information about 

rare plant species. Much has been learned over the past 23 years and methods of communication 

via computers and internet have made much more information (such as plant locations and habitat 

data through SEINet) readily available for use. Retention of current standards and guidelines

under alternative A might result in conflicts with direction currently in Forest Service handbooks 

and manuals, and strategies for conserving plant species such as Arizona bugbane and Paradine

Plains cactus.

Monitoring under alternative A focuses on outputs, rather than effectiveness and progress toward 

desired conditions. 

The current plan has very few standards or guidelines that relate directly to features needed by 

sensitive species that depend on grasslands, meadows, shrublands, desert communities, caves and 

mines, rocky outcrops, or cliffs and canyons. These species and features are indirectly affected by 

standards and guidelines for recreational uses and mineral development. Their main protection is 

the requirements to protect sensitive species which are addressed outside the plan. Recreation, 

livestock grazing, special uses, mining and minerals development, and energy development 

would continue to occur under alternative A. In addition, alternative A does not have the 

guidelines (present for alternatives B, C and D) that “project design should incorporate measures 

to protect and provide for rare and narrow endemic species where they are likely to occur.”

The current plan would continue to address invasive species through a forestwide standard that 

“incorporates measures to control invasive species into project planning, implementation and 

monitoring.” In addition, a guideline which incorporates “Design Features, Best Management 

Practices and Mitigation Measures” in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated 

Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NF s within 

Coconino, Gila, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona” (USDA Forest Service 2005) would 

further help to mitigate the threat posed by invasive plants.

Environmental Consequences for 

Botanical Resources Common to 

Action Alternatives B, C, and D

The organization of the proposed plan and alternatives is better integrated across resource areas 

than the current forest plan (alternative A). Since monitoring is needed that supports adaptive 

management, focusing on outcomes and progress toward desired conditions rather than outputs, 

this aspect of the action alternatives is a particularly positive benefit for the forest plan analysis 

plant species. Specifically, the monitoring plan addresses botanical resources through the 

following questions: 

• Natural waters: In treated/protected areas, are water flow patterns and vegetation intact? 

• Threatened and Endangered species: What is the population trend of Pediocactus 

peeblesianus var. fickeisenii? 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 149
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Pediocactus Conservation Area: Were the monitoring requirements met as identified in 

the Pediocactus conservation agreement? 

• Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area: Were the monitoring requirements met as identified in 

the Arizona bugbane conservation agreement? 

• Nonnative Invasive Species: What is the areal extent of priority nonnative invasive plants 

on the Kaibab NF?

The action alternatives articulate clear desired conditions for habitats and refugia for narrow 

endemics or species with restricted distributions and/or declining populations, including desired 

conditions that locations and conditions of rare and narrow endemic species are known, and 

habitat and refugia are present for narrow endemics or species with restricted distributions and/or 

declining populations. There is also a guideline: “Project design should incorporate protective 

measures to provide for rare and narrow endemic species where they are likely to occur.” These 

desired conditions and guideline provide more direction under all the action alternatives for the 

33 rare and endemic plant species being carried forward as forest planning species than does the 

current plan (no action alternative A) and will help to insure the viability of these species.

Existing management areas such as the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area and the proposed 

Pediocactus Conservation Area, as well as the conservation agreements for Paradine plains cactus 

and Arizona bugbane, provide for management and guidance for these rare endemic plants. 

Bill Williams Mountain has been identified as a Management Area because it contains multiple 

resources and uses of high natural, cultural, and economic value. The establishment of the Bill 

Williams Mountain LMA would provide guidance over a wider area surrounding the Arizona 

Bugbane Botanical Area by establishing desired conditions that provide quality habitat for 

Arizona bugbane, guidelines that restrict commercial plant collection, and restrictions on the 

existing term permit for the Elk Ridge Ski Area. 

Desired conditions also specify that threatened, endangered, and sensitive species have quality 

habitat, stable or increasing populations, and are at low risk for extirpation. Project activities and 

special uses would be designed and implemented to maintain refugia and critical life cycle needs 

of Forest Service sensitive species. Guidelines reinforce desired conditions by stating that project 

activities and special uses occurring within federally listed species habitat should integrate habitat 

management objectives and species protection measures from approved recovery plans.

Modifying stand structure and density toward reference conditions and restoration of historic fire 

regimes would enhance habitats of rare plant species. There are 29 forest plan analysis plant 

species that reside in the pinyon-juniper woodlands, and 25 forest plan analysis plant taxa grow in 

the ponderosa pine forest.

Desired conditions for the pinyon-juniper woodlands that provide for composition, structure and 

function of the vegetative conditions resilient to the frequency, extent, and severity of 

disturbances would be important to plant species such as Paradine Plains cactus, disturbed 

rabbitbrush, cliff milkvetch, Kaibab beardtongue, and western flameflower, species are currently 

affected by changes and threats to the pinyon-juniper woodlands. Even the rare Paradine Plains 

cactus is able to withstand moderate fire.

Studies of several forest planning species of the ponderosa pine forest, Rusby milkvetch (Springer 

et al., in press), Flagstaff pennyroyal (Phillips et al. 1992), and hairy clematis (Maschinski et al.

150 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

1997) have shown that these species respond favorably to treatments that open the ponderosa pine 

forests and restore more natural fire return intervals.

Field observations of other rare plant species such as Flagstaff beardtongue indicate positive 

responses to fire. Under the group selection matrix thinning, multi-storied, uneven-aged states are 

created more effectively (see Vegetation, Fuels and Fire section of this chapter). Since these states 

are more like the desired condition for the ponderosa pine PNVT, the habitats of many of the rare 

and endemic plant species that evolved under more open forests with frequent low-intensity 

ground fires would be enhanced under this alternative. 

All the alternatives have emphasizes for aspen regeneration to insure long-term healthy aspen 

populations and to provide local habitat diversity and scenery. This would be particularly 

favorable in the long term to several plant species: Arizona bugbane, columbine, Rusby 

milkvetch, and mountain whitlow-grass. On the Williams Ranger District, where the Arizona 

Bugbane Botanical Area occurs on Bill Williams Mountain, there has been very little successful 

regeneration of aspen. Aspen trees die after severe frost events weaken them, leaving them 

susceptible to infestations of secondary agents including cytospora canker, bronze poplar borer, 

and other canker fungi and insects (Fairweather 2006, personal communication). However, some 

negative short-term impacts could result during project implementation such as trampling and 

crushing associated with implementation of fencing and conifer reduction projects. 

Kaibab Indian paintbrush, Kaibab bladderpod, and Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort are three Forest 

Service sensitive plant species in the subalpine meadows of the North Kaibab Ranger District. 

The preferred alternative’s priority need for change aimed at restoring historic meadows by 

reducing tree encroachment and restoring fire could be beneficial to forest plan analysis plant 

species in this vegetation type. The subalpine meadows are likely to be affected by climate 

change since they are a relict vegetation type from cooler wetter Pleistocene Ice Ages. Improving 

the extent and quality of the habitat to allow native species to occur in natural patterns of 

abundance, composition and distribution, with maintenance and improvement of water 

infiltration, nutrient cycling, and soil productivity, would be beneficial to these species. The 

management approach of diffusing grazing pressure from elk and livestock will enhance the rare 

endemic plant species in these vegetation communities as well. The guideline, “Heavy equipment 

and log decks should not be staged in montane meadows,” will protect the habitat of the above 

species as well as Tusayan flameflower, a forest plan analysis species that is present in montane 

meadows, but difficult to locate during much of the year due to its small stature and cryptic 

nature. 

Uncharacteristic fire is also a threat to the habitat of Arizona bugbane in the botanical area due to 

very little successful regeneration of the aspen and dying off of large old-growth conifers. Aspen 

trees die off after severe frost events weaken them. This is followed by infestations of secondary 

infectious agents including cytospora canker, bronze poplar borer, and other canker fungi and 

insects (Fairweather 2006, personal communication). An objective for the Bill Williams Mountain 

LMA is to implement a fuels reduction project within 5 years of plan approval. Arizona bugbane

has shown resilience to moderate fire and responds favorably to the resulting increase in nitrogen, 

bare soil, and opening of the forest canopy for regeneration (Phillips and Crisp 2010).

The establishment of the Pediocactus Conservation Area would aid in the management of 

Paradine Plains cactus by providing plan direction for the area encompassing this rare cactus. 

Paradine Plains cactus is managed under a conservation assessment and strategy developed by the 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 151
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USDA et al.

1997). Paradine Plains cactus is very small, occurs in colonies and withdraws underground during 

dry conditions, making it extremely difficult to locate during much of the year. Evaluating 

potential ground-disturbing activities in the Pediocactus Conservation Area and implementing 

protective measures as needed would help protect the species. Restricting motorized access would 

reduce impacts from vehicles and the associated uses of the area by people (campsites, social 

trails, etc.) on the plants and habitat. Cheatgrass is an on-going threat to the Paradine Plains

cactus and its habitat because this nonnative annual grass changes the fire return interval to more 

frequent than would occur under natural conditions. High-severity fires are lethal to Paradine 

Plains cactus, as the Warm Fire has shown. Treating invasive nonnative plants would reduce 

direct competition with invasive plants and reduce the potential of the indirect effects of fire 

mortality and alteration of plant species and the cactus’ colonizing soil mycorrhizae, which are 

essential for the health of the plants. Since plant collection is a serious threat to Paradine Plains

cactus, de-emphasizing the species in forest literature would be helpful. 

Recreation, livestock grazing, special uses, mining and minerals development, and energy 

development would continue to occur under all alternatives. However, the action alternatives (B, 

C, and D) have the guideline that project design should incorporate protective measures to 

provide for protection of rare and narrow endemic plant species where they are likely to occur, 

and that “project activities and special uses should be designed and implemented to maintain 

refugia and critical life cycle needs of Forest Service Sensitive Species.” These guidelines would 

help maintain species viability from Kaibab NF management activities. 

Guidelines for minerals and mining also specify that surface use should be restricted or prohibited 

in areas with habitat for threatened, endangered, and sensitive plant and animal species and use 

and occupancy should be restricted yearlong in areas supporting populations of threatened, 

endangered, and sensitive plant species. In addition, guidelines for cliffs and rocky features 

specify that “where recreation activities have the potential to trample known populations of 

narrow and endemic plant species, signs should be posted educating the public to stay on 

designated trails and avoid impacts,” and “talus slopes should be surveyed for endemic species 

prior to authorizing quarrying, rock hounding, or construction activities that may alter them.”

These guidelines would benefit species such as Grand Canyon rose, cliff fleabane, and numerous 

other rare and narrow endemic species. This specificity is lacking under the current plan 

(alternative A).

The expected relative significance of the implementation of the action alternatives plan decisions 

within the context of the greater landscape would be a slight increase in available forage with 

minimal consequences to other resources (see Livestock Grazing section of this chapter). Thus,

some rare and endemic plants, such as disturbed rabbitbrush and the subalpine meadow species 

that incur grazing pressures would benefit under the action alternatives. 

Uncharacteristic wildfire and the associated threat of competition from nonnative invasive 

species, is a threat to some species, especially those in desert communities. Under the action 

alternatives, guidelines under Wildland Fire Management help to mitigate this threat: “Actively 

growing wildfires in the Desert Community vegetation type in Kanab Creek Wilderness should be 

suppressed,” and a forestwide guideline to “Evaluate the risk of cheatgrass invasion. When there 

is a moderate to high risk of cheatgrass invasion, mitigation measures should be developed. If 

adequate treatments are not available, or if they are cost-prohibitive, objectives to minimize the 

burned area should be developed.” These guidelines provide stronger and more specific plan 

152 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

direction emphasizing wildfire and cheatgrass invasion than the current plan (alternative A) and 

would benefit numerous species including Fickeisen plains cactus.

Under the action alternatives, there is more explicit plan direction to address invasive species, 

than under alternative A. There is an objective to treat 2,000 to 3,000 invaded acres annually. 

Forestwide guidelines further specify that all ground-disturbing projects should assess the risk of 

noxious weed invasion and incorporate measures to minimize the potential for the spread of 

noxious and invasive species. New populations should be detected early, monitored, and treated 

as soon as possible, and treatment approaches should use integrated pest management (IPM) 

practices to treat noxious and nonnative invasive species. IPM includes manual, biological, 

mechanical, and herbicide/pesticide treatments. 

Under the action alternatives, there is more explicit plan direction to address the bison herd on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District. Guidelines specify that the bison herd should be managed so it is 

concentrated within the House Rock Wildlife Management Area, and that active management 

should be used to minimize impacts from bison to sensitive resources, particularly outside the 

House Rock Wildlife Management Area. Management of the bison herd under these guidelines 

will reduce potential damage to sensitive plant species and habitats caused by the bison, and 

decrease the spread of nonnative invasive species.

The action alternatives acknowledge and better address climate change than the current plan 

(alternative A) by providing for resilient ecosystems that will be better able to withstand largescale disturbance events such as drought and uncharacteristic fire. These disturbances have the 

ability to affect numerous ecosystems and plant habitat. Some forest management activities that 

would respond to such events like salvage logging could have negative direct (e.g., incidental 

crushing and trampling of plants) as well as indirect effects on plants (e.g., impacts to soil 

hydrologic function, soil stability, and nutrient cycling, as well as an increase in nonnative 

invasive plant competitors) resulting from ground disturbance through mechanical harvest and 

restoration treatments

During management activities that respond to large-scale disturbance events, the forest would 

mitigate threats for listed, sensitive and rare and narrow endemic plant species through the 

specific plan components that follow below, and also through appropriate BMPs and SWCPs as 

mentioned in the Environmental Consequences Common to All Alternatives section. Alternatives 

B, C, and D include a forestwide strategy with specific guidelines and objectives to address 

management activities and large-scale disturbances in forest and woodland communities. Specific 

guidelines that would provide for plant viability include: Recovery and restoration project design

should seek to establish a trajectory toward the desired conditions for the affected vegetation 

type; erosion control measures should be implemented to protect significant resource values and 

infrastructure such as stream channels, roads, structures, and archaeological or historic sites; 

practices that restore nutrient cycling and stabilize soils (revegetation, mulching, lop and scatter, 

etc.) should be implemented; some snags and coarse woody debris should be retained to provide 

for wildlife habitat, soil stabilization, and other resource benefits; and project design should 

incorporate measures to protect regeneration and reforestation investments.

The guidelines for large-scale disturbance are in addition to existing law, regulation and policy 

and relevant plan direction (e.g., desired conditions for the respective vegetation types, guidelines 

for vegetation management in forested communities, guidelines for rare and narrow endemics, 

guidelines and objectives for nonnative invasive species etc.).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 153
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wetlands, including perennial waters and ephemeral waters have desired conditions to support 

healthy native plant species with an objective to restore native vegetation and natural water flow 

patterns on at least six acres of wetlands within five years of plan approval. Similarly, natural 

waters which include perennial and ephemeral springs have desired conditions to maintain selfsustaining plant species that occur in natural patterns of abundance and distribution, unwanted 

nonnative species do not exert a detectable impact on aquatic and wetland ecosystems, 

hydrophytes and emergent vegetation exist in patterns of natural abundance in wetlands and 

springs in levels that reflect climatic conditions, and overhanging vegetation and floating plants 

such as water lilies exist where they naturally occur. Objectives for natural waters include the 

protection and restoration of at least 10 individual springs within five years of plan approval. 

These plan components would support plants that used these habitats including Bebb’s willow, 

pond lily, columbine, and western flameflower. 

Finally, a management approach under all the action alternatives is to provide species-specific 

information and management recommendations in a Kaibab NF endemic plant species guidebook 

that will be maintained as a living document, updated with new information and locations as they 

become available. This guidebook will provide in one document a substantial amount of 

information on the species and its population biology, ecology, habitats, locations, and threats and 

effects of management actions. It will also provide management actions and opportunities which 

will be useful for project planning and implementation for all resource specialists. 

Environmental Consequences for Botanical 

Resources: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

Alternative B has the lowest number of species with risk to viability from each category of 

management effect (46 total) that rate out in a very high (3), high (10), or moderate high (33) 

viability risk rating (table 24). Alternative B is the preferred alternative. 

Desired conditions are based on the best scientific information available that describes reference 

conditions for the different vegetation types of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and woodlands and 

savannas. Alternative B is the alternative that would set these vegetation types on a trajectory that 

would be most likely to achieve reference conditions. Restoring habitat elements to reference 

conditions or at least toward reference conditions should provide for viable species populations 

for those species that evolved within these systems.

Two of the current four Kaibab NF wilderness areas, Kanab Creek Wilderness and Saddle 

Mountain Wilderness, have proposed wilderness additions under the preferred alternative. Some 

rare endemic plants are known to occur or to have potential habitat along the rims of Kanab 

Canyon. Designating these lands as wilderness could afford the rare and endemic plants that 

occur within those areas additional protection from disturbances. The area of the Cockscomb that 

is proposed to be added to the Saddle Mountain Wilderness has not had a thorough floristic 

inventory. This area may have potential habitat for endemic plants. As lands are designated as 

wilderness, they would become closed to any new mineral leases and new mineral materials pits. 

As the existing materials pits within the recommended wilderness areas become depleted or are 

no longer needed, they would be closed. These actions would enhance protection for rare and 

endemic plant species and reduce the risk of nonnative noxious and/or invasive plant invasions. 

However, limited ability to access the wilderness areas could result in more difficulties 

controlling invasive plants that coincide with rare plant habitats in those areas.

154 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

According to the Nonnative Invasive Species Specialist Report (KNF 2013b), alternative B is the 

most beneficial for preventing and controlling invasive species. The preferred alternative 

proposes the highest amount of vegetation treatments and planned disturbance out of the four 

alternatives, thereby creating the highest risk of the spread/introduction of invasive species 

However, it also generates the highest potential for long-term native understory enhancement. 

This, in turn, increases the ability of native species to out-compete invasive species over the long 

term, and further decreases susceptibility to uncharacteristic fire. 

Rare and sensitive species may be especially vulnerable to climate change under all alternatives 

because they often need specific habitat components that are not widely available. The North 

Kaibab subalpine meadows may become vulnerable as elevational vegetation shifts occur (USDA 

Forest Service 2010). Future plant distributions in general may be governed by several factors 

including human influences, abilities of plants to disperse, and the presence of suitable habitat 

components including such factors as suitable soil types and presence of pollinators (McKenney 

et al. 2007). Large changes in ecosystem structure and species composition of plant communities 

are expected due to increasing temperatures and altered precipitation cycles (USDA Forest 

Service 2010). The specific effects of the factors of climate change on local plant communities 

and forest plan analysis plants growing in them are not known; however, the beneficial effects of 

alternatives B, C, and D would slightly counteract the larger effects of global climate change by 

reducing the vulnerability of sensitive plant populations to additional disturbance. Guidance 

under alternative B does the best job of addressing climate change by managing for ecosystems 

which will be resilient to change, and allowing for more site-specific management flexibility. This 

will allow the forest to better cope with, and adapt to, the changing needs of rare plants and their 

associated habitats.

Environmental Consequences 

for Botanical Resources: Alternative C

Alternative C and D have more species at risk from management than alternative B (preferred 

alternative), but less than alternative A (no action alternative) with 49 total that rate out in a very 

high (3), high (27), or moderate high (19) viability risk rating (table 24).

The North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex is an area on the North Kaibab Ranger District of 

approximately 265,000 acres proposed under alternative C. This LMA contains the Kaibab 

Squirrel National Natural Landmark and eight linked ephemeral riparian valleys and canyons. 

This LMA would include approximately half of the Pediocactus Conservation Area (the portion 

north of Highway 89 A and west of the East Side Game Road). In this management area, once 

forest structure is restored, it would primarily be maintained with fire so there would be less area 

in the vegetative desired condition than under alternative B, and there would be a greater risk of 

density-dependent uncharacteristic disturbance, such as active crown fire (see Vegetation, Fuels 

and Fire section of this chapter). This trend away from the desired condition for the ponderosa 

pine PNVT would be less desirable for many of the rare and endemic plant species that evolved 

under more open multistoried, uneven-aged forests with frequent low-intensity ground fires. This 

is reflected in table 22 whereby rare plants in the Ponderosa Pine PNVT show a lower viability 

risk under alternative B than under alternatives C and D; and in table 23 where the species in the 

ponderosa pine PNVT under alternative B show moderately high habitat improvement of habitat 

abundance and distribution through restoration, whereas those species have only habitat 

abundance and distribution maintained under alternatives C and D. According to the effects of

vegetation modeling, the matrix thinning is more effective at creating multistoried, uneven-aged 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 155
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

states than treatments with an imposed diameter cap (alternatives C and D) (see Vegetation, Fuels 

and Fire section of this chapter).

In addition to the recommended wilderness additions to the Kanab Creek and Saddle Mountain 

Wildernesses in the preferred alternative (B), alternative C proposes six new wilderness areas: 

Burro Canyon, Coconino Rim, Big Ridge, Seegmiller, South Canyon Point, and Willis Canyon. 

This alternative also contains an area (approximately 1,000 acres) contiguous to a potential 

wilderness addition to the Sycamore Wilderness on the Prescott National Forest’s recommended 

wilderness areas. Flagstaff pennyroyal and cliff fleabane are known within the current boundaries 

of the Sycamore Wilderness and Flagstaff beardtongue occurs on top of the rims. Expansion of 

the boundaries on both the Kaibab and the Prescott NF s might include more habitat for these 

Forest Service sensitive plant species. The wilderness areas proposed for the North Kaibab 

Ranger District could result in additional protections for Fickeisen plains cactus and perhaps 

other forest plan analysis plant species such as Utah century plant, and Hevron’s milkvetch. 

However, limiting ways to access the wilderness areas, and ability to use certain equipment, could 

result in more difficulties controlling invasive plants in rare plant habitats. 

Environmental Consequences 

for Botanical Resources: Alternative D

Alternative D was developed in response to the issue that “the effects associated with regular 

mechanical disturbance outweighs the benefits. Restoring the natural fire regime to forested 

landscapes provides greater overall benefit to ecosystems, communities, and economies.” 

Alternative D is similar to alternative C, except that the guideline “Following restoration, the 

desired conditions should be maintained by restoring the natural fire regime” would apply to the 

entire forest and no new management area would be established. This alternative would also 

include the same proposed wilderness areas and tree retention guideline as alternative C, with the 

same benefits and risks.

Comparison of Alternatives for 

Botanical Resources 

The preferred alternative, alternative B, would provide habitat improvement for 34 habitat 

relationships, almost three times as many as would alternatives C and D. Table 24 shows that the 

species in the ponderosa pine PNVT would exhibit moderately high improvement of habitat 

abundance and distribution through restoration under alternative B, whereas those species have 

only maintenance of habitat abundance and distribution under alternatives C and D. Rare plants in 

the ponderosa pine PNVT show a lower viability risk under alternative B than under alternatives 

C and D (table 23) because once forest structure is restored under alternatives C and D, it would 

primarily be maintained with fire, so there would be less area in the vegetative desired condition 

than under alternative B, and there would be a greater risk of density-dependent uncharacteristic 

disturbance, such as active crown fire (see Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter). This trend 

away from the desired condition for the ponderosa pine PNVT would be less desirable for many 

of the rare and endemic plant species that evolved under more open forests with frequent lowintensity ground fires. 

All the other species except one would have habitat abundance and distribution maintained. 

Alternative A would not provide improvement of habitat, but habitat abundance and distribution 

would be maintained. In addition to the desired conditions and standards and guidelines 

156 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

developed for many different resource values, the action alternatives establishes desired 

conditions for habitats and refugia for narrow endemics or species with restricted distributions 

and/or declining populations, and establishes a desired condition that locations and conditions of 

rare and narrow endemic species are known. The guideline that “Project design should 

incorporate measures to protect and provide for rare and narrow endemic species where they 

occur,” would facilitate attainment of these desired conditions. These desired conditions and 

guidelines provide more direction for the 33 rare and endemic forest planning species than does 

the current plan (no action, alternative A). Other provisions included in law and policy result in 

additional considerations for at-risk species during planning. 

Existing management areas such as the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area and the proposed 

Pediocactus Conservation Area, as well as the conservation agreements for Paradine Plains cactus 

and Arizona bugbane, provide for management and guidance for those rare endemic plants. In 

addition, Bill Williams Mountain (which encompasses the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area) has 

been identified as a management area under all action alternatives. The recommendation of 

Garland Prairie for formal designation as a research natural area under alternative A was never 

formalized. Since its original recommendation, this vegetation type has become well represented 

in the national network of field ecological research natural areas, and as a result, there is a low 

need. This 340-acre area on the Williams Ranger District, which is typical of the high-elevation 

grassland ecotone dominated by Arizona fescue and mountain muhly, has been excluded from 

grazing since about 1989. Under alternatives B, C, and D, this area would be maintained as a 

natural area, but as a management area in the plan and would no longer be recommended for 

formal designation. 

The Endangered Species Act (1973) provides guidance for managing and conserving threatened 

or endangered species. Management actions adversely affecting these species require consultation 

and coordination with the Fish and Wildlife Service. There is one plant species protected under 

the Endangered Species Act on the Kaibab NF, Fickeisen Plains cactus, which is a listed species. 

The action alternatives would have the same impacts to the federally listed and sensitive species 

except for those species that depend upon ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer forest. 

The guideline for presettlement tree retention, the differing amounts of land managed for timber 

production, and lands recommended for wilderness are the substantive differences between 

alternative B and alternatives C and D. The presettlement tree retention guideline under 

alternatives C and D would affect all vegetation management activities associated with ponderosa 

pine, frequent fire mixed conifer, woodlands, and savannas. This guideline has the potential in 

areas that currently contain a high number of large trees to inadequately provide for the desired 

level of tree groups and openness within conifer stands. This guideline could also affect 

restoration of savanna and woodland habitat by retaining higher densities of conifer trees than 

would naturally occur in these areas, putting these systems at greater risk of density-dependent 

uncharacteristic disturbance, such as active crown fire.

Cumulative Environmental 

Consequences for Botanical Resources

The cumulative effects area considered in this analysis includes lands managed by National Park 

Service (Grand Canyon National Park); State of Arizona; BLM; the Coconino and Prescott 

National Forests; the Navajo, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiutes, and Havasupai Tribes; and 

private landowners. These areas contain populations and/or habitat for these rare and endemic 

plant species. The timeframe for this cumulative effects analysis is 50 years—25 years in the past 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 157
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and 25 years into the future. This timeframe would encompass the lifespan of most of the plants 

in current populations, provide reference to actions that have affected the habitat such that the 

current populations exist as they do, and management actions implemented under the preferred or 

other alternatives within 25 years in the future would show effects at the population level. 

The Kaibab NF is located within three counties (Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai) in Arizona, 

with the vast majority in Coconino County. Rare and endemic plants occur in the majority of 

these areas. Private lands within communities do not typically contain these plants because of 

drastic alteration of habitat. The Navajo, Hualapai, Kaibab Band of Paiutes, and Havasupai Tribal 

lands have some populations of rare and endemic plants. State lands are typically used for winter 

grazing of forest permitted livestock. The BLM has both year-round grazing and winter grazing.

There would be no indirect consequences for two of the rare and endemic plant species 

(Groundcover milkvetch and mat penstemon) addressed in this analysis (i.e., those forest plan 

analysis plant species with low to moderate risks, and those that occur in areas outside of those 

being treated under the action alternatives), so there would be no cumulative effects for these 

species under those alternatives. 

The rare and endemic plant species programs for the Kaibab, Coconino, and Prescott NF s have 

the same general requirements since they are guided by the same relevant laws, regulations, and 

policies that apply to the management of Federal lands. The restrictions and limitations placed on 

the rare and endemic plant species would vary among the forests due to the various concerns or 

needs of the areas resource management. All three forests are in the process of forest plan 

revision and have worked cooperatively on gathering information assessing and evaluating the 

botanical resources, including the rare and endemic plant species, and they are revising their plans 

using the same concepts and processes. The Arizona Strip General Management Plan of 2007 

(BLM portion of the plan; BLM 2008) has very similar guiding laws, regulations, and policies as 

the Forest Service. The Grand Canyon National Park has a general management plan approved in 

1995, that provides programmatic guidance for the entire park (NPS 1995), and also a North Rim 

Development Plan (NPS 2006), and South Rim Visitor Transportation Plan (NPS 2008) that are 

broad scale in nature. The adjacent lands managed by these agencies contain known or potential 

habitat for many of the Kaibab NF forest plan analysis plant species. These cited documents 

provide guidance for these management areas regarding federally listed and candidate and rare 

and endemic plant species on lands immediately adjacent to the Kaibab NF. Overall, these plans 

on adjacent lands, combined with the desired conditions and standards and guidelines of the 

Kaibab and adjacent Coconino and Prescott NF s, provide for maintenance and enhancement of 

the habitats of the rare and endemic plant species of northern Arizona within the jurisdictions of 

the land management agencies.

There are several weed management areas that include the Kaibab NF and/or adjacent lands. 

These are the San Francisco Peaks Weed Management Area that includes the Williams and 

Tusayan Ranger Districts, the Yavapai Weed Management Area adjacent to the southwest corner 

of the Williams Ranger District, and the Arizona Strip Weed Management Area adjacent to and 

including the North Kaibab Ranger District. The general aims of these weed management areas 

are to facilitate communication among the members, and coordinate and implement weed 

treatments. Thus, the invasive species that are currently, or likely to become, of concern on the 

Kaibab NF are recognized over the broader landscape surrounding the forest. Actions taken in 

coordination throughout these weed management areas would enhance the effectiveness of efforts 

of the forest to control invasive plants on its own lands. The weed management areas have a 

158 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

positive effect on the effectiveness of weed prevention and treatments. Because invasive plants 

can spread rapidly over lands regardless of jurisdiction, the most effective way to prevent 

infestations is by prevention, early detection, and rapid effective treatment response to small new 

infestations wherever they occur.

Because this plan provides proactive protections for rare and endemic plant species through 

desired conditions, objectives, standards, and guidelines, the results of this plan, when added to 

the ongoing decisions and activities in the greater landscape, are local positive cumulative effects 

for these species. 

The cumulative environmental consequences to rare and endemic plant species addressed in this 

analysis would have similar effects to present management or have beneficial effects for most of 

the plant species.

Nonnative Invasive Plants

This section analyzes in detail the potential environmental consequences on the nonnative

invasive species populations that may be affected under each of the four alternatives for revising 

the 1988 Kaibab NF land management plan. This analysis provides information for considering 

the potential effects of existing known populations to management activities and possible threats 

of new infestations that could be created by management activities under each of the alternatives. 

Additional information can be found in the Nonnative Invasive Species Specialist Report (KNF 

2013b).

Invasive species can displace native vegetation and aggressively dominant a site. If an infestation 

is left uncontrolled, the ecosystem function can be altered. Vegetation treatments using 

mechanical methods can create disturbance that can allow for an increase for invasive species.

While some studies indicate that the level of disturbance can be lower than what is found with 

light to moderate burning, mechanical treatments can result in ground disturbance.

Roads serve as vectors1 for new infestations. Forest visitors can bring in weed seed from vehicles 

or recreational equipment. The continual disturbance of vehicles pulling off the roads and road 

repairs can leave vegetation displaced and create high potential for new infestations that are 

imported by forest visitors.

Other vectors that can transport seed include livestock, recreation activities, wildlife, wind, and 

moisture events. Livestock and wildlife can transport seed by tracking mud on their feet or 

hooves, in hair, or by eating species containing seed that is not fully digested. Some seed is 

designed to easily be transported by wind. Almost all seed can be distributed by flowing water.

Once nonnative invasive species become established, it usually takes years to eradicate the 

population. A musk thistle seed can survive and be viable for germination up to 15 years. One 

healthy musk thistle plant is capable of producing over 100,000 seeds in its life cycle (Beck

1999).

Cheatgrass is a winter annual grass species that germinates in the fall, winter, or spring.

Cheatgrass plants produce many seeds, depending on the environment, spacing, and size of the 

1 Mechanisms for spread of nonnative invasive plants.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 159

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

plants. Individual plants growing in high densities may produce about 25 seeds each, while a 

large, open-grown plant can produce about 400 seeds (Zouhar 2003). The design of the seed 

allows it to be easily transported by clothing, animals, and vehicles. Cheatgrass is very successful 

at maximizing available moisture and nutrients from the upper layer of soil, and is capable of 

growing in years of drought and in poor soil conditions. Cheatgrass’ ability to grow and produce 

seed before other species, high seed production, and the ability to grow in places other grass 

species cannot, allows this species to rapidly overtake a site.

A large cheatgrass infestation can alter ecosystem function. Dense, continuous cheatgrass can 

make fire ignition and spread more likely. In sagebrush-dominated systems, fire return intervals 

have gone from between 60 and 110 years to less than 5 years under cheatgrass dominance. With 

every reoccurring fire, cheatgrass can become more dominant and expand its range. With each 

successive disturbance event, cheatgrass’ frequency continues to make it more difficult for native 

species to work back into the system.

Under the guidance of the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NF s Integrated Treatment of Noxious 

or Invasive Weeds Environmental Impact Statement (USDA Forest Service 2005), the forest has 

multiple options to treat invasive species of concern. Identified invasive species are treated in the 

most efficient manner possible with the goal to contain, control, and eradicate each population.

There are guidelines for authorized uses of different treatment methodologies, specific mitigation

measures for special areas, and general best management practices.

Any chemical application must occur either by or under the supervision of applicators certified by 

the Arizona State Department of Agriculture. Federal hazardous material (HAZMAT) standards 

are to be followed for the storage, transportation, and use of chemicals. Herbicide label 

specifications provide direction for storage, application, and handling for each specific herbicide 

type. All biological control efforts are made in cooperation with the USDA Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

Currently, the annual program of work focuses on treating known infestations across the forest, 

prioritizing the species and locations that pose the greatest threats of altering ecosystem function.

Surveys are focused in areas that have recently experienced disturbance, are expected to be 

disturbed, and/or see high visitor use. This allows the forest to detect, control, and eradicate new 

infestations before they have the opportunity to spread. This has proven to be a successful 

strategy for eradicating and/or reducing potentially serious invasive species threats.

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition)

The Kaibab NF has had an expansion of weeds from a few isolated known populations along 

roads in the 1990s to about 55,165 acres today. These plants are now widely dispersed across the 

forest. The forest started to inventory for weeds in 1997, and has conducted surveys each year 

that are documented in the national database called Natural Resources Information System.

Inventories were concentrated at first along major travel corridors, campgrounds, and other areas 

where disturbances occur. Since 1997, more general surveys have been conducted for projects on 

grazing allotments, timber sales, and inventories associated with the National Fire Plan for fire 

rehabilitation purposes and forest health initiatives. Table 25 lists the locations of known 

populations of nonnative invasive species of concern on the Kaibab NF.

160 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 25. Nonnative invasive species of concern on the Kaibab National Forest

Species Location of Known Populations

Musk thistle (Carduus nutans) Several small populations around the Jacob Lake area and along 

State Highway 89A.

Spotted knapweed (Centaurea masculosa) Small populations in numerous places along State Highways 67 

and 89A and a few isolated occurrences along roads in the 

Warm Fire.

Scotch thistle (Onopordum acanthium) Five populations on western side of NKRD and along Interstate 

40 on the Williams Ranger District, and along Highway 64 on 

the Tusayan Ranger District.

Diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusa) Small populations along Highway 64.

Leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) Small populations near Big Springs Field Station and Hull 

Cabin.

Cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum) Numerous populations across the forest, primarily along roads 

and in fire areas.

Oxeye daisy (Chrysanthemum leacanthemum) Small populations occurring in the Demotte Park area.

Bull thistle (Cirsuim vulgare) Several populations along State Highways 89A and 67 and in 

the Warm, Pumpkin, and Eagle Rock Fires.

Salt cedar (Tamarix ramosissima) Large populations in Kanab Creek Wilderness.

Dalmatian toadflax (Linaria genistifolia) Multiple small infestations along Highway 64 near Tusayan and 

inside a few burn areas on the Williams Ranger District. 

Yellow starthistle (Centaurea solstitialis) No known populations on the forest, but species can be found 

on Federal lands in northern Arizona.

Russian thistle (Salsola kali) Multiple infestations forestwide and on adjoining lands in 

pinyon-juniper and cold desert shrub ecosystems.

Jointed goat grass (Aegilops cylindrical) Few isolated occurrences along roads on the Williams Ranger 

District.

Many of the larger established weed infestations have occurred due to disturbance created by fires 

in the last 15 years. Specifically the larger fires with portions that burned with high intensity or 

severity (Bridger Knoll, Pumpkin, and Warm) and generated high levels of disturbance, displaced 

vegetation, and altered soil characteristics across thousands of acres.

Recent post-fire vegetation studies in southwestern ponderosa pine forests have shown dramatic 

increases in total cover of exotic plants in both moderate- and high-severity burn areas (Phillips 

and Crisp 2001, Crawford et al. unpublished data, Foxx 1996). Once there is a source and vector 

for invasive species, moderate- to high-intensity fire areas provide the disturbance where invasive 

species can establish prior to native species recovery. The higher the level of disturbance can be 

compared to the higher risk of invasive species establishment.

North Kaibab Ranger District

Musk thistle, bull thistle, and spotted knapweed have been identified in the Jacob Lake area along 

the state highways and a few adjacent forest roads in the Warm Fire area. There is a population of 

leafy spurge near the Big Springs Field Station. Several populations of Scotch thistle exist on the 

western side of the district. Treatment in the form of manual hand grubbing or herbicide 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 161
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

application has been ongoing since 2003. Monitoring and removal of located plants is ongoing at 

each site throughout the annual growing season to ensure newly germinated species are 

eradicated prior to seed production. Treatment will be ongoing for the foreseeable future. Surveys 

for new populations in areas with high potential for infestation are ongoing.

Cheatgrass can be found in many locations across the North Kaibab Ranger District. While most 

of the larger, denser populations are found in pinion-juniper woodlands that have experienced 

large disturbance events, numerous populations have been found in ponderosa pine ecosystems 

and even a few isolated findings in the mixed conifer. With its abundance across the entire forest, 

this species poses the greatest risk of having a negative effect on ecosystem function. Mapping 

and treatments on cheatgrass began in the pinion-juniper woodlands in 2007, prioritizing highest 

risk locations for treatment. The intent of this effort is to greatly reduce the large populations of 

cheatgrass and return the sites infested back to a native vegetation species composition. To date,

use of mechanized equipment to apply herbicide and native species seed has had a moderate level 

of success in reducing the frequency of cheatgrass in treatment locations.

There is a large infestation of salt cedar occurring inside Kanab Creek Wilderness. It is part of a 

continuous infestation spanning across the entire Kanab Creek drainage system. Mapping of the 

population began in 2007. Salt cedar beetles migrated to Kanab Creek in 2009, and were first 

detected on the forest portion of Kanab Creek in 2010. The tamarisk beetles were recorded down 

the entire length of Kanab Creek in 2011. Monitoring for the effects of the beetle on salt cedar is 

ongoing.

Tusayan Ranger District

A population of leafy spurge has been detected in the Hull Cabin vicinity and receiving treatment 

since 2007. Diffuse knapweed, Scotch thistle, and Dalmatian toadflax are known to occur in 

small populations along State Highway 64. Monitoring and treatment of these populations is 

ongoing. Cheatgrass has been detected along several forest roads. Some of these roads have been 

receiving treatment since 2010.

Williams Ranger District

Bull thistle and Dalmatian toadflax have been detected in several areas that recently experienced 

disturbance by fire. Treatment on each respective population has been ongoing. Scotch thistle can 

be found along Interstate 40 and has been receiving treatment for several years. Cheatgrass is 

being detected in several areas including along roads and recent fire areas in the past few years.

Treatment for cheatgrass began in 2010.

There are other highly invasive species that occur outside the forest including several thistle and 

knapweed species that could still be transported in from other areas of the forest and surrounding 

lands.

For the purposes of this analysis, current known populations of noxious and invasive species were 

reviewed and incorporated as the affected environment along with discussion of how these 

species respond to management activities. How these populations could be affected by 

management activities and the potential for new infestations are analyzed for each alternative.

Invasive seed vectors which provide the ability for seed to be moved from one area to another and 

the level of disturbance generated by each alternative are primary evaluation criteria. The scale of 

potential activities and the impact to invasive species is also evaluated.

162 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Nonnative Invasive Plants

Effects Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, invasive species would continue to be introduced and spread, and the forest 

would continue its programmatic survey and treatment of invasive species. Disturbances 

including wildfire would continue to occur, which provides receptive areas for invasive species to 

become established.

Environmental Consequences for Nonnative Invasive 

Plants: Alternative A – Current Plan, Current Management 

(No Action) 

Current conditions would continue to be maintained. The current rate of spread of existing 

noxious and invasive weeds and the current rate of introduction of new invasive species would 

continue. With this alternative, there would be no alteration to current restoration and biomass 

production guidelines. Mechanical vegetation treatments would continue forestwide on areas with 

a suitable timber base. These projects provide temporary disturbances that can increase the 

potential for spreading existing invasive populations or introduce new infestations. Restoration of 

springs and natural waters would continue at the current rate, thus allowing current infestations to 

spread or allowing new infestations to occur.

The established best management practices that are to be implemented for every grounddisturbing project (USDA Forest Service 2005) have been effective to date in reducing existing 

populations, allowing for the survey for new infestations in areas expected to receive future 

treatment, and measures to be taken that can reduce the vectors for invasive species introduction.

While creating temporary disturbances, these projects also provide for long-term benefits that can 

limit future invasive species infestations. If an area goes untreated, it can be more susceptible to 

high-intensity wildfires that would greatly alter the ecosystem and create the highest potential for 

new invasive species infestations. 

This alternative would not include any additions to wilderness areas. All current non-wilderness 

areas would continue to have same current potential for new infestations as well as existing 

authorized methodologies for treatment and control. This alternative provides for the highest rate 

of access to the highest portion of acres on the forest by not establishing new wilderness areas or 

making additions to existing wilderness areas, thus it also creates the highest level of threat of 

newly introduced invasive species by maintaining the current level of access.

By continuing current management under the existing forest plan, all of the available mechanized 

options for invasive species survey and treatment would continue. While there is no need to 

conduct invasive species treatment inside the areas proposed for wilderness in the other 

alternatives, invasive species treatment by mechanical-based methodologies would remain as an 

option if an infestation was detected.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 163
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Nonnative

Invasive Plants: Alternative B – Proposed 

Plan, Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative proposes increasing mechanical thinning from an average of 2,000 acres

per year to a range of 11,000 acres to 19,000 acres per year in ponderosa pine. Prescribed burning 

and naturally ignited fires would increase from an average of 20,000 to 55,000 acres a year.

With increased ground disturbance, there would be an increased threat of spreading existing 

infestations. Without early detection and treatment, invasive species like cheatgrass have the 

ability to emerge, reproduce, and rapidly invade these areas, out-competing the native understory 

species. There would also be an increased threat of new species introductions from vehicles and 

machinery coming into the project area to perform restoration activities.

By reducing the overall overstory density through mechanical thinning and wildland fire, this 

alternative provides for the greatest potential to enhance understory vegetation in the treated areas 

of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, aspen, and grasslands (refer to the Vegetation and Fire section 

in this chapter). Increasing the frequency of the understory species creates areas that are less 

susceptible to nonnative species like cheatgrass. The proposed action predicts the least amount of 

stand-replacing fire in ponderosa pine, and is a close second behind alternative A in the dry mixed 

conifer (Vegetation and Fire Specialist Report; KNF 2013a). Conditions following high-severity 

fires provide the highest susceptibility for invasive species introduction and establishment.

By combining best management practices designed to reduce introduction of invasive species;

monitoring for species before, during, and post project; and continuing methodologies to control 

invasive species detected, a healthier ecosystem less prone to invasive species invasion can be 

achieved.

This alternative proposes additions to the Kanab Creek and Saddle Mountain Wilderness Areas. 

These proposed wilderness areas currently receive little to no use by mechanized vehicles due to 

access or terrain. The current rate of spread of existing noxious and invasive weeds and the 

current rate of introduction of new invasive species would continue in these areas.

Of the wilderness additions, only a few of the additions to Kanab Creek Wilderness are currently 

known to have an invasive species infestation, which is cheatgrass. The current infestation found 

in these areas is expected to continue to out-compete native species and spread to other areas.

Once added to the Kanab Creek Wilderness, the ability to apply herbicide and native species seed 

by mechanized equipment would no longer be an option. This would limit cost-effective options 

for potential future cheatgrass treatment in these areas.

This alternative prioritizes restoration of springs and natural waters, which includes treatment of 

invasive species. As a result, current infestations are expected to be reduced and additional 

infestations may be prevented in these areas.

In summary, alternative B proposes the highest amount of vegetation treatments and the most 

planned disturbance of the four alternatives. This would create the highest risk of invasive species 

to be spread or introduced. However, alternative B reduces the potential for uncharacteristic highintensity fire, which reduces the potential for large contiguous areas of unplanned disturbance and 

susceptibility. Alternative B also increases the potential for long-term native understory 

enhancement, which increases the ability for native species to out-compete invasive species.

164 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Nonnative Invasive Plants: Alternative C

This alternative would have similar consequences with regard to invasive species as alternative B 

on the Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts and the area outside the North Kaibab Habitat 

Complex on the North Kaibab Ranger District, except that it has a guideline for retaining trees 

with physical characteristics indicating they were established prior to 1890. The tree retention

guideline would likely result in denser than desired conditions and an increase in potential for 

stand-replacing wildfire.

This alternative would designate an approximately 260,000-acre management area on the North 

Kaibab Ranger District with a guideline that once desired stand structure was restored (within the 

limits of the tree retention guideline), the desired conditions would be primarily maintained with 

wildland fire and natural disturbance. 

The potential consequences of this alternative would be increased disturbance and an increased 

risk of invasive spread and introduction when compared to alternative A and very similar to 

alternative B for the duration that the North Kaibab Habitat Complex continues mechanical 

treatments. This alternative would reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires and provide options 

to generate healthier forest timber stands and an enhanced understory that would be more 

competitive with invasive species.

The North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex would initially be managed in a fashion similar to

the remaining areas of the forest. The difference being the long-term management implications of 

each site after restoration and then becomes primarily managed by natural disturbances and 

prescribed fire. This would then indicate that increases in stand-replacing fire would occur at later 

time intervals (see Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter). Impacts to invasive species 

introduction and establishment would initially remain similar to alternative B forestwide, with 

potential increases over time to invasive species populations on the North Kaibab Ranger District 

correlating with increased potential for stand-replacing fires.

Environmental Consequences for 

Nonnative Invasive Plants: Alternative D

Alternative D would have similar effects as alternative C. Mechanical and timber production 

process could be used to restore stand structure to the extent possible. After each area was 

restored to the desired condition, the desired conditions would primarily be maintained with 

natural disturbances and prescribed fire.

Impacts to invasive species introduction and establishment would initially remain similar to 

alternative B forestwide, with potential increases over time to invasive species correlating with 

increased stand-replacing fires comparable or greater than alternative C.

Environmental Consequences for 

Nonnative Invasive Plants Common 

to Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D propose the same additions to existing wilderness areas as alternative B, 

plus they would recommend six new wilderness areas: Burro Canyon, Coconino Rim, Willis 

Canyon, Seegmiller, South Canyon Point, and an area adjacent to a potential wilderness area 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 165
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(PWA) on the Prescott National Forest. None of these proposed wilderness areas contain National 

Forest System (NFS) roads and they typically receive minimal use by the public, so spread of 

invasive species by forest visitors is minimal. Recommendation of these additional PWAs would 

decrease the area of the forest suitable for treatment of nonnative invasive plant populations using 

motorized or mechanized means by approximately 38,000 acres. 

The level of forest visitor use in these PWAs is not expected to increase or decrease because of 

the creation of wilderness. The incorporation of these areas into wilderness is not likely to 

increase or decrease the current rate of spread of invasive species. Any potential invasive species 

would continue to spread through the same non-mechanized vectors as they do currently. The 

only potential impact would be if invasive species invaded these areas, the forest would be 

limited to non-mechanized treatments for control.

There are non-mechanized options that can be performed to reduce the further spread of 

cheatgrass or other potential species, but they can be less effective and more time consuming.

Thus, the ability for the forest to effectively control the infestation would be limited.

These alternatives prioritize restoration of springs and natural waters, which includes treatment of 

invasive species. As a result, current infestations are expected to be reduced and additional 

infestations may be prevented in these areas.

Cumulative Effects for Nonnative

Invasive Plants

There are many sources and vectors that can spread invasive species across the forest as well as to 

the forest from neighboring lands. The source of invasive species can come from private, State, 

Native American, or other federally administered lands inside or adjoining the Kaibab NF as well 

as State- and county-maintained roads that enter or cross the forest. This cumulative effects 

analysis boundary includes all potential invasive sources that can be found on the land

management areas adjoining the Kaibab NF that could likely be spread into the forest within the 

next 15 years. The cumulative impacts of vectors that can spread invasive species inside the forest 

are also taken into account.

As invasive species continue to become a growing concern in the Southwest, many of the land 

management agencies, stakeholder groups, and private landowners have developed management 

plans to inventory and control invasive species. The following list includes some of the land 

management organizations that have recognized the need to control invasive species within their 

management area and have developed and implemented plans for invasive species control:

• Bureau of Land Management, Arizona Strip and Hassayampa Field Offices

• National Park Service, Grand Canyon National Park

• Camp Navajo

• Coconino and Prescott National Forests

• The Navajo Nation

• The Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians

• Coconino County

• Arizona Department of Transportation

• Arizona State Land Department

166 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Other groups working toward addressing invasive species issues include private landowners, 

coordinated weed management areas, natural resource conservation districts, and environmental 

and conservation groups. The results of these efforts would reduce the potential for invasive 

species to be transported to the forest when compared to if no actions toward invasive species

management were taken.

While the efforts made by these agencies and groups have been effective, there are still invasive 

species that can be spread to the forest by multiple vectors. Regardless of the size of an 

infestation on adjoining lands, there has to be a way for it to be transported for there to be a 

cumulative impact. The potential vectors that could transport invasive species to and from the 

forest include:

• Livestock that graze on the Kaibab NF that also spend some portion of the year on 

private, State, BLM, or other national forest lands.

• Forest visitors and their mode of travel that enter the forest to engage in recreational 

activities.

• Use of State, county, and forest maintained roads that access or cross the forest.

• Wildlife migrations.

• Wind.

• Water and other gravitational movements down drainages or streams.

The level of potential invasive seed transportation to and from the forest by each of these vectors 

would remain consistent across all four alternatives. Any potential differences in cumulative 

effects among the alternatives would be due to potential disturbance generated by management 

activities. Anticipated large disturbance events and correlating impacts to invasive species 

establishment would initially remain similar in alternatives B, C, and D while alternative A would 

maintain the least amount of expected disturbance and the least amount of invasive species 

establishment. Over time, the threat of high-severity fire increases in alternative C (specific only 

to the North Kaibab Habitat Complex) and increases forestwide in alternatives D and A. At that 

point, the respective order from highest to lowest threat of established invasive species that were 

imported from other areas would be D, A, C, and finally B. 

Watersheds and Soils 

The Soil and Watershed Specialist Report (KNF 2013e) contains more detailed information, along 

with maps displaying the analysis area for soils and watersheds for the Kaibab NF and the 

hierarchy of the watersheds and associated hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). 

Description of Affected Environment (Existing 

Condition) 

Watersheds

The analysis area for watershed resources includes all of the 4th-, 5th-, and 6th-level hydrologic 

units that contain, at least partially, NFS lands. Hydrologic units are subdivisions of watersheds 

nested from largest to smallest areas and are used to organize hydrologic data. Each basin is 

identified by a unique HUC, as well as name at each level. HUCs are identifiers as assigned to 

basin polygons by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). A subbasin (HUC8) is a 4th-level 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 167
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

hydrologic unit, a watershed (HUC10) is a 5th-level hydrologic unit, and a subwatershed 

(HUC12) is a 6th-level hydrologic unit.

The Kaibab NF intersects eight HUC8 subbasins, occupying an average of 15 percent of each, 

with the minimum being 0.38 percent and the maximum being 28 percent of any single subbasin. 

The forest comprises more than 10 percent of four of the subbasins. Subbasins represent the 

broadest level of analysis and extend well beyond forest boundaries. 

Historically, subbasin conditions have been satisfactory. Overall, management of surface water 

resources plays the largest role in maintaining overall ecological function of subbasins where 

NFS lands occur; however, surface water as perennial streams on the forest is extremely limited 

with only 1.5 stream miles of perennial waterflow in North Canyon Creek on the North Kaibab 

Ranger District.

The forest intersects 29 HUC10 watersheds and occupies an average of 33 percent of each of 

these with the maximum being 93 percent and the minimum being 0.15 percent of any single 

watershed. Snake Gulch and Sycamore Creek are the dominant watersheds (i.e., have the greatest 

number of acres) on the Kaibab NF and have some of the largest acreages extending beyond 

forest boundaries. No watersheds are wholly within the Kaibab NF. 

The forest intersects 126 HUC12 subwatersheds. Fifty-two occur on the North Kaibab Ranger 

District, 25 occur on the Tusayan Ranger District, and 49 occur on the Williams Ranger District. 

The Kaibab NF occupies an average of 52 percent of each subwatershed that the forest intersects, 

with several being wholly within the forest and the minimum occupancy of a single watershed by 

NFS land being less that 0.01 percent. The lands that comprise the HUC12 subwatersheds 

(hydrologic units generally of the scale 10,000 to 40,000 acres) consist of contiguous units of 

NFS lands and combinations of forest, other Federal, State, and privately owned lands. 

Currently, all vegetative communities and, therefore, soils and watersheds are departed to some 

degree from desired conditions (and reference conditions) or are trending away. In many cases, 

increased density of small trees, increased canopy bulk density, increased total canopy cover, loss 

of understory species diversity, and increased occurrences of invasive species have resulted in 

changes to soil stability, soil nutrient cycles, and soil hydrologic function (i.e., water holding 

capacity). Current vegetation conditions within the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer vegetation types are contributing to increased risk of uncharacteristic disturbances, such 

as stand-replacing fire in areas where low-severity, high-frequency fire regimes historically 

dominated. These two vegetation types cover approximately 40 percent of the Kaibab NF and 

constitute the second and third largest vegetation communities on the forest, behind pinyonjuniper woodlands. 

NFS roads near drainages or with stream crossings contribute to impaired watershed function 

when roads and ephemeral drainage crossings are used during wet weather or are inadequately 

maintained due to increased sediment and turbidity. Some watersheds on the forest have high 

road densities that threaten watershed function by redirecting and channelizing surface waterflow 

in roadside ditches and other road water diversion structures (i.e., road drainage features). 

Noxious and invasive weed infestations have also impaired the ecological function of some 

watersheds by prohibiting the colonization and establishment of native vegetation, altering soil 

chemical and physical properties including soil hydrologic function. 

168 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management of NFS lands often influences subwatershed conditions and, therefore, water 

resources conditions at larger scales (i.e., watershed and subbasin). In areas of mixed ownership, 

reasonable assumptions regarding the management of nonforest lands are based on historic and 

current management practices and activities on those lands in the future.

See the Soils and Watershed Specialist Report (KNF 2013e) and Kaibab NF Ecological 

Sustainability Report (KNF 2008a) for additional details of the subbasin, watershed, and 

subwatershed extent and conditions within the analysis area.

Soils

Soils within the Kaibab NF include a wide variety of taxonomic classifications, reflecting the 

influences of factors such as parent material, climate, topography, and organisms over time. As a 

result, soil characteristics range from shallow, weakly developed, rocky soils on plateaus, mesas, 

cliffs, escarpments, and ridges to deeper, more productive soils on alluvial fans, plains, and in 

valley bottoms. In general, soils on the forest are fine textured and contain a wide range of rock 

fragment sizes within soil profiles and at the surface. The dominant parent materials consist of 

sedimentary rocks, including sandstone, carbonates (primarily limestone and dolomite), 

mudstone, shale, gypsum and igneous rocks, including granite, basalt, and basalt cinders.

The most productive soils on the Kaibab NF occur within the wetland/cienega and 

montane/subalpine PNVTs followed by the Great Basin/Colorado Plateau grasslands. Soils of 

these PNVTs have high organic matter content and moisture-holding capacity and are, therefore, 

capable of supporting the greatest amount of vegetation production. Currently, surface organic 

matter (litter) and grass and forb productivity are moderate on some grassland terrestrial 

ecosystem units (TEUs) offering some opportunity to improve soil productivity, particularly 

where trees have encroached and shaded grasses and forbs, resulting in replacement of understory 

vegetation with forest litter (i.e., needles, twigs, and branches). By definition, these vegetation 

types should have no more than 9 percent tree cover. Encroaching trees in some areas have 

reduced vegetative ground cover and increased forest litter (i.e., duff). Woody material on the 

surface can also intercept moisture, reducing available moisture to grasses and forbs. 

Desert communities and semidesert grassland PNVTs have considerably lower soil productivity. 

These soils have lower organic matter content due to less vegetative ground cover that would 

otherwise provide organic matter inputs. These PNVTs cannot be expected to produce high 

amounts of forage.

Pinyon-juniper woodlands currently have low to moderate soil productivity, but there is potential 

to improve soil productivity on these PNVTs. Areas where tree canopy cover exceeds 40 percent 

exhibit sparse understories with increased bare ground, resulting in impaired soil condition and 

increased risk of sheet erosion. These PNVTs present excellent opportunities for mechanical 

thinning while crushing or lopping and scattering woody debris to increase surface organic matter 

and improve forage. On any given site, the potential living plant biomass that can be supported by 

the soils and climatic regime is finite. The large percentage of soil areas in the pinyon juniper 

community being in the unsatisfactory condition is due to complete occupancy of the site by 

pinyon and juniper trees. This dominance results in a paucity of herbaceous plants on the soil 

surface and a very high percentage of bare soil exposure. These bare soils experience very high 

erosion rates, primarily during monsoonal rain events that are typically intense and have the force 

to move soil particles. The resulting high erosion rates are the reason why these areas are 

classified in an unsatisfactory condition.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 169
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and spruce-fir PNVTs generally have moderate soil productivity 

with moderate to high levels of soil organic matter. Excessive amounts of duff built up and 

dispersed evenly across the soil may carry wildfire across entire stands and may contribute to 

stand-replacing fires, posing a risk to watershed condition in terms of degraded soil and 

hydrologic function. Forage productivity is generally low to moderate. Similar to pinyon-juniper 

woodlands, as ponderosa pine forest canopy cover increases, there is a corresponding decrease in 

understory productivity and subsequently, forage productivity decreases (personal observations 

and USDA Forest Service 1989). Under improved conditions of the PNVT, these soils can be 

expected to produce greater amounts of forage than under current conditions in many areas where 

forest thinning has not been conducted to decrease stand and overstory density. 

Overstocked pinyon-juniper woodlands, ponderosa pine, and frequent fire ponderosa forests have 

decreased herbaceous productivity due to tree competition for soil nutrients and moisture and 

reduced light interception at the forest floor. As canopies are treated (thinned or burned) or with 

insect and disease outbreaks, herbaceous understory and forage production increases (Abella and 

Covington 2004, Korb and Springer 2003).

Aspen stands that are in a state of decline exhibit reduced leaf fall that leads to a decrease in soil 

organic matter accumulation and eventually a decline in the thickness of the mollic soil horizon 

(Cryer and Murray 1992). As a result, nutrients are leached from upper soil horizons leading to 

decreased soil water-holding capacity and reduced base saturation. The result is a gradual 

increase in soil acidity, which provides an environment conducive to conifer encroachment into 

aspen stands. These processes, along with browsing of aspen by ungulates, are occurring 

throughout much of the Williams Ranger District. As a result, some of these aspen stands are 

trending toward late-successional, conifer-dominated vegetation communities.

Impaired or unsatisfactory soils occur where invasive and noxious weeds have displaced native 

vegetation or altered vegetative communities. Invasive and noxious plant species have the 

potential to change chemical and physical properties of soils by altering nutrient cycles and plantwater relations. Some invasive plants are allelopathic, meaning they release chemicals into the 

soil that inhibit the growth of other plants. The resulting reduction in native vegetative cover 

causes a corresponding increase in soil erosion from unprotected soil surfaces as a result of soil 

particle detachment by rainsplash and entrainment in surface runoff. 

Impaired and unsatisfactory soils are also found in areas where uncharacteristic wildfire has 

altered soil physical, chemical and hydrologic properties through loss of protective vegetative 

cover and organic matter, reduced water infiltration, changes to soil color, and loss of available 

nutrients. 

Climate Change 

Based on current climate models, some of the climate change factors that may influence soil 

condition are: (1) more extreme natural ecological process events, including wildfires, intense 

rain, flash foods, and wind events, and (2) changes in climate may affect the vigor and 

productivity of forage plants and, thus, overall soil conditions. 

It is possible that higher temperatures and decreased precipitation modeled for the next century 

would decrease understory vegetative production. There is a need to reduce vulnerability by 

maintaining and restoring resilient, native ecosystems.

170 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Watersheds and 

Soils

Environmental Consequences for Watersheds

and Soils Common to All Alternatives

Mechanical harvest and restoration treatments may impact soil hydrologic function, soil stability, 

and nutrient cycling through soil displacement, rutting, compaction, and puddling and removal of 

vegetative ground cover. Soil compaction decreases soil water infiltration and, therefore, nutrient 

inflows. The amount of soil compaction depends on harvest methods, amount of slash retained on 

site, operator technique, and soil conditions and properties (Page-Dumroese et al. 2010). 

Project-level implementation would include BMPs (FSM2530.2) and other mitigation measures 

designed to protect soils and watershed resources. BMPs and SWCPs (FSH 2509.22 R3, FS990a) have been proven effective in mitigating ground disturbance from forest mechanical 

treatments as well as intercepting sediment in runoff (Fleishman and Jagow 1996, Fleishman 

2005). 

Under all alternatives, prescribed fire is allowed to burn under conditions and prescriptions that 

should not result in large areas of high burn severity that would be detrimental to soil physical, 

chemical, or biological properties resulting in loss of soil productivity. Prescribed fires and 

wildfires managed for resource benefit may have negative isolated areas of high severity or places 

where fires smolder for prolonged durations that can result in negative effects to soil physical, 

chemical, and biological properties. Soil structure is the most important soil physical 

characteristic that affects soil hydrologic function and soil stability since the organic matter 

component, which improves aggregate stability, porosity, and water infiltration rates, can be lost 

at relatively low fire temperatures. The loss of soil structure increases the bulk density of the soil 

and reduces porosity, thereby making the soil more vulnerable to post-fire erosion. 

Soil biological processes are also affected by fire. Soil microorganism response to fire depends on 

numerous factors, including fire severity, site characteristics, preburn vegetation community 

composition, and preburn soil microorganism populations and species diversity. However, some 

generalizations can be made. First, most studies have shown strong resilience of microbial 

communities to fire. Recolonization to preburn levels is common, with the amount of time 

required for recovery generally varying in proportion to fire intensity and duration. Second, the 

effect of fire is greatest at the forest floor (litter and duff). Fires that do not entirely consume the 

forest floor and soil humus are recommended (Neary et al. 2005).

Recent and ongoing planning under the Travel Management Rule identifies an open road system 

and closes the forest to most cross-country travel. As a result, the road system is the same for all 

plan alternatives. The road system results in a net loss of soil productivity within the road 

corridor, including cut and fill slopes. Roads are the dominant source of erosion and sediment in 

forests (Swank and Crossley 1988, MacDonald and Coe 2008). Some road locations are in areas 

that are more sensitive than others, such as along ephemeral drainages, or in areas of inherently 

unstable soils. However, with implementation of the Travel Management Rule across the forest, 

unauthorized cross-country travel would be eliminated and many roads that have resulted in 

degradation of soil productivity and water quality would be closed. Some motorized crosscountry travel would continue for permitted uses.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 171
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

New permanent road construction is generally not required for mechanical thinning operations, 

but the reopening of maintenance level 1 roads (i.e., those roads placed in storage, or closed 

between intermittent uses) increases the amount of open roads and, potentially, the amount of soil 

erosion that occurs during project implementation. Temporary road use results in removal of 

vegetation along the road corridor, exposes mineral soil, and results in soil compaction within the 

travelway. Typically, there is increased erosion from roads during the first two years following 

road construction or reopening (MacDonald and Coe 2008; Megahan 1974). Slope failures and 

mass movement of soils may occur as a result of road construction. New roads or reopening 

closed roads may also provide an environment conducive to the invasion and establishment of 

invasive plant species. New temporary roads would be closed, obliterated, and revegetated 

following use. Road design, avoidance of problem soils, appropriate design criteria, 

implementation of BMPs for road construction and maintenance, and road closures would be 

implemented to minimize adverse impacts to soils. 

Grazing does not typically result in detrimental effects when sufficient herbaceous material 

protects the soils during periods of intense summer rainfall, or during spring snowmelt, as is 

common in most areas grazed by domestic livestock under current grazing management, which is 

low to moderate. Grazing does have the potential to result in localized impacts to soil condition 

through hoof compaction, and indirectly from the removal of protective vegetative cover and 

subsequently, effective ground cover. The effects to soil condition include reduced soil hydrologic 

function of highly compacted areas where cattle congregate and trail, and reduced soil stability 

from loss of ground cover wherever overutilization of available forage occurs. 

Since current composition and density of biological soil crusts2 have not be inventoried, we can 

only infer trends based on current and projected management impacts that have been shown in 

research to alter populations of biological crusts. Of most importance is the role crusts play in 

maintaining productivity of the semidesert and Great Basin grasslands and woodland ecosystems. 

Some mosses and other crust-forming organisms are found in wetter environments, but are less 

important to overall soil productivity. It is estimated that improved cattle management on the 

forest that is currently being implemented would benefit biological crusts. Reduction in grazing 

pressure due to estimated increases in forage production would also benefit soil biological crusts. 

Following large-scale disturbances such as wildfire, insect infestations, disease outbreaks, and 

wind storms, decisions may be made under all alternatives to recover economic value of trees 

killed by such events, and to reduce hazardous fuels created. Salvage logging provides a means to 

offset other recovery efforts following large scale disturbances such as soil stabilization, 

reforestation, and forest infrastructure repair and maintenance, but also has the potential to 

increase soil erosion rates, effect soil nutrient cycling processes, increase soil compaction and 

displacement, and increase the risk of spread of weeds. Post-disturbance salvage logging has been 

and continues to be a controversial activity on NFS lands. Arguments for and against postdisturbance salvage logging are well documented in the literature with regard to the effects to 

soils and water resources. Several white papers, opinion papers, and refereed journal articles exist 

that reflect opposing viewpoints and the current state of knowledge of the subject (e.g., Beschta et 

al. 1995, McIver and Starr 2001, Ice and Adams 2004, Brown et al. 2003, Peterson et al. 2009, 

Collins et al. 2011).

2 Biological soil crusts are formed by living organisms and their byproducts, creating a crust of soil particles bound 

together by organic materials. The primary living organisms of biological soil crusts include cyanobacteria, green and 

brown algae, mosses, lichens, liverworts, fungi, and bacteria.

172 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

While there is a potential for adverse direct and indirect effects to soils and watershed resources 

from salvage logging, most adverse effects can be minimized or mitigated through proper 

implementation of BMPs and SWCPs. Management considerations for decreasing adverse 

impacts to soils and watershed resources from salvage logging following large-scale disturbance 

include those recommended by Lindenmayer and Noss (2006) and should also include, but are 

not limited to, the following:

• Minimizing the number and length of roads necessary to complete activities.

• Installing necessary roads on stable, well-drained soils away from waterbodies.

• Minimizing the number of stream crossings necessary to complete activities.

• Avoid sensitive soils and sites.

• Considering harvest systems that produce the least soil disturbance in completing 

activities. These systems can include: logging on frozen-ground or snow-packed 

conditions, forwarding, full suspension cable yarding, helicopter yarding, partial 

suspension cable yarding, and ground-based skidding under dry conditions.

• Stabilizing disturbed areas upon completion of activities, including seeding with native 

species where warranted.

• Maintaining adequate residual woody debris to protect soil surfaces from erosion, provide 

shade and moisture to plants and organisms, and restore nutrient cycles.

• Buffering sensitive sites such as stream channels, waterbodies, and springs.

Environmental Consequences for Watersheds

and Soils: Alternative A – Current Plan, Current 

Management (No Action) 

Under alternative A, the Kaibab NF would continue vegetation management practices at 

approximately the current rate. Mechanical vegetation treatments that have the potential to 

improve long-term soils and watershed conditions in the ponderosa pine vegetation type would 

continue to occur on approximately 2,100 acres annually, which is only enough to maintain a 

static condition and would not make progress toward desired conditions. Alternative A would also 

continue mechanical vegetation treatments in the frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation type at a 

rate of approximately 200 acres annually (approximately 5 to 10 percent of the acreage proposed 

under the action alternatives). With only 200 acres in the frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation 

type receiving mechanical prescribed thinning treatments annually, it is unlikely that alternative A 

would achieve desired conditions for soils and watersheds. Trends indicate that fuel loading 

would continue to increase in both living biomass and woody detritus. At the current rate of 

mechanical prescribed thinning on the forest, it is unlikely that alternative A would achieve 

desired open, uneven-aged conditions and associated understory response in the ponderosa pine 

and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types as effectively as the action alternatives since the 

objectives for the action alternatives exceed the current rates under the current plan.

Under current management, prescribed burning is not achieving desired conditions for soils and 

watershed resources as acres treated with low-intensity prescribed fire are not sufficient to reduce 

the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire at the landscape scale. Currently, fire managers are burning 

about 8,500 acres per year with prescribed fire and manage wildfires to achieve multiple 

objectives on around 11,700 acres per year, totaling just over 20,000 acres per year that receive 

beneficial fire disturbance (KNF 2013a).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 173
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under alternative A, there are no desired conditions specified for the grassland or aspen

vegetation types and no objectives in the plan to reduce encroaching conifers from grasslands or 

aspen stands. Since there are no clearly defined desired conditions for vegetation types, it is 

unlikely that landscape-scale desired conditions would be achieved in grasslands and aspen 

vegetation types.

The use of roads and the need for reopening maintenance level 1 roads is estimated to be lowest 

under this alternative because fewer acres are being treated using mechanical methods and 

prescribed fire. This would have the lowest short-term soil effects related to road usage. The 

action alternatives would likely require greater road use and need for temporary road access to 

implement prescribed thinning and fire treatments. Maintenance level 1 roads, as defined in FSH 

7509.58, 10, 12.3, refers to intermittent service roads during the time they are closed to vehicular 

traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep 

damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future 

management activities. Emphasis is normally given to maintaining drainage facilities and runoff 

patterns. Level 1 roads have the following attributes: 

• Vehicular traffic is eliminated, including administrative traffic.

• Physically blocked or entrance is disguised.

• Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act.

• Maintenance is done only to minimize resource impacts.

• No maintenance other than a condition survey may be required so long as no potential 

exists for resource damage.

Under current grazing management, alternative A has the lowest potential for improving 

rangeland resources and associated vegetative cover, since current management is resulting in 

fewer acres restored than proposed under the action alternatives. Vegetative cover protects soils 

by holding them in place. 

Alternative A, current management, is not sufficient to effect a change in trend and increase 

resilience to changing climate. Under current management, forest restoration projects are 

occurring at a rate slower than proposed under all the action alternatives. As a result, large 

landscapes are at increased risk of climate-related disturbances. 

Current management is not achieving resilience to climate change since forest restoration projects 

are occurring at a rate slower than proposed under all action alternatives. 

Environmental Consequences for Watersheds and

Soils Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D

Under the action alternatives, there are objectives that propose mechanical prescribed thinning on 

approximately 11,000 to 19,000 acres annually in the ponderosa pine vegetation type and 1,200 to 

2,100 acres annually in frequent fire mixed conifer. Initially, mechanical forest prescribed 

thinning treatments would increase the risk of soil compaction, rutting, puddling, accelerated 

erosion, potential sediment delivery to surface waters, and establishment of invasive and noxious 

weeds through the use of heavy machinery. However, long-term improvement in herbaceous 

understory vegetation and forest structure and function would occur as a result of these 

alternatives since treated areas are expected to recover rapidly (i.e., 1 to 3 years) following 

mechanical vegetation treatments and implementation of BMPs and SWCPs would minimize and 

174 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

mitigate potential adverse effects. The resulting increase in effective ground cover (i.e., 

herbaceous vegetation and litter) would improve soil stability, nutrient status, and water-holding 

capacity. Storm water runoff velocities would decrease as a result of improved surface roughness 

with vegetative ground cover providing a filter against sediment transport to waterways.

Approximately14,000 to 68,000 acres of wildland fire would occur annually in the ponderosa 

pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types under the action alternatives. This would 

include both prescribed fire and wildfire that would improve ecological function of soils, increase 

understory vegetation production and diversity, and decrease the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire 

that can adversely affect soils and watershed conditions. All action alternatives include objectives 

to reduce encroaching conifers in grassland vegetation types. The amount of treatment to protect 

and regenerate aspen is not expected to be different among the action alternatives, if funding is 

available. Native vegetation would reestablish in these areas soon after a treatment is completed 

(i.e., 1 to 3 years). Soil stability and productivity within exclosures would improve over time 

through elimination of impacts to aspen regeneration by wildlife and domestic livestock (i.e., 

browsing and trampling). Additional benefits include reduced susceptibility of sites to invasion by 

noxious weeds. These increases in native plant cover would reduce the amount of open, disturbed 

sites susceptible to weed invasion. Where aspen recruitment occurs in the absence of wildlife and 

domestic livestock impacts, soil ecological processes common in aspen vegetation communities 

would return over time, contributing to sustainable aspen populations.

Treatments to reduce tree encroachment in grasslands would result in minor soil compaction and 

removal of native vegetation where tree removal is practiced. Soil compaction and removal of 

vegetative ground cover has the potential to cause accelerated erosion and degradation of surface 

water quality. These conditions typically occur for short periods following treatment (i.e., 1 to 

3 years). Implementation of BMPs and appropriate design features and mitigation measures 

would minimize these adverse effects. 

Recreational uses that may impact soils include camping, hiking, mountain biking, and horseback 

riding. All of these activities may result in erosion and compaction. Across the forest, recreational 

use is relatively low, and as a result, associated impacts tend to be localized and occur on a small 

percentage of the planning area. Implementing site-specific BMPs and SWCPs for recreation 

projects minimizes adverse impacts to soils and water quality. The impacts from recreation could 

occur under all of the alternatives. No recreation development is proposed under any alternative. 

Terms and conditions of special use permits would require site-specific BMPs to provide for 

maintenance of soil productivity under all alternatives. Therefore, there are no anticipated effects 

to soil condition from permitted special use activities.

Restoring and maintaining resilience in forest, woodland, chaparral, grassland, shrublands, and 

riparian ecosystems are part of the basic elements of forestwide desired conditions, objectives, 

and management approaches provided for in alternatives B, C, and D. Restoring and maintaining 

resilience would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to retain or return to desired 

conditions after being influenced by climate change related impacts and variability. Management 

practices (e.g., selection cutting for age class diversity and structure, and restoring native 

grasslands) that sustain healthy plant and animal communities, and provide adequate nutrients, 

soil productivity, and hydrologic function promote resilience and reduce the potential for 

uncharacteristic disturbance. See the Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter for additional 

information on vegetation and fire.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 175
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under the action alternatives, there are more explicit plan directions to address the bison herd on 

the North Kaibab Ranger District. Guidelines specify that the bison herd should be managed so it 

is concentrated within the House Rock Wildlife Management Area, and that active management 

should be used to minimize impacts from bison to sensitive resources, particularly outside the 

House Rock Wildlife Management Area. Management of the bison herd under these guidelines 

will reduce potential damage to sensitive soil and water resources caused by the bison, and 

decrease the spread of nonnative invasive species.

Environmental Consequences for Watersheds 

and Soils: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

Within the capacity of the Kaibab NF, the proposed action would most effectively achieve longterm desired conditions for soil and watershed resources in ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer vegetation communities by modifying stand structure and density toward reference 

conditions and restoring historic fire regimes, thus improving the ecological function and 

sustainability of soils and watersheds in these vegetation types. While the preferred alternative 

has a large/old tree retention guideline, it would not retain all presettlement trees where doing so 

would prevent the achievement of desired stand densities and associated openings. 

Mechanical harvest and restoration treatments under alternative B would have similar impacts as 

described under current management (alternative A). However, alternative B proposes the most 

mechanical harvest treatments of all alternatives and, thus, the greatest risk of short-term soil and 

watershed damage from mechanical treatments. Most of these impacts would be minimized and 

mitigated with implementation of BMPs and SWCPs. 

Effects from road use would be similar to alternative A. However, alternative B proposes the 

greatest amount of timber harvest/mechanical restoration treatments and suitable timber base of 

all alternatives. For this reason, use of roads and the additional use of maintenance level 1 roads 

are estimated to be highest under alternative B. Maintenance level 1 roads generally recover (i.e., 

stabilize and revegetation) following use and implementation of BMPs and SWCPs. 

Prescribed fires and wildfires managed for resource benefit would have the same effects to soils 

and watershed resources as outlined under alternative A. However, alternative B proposes more 

fire for ecosystem objectives than under current management (alternative A). It is possible that 

restoration activities may result in short-term localized adverse effects to soils and watershed 

resources including removal of vegetative cover, rutting, compaction, and erosion. These adverse 

effects could occur on any soils and associated PNVTs where prescribed thinning and fire 

treatments are implemented on the forest. However, they would generally be short-lived and 

mitigated through implementation of BMPs and SWCPs. The outcome would be an overall 

benefit of ecological restoration of the natural range of variability of fire-adapted ecosystems.

Since alternative B proposes the largest acreage for forest mechanical and fire restoration 

treatments in ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer, understory production and 

corresponding vegetative and effective ground cover is expected to exhibit the largest 

improvement under alternative B. 

Alternative B would result in the greatest amount of area in the desired condition for the 

vegetation types (see Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter). Alternative B would result in 

the greatest amount of acreage in the desired condition for the soils and their associated PNVTs

(see Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter). This would provide for adequate nutrients, soil 

176 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

productivity, and hydrologic function to promote ecosystem resilience to changing climate and 

reduce the potential for uncharacteristic disturbance that can have severe effects to soils and 

watershed resources.

Environmental Consequences for 

Watersheds and Soils: Alternative C

While alternative C would be expected to modify forested ecosystems toward desired conditions, 

retention of all presettlement trees could prevent sufficient reduction of stand density in some 

areas to effectively reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. High-severity fires can have 

profound negative effects to soil properties including: (a) decreased soil productivity through loss 

of available nutrients; (b) soil hydrophobicity (i.e., the inability of soils to absorb water following 

precipitation) resulting in increased overland flow; (c) increased susceptibility of soils to erosion 

by both wind and rainfall; and (d) increased soil temperatures that inhibit plant reestablishment. 

Removal of some presettlement trees under some circumstances would achieve desired conditions 

through removal of diseased trees, interlocking crowns, and other conditions conducive to 

uncharacteristic wildfire.

Objectives under all action alternatives would be to treat with fire an average of 13,000 to 

55,000 acres annually in ponderosa pine, and an average of 1,000 to 13,000 acres annually in 

frequent fire mixed conifer using a combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited wildfires. 

Desirable fire effects would be similar to alternative B. However, with the presettlement tree 

retention guideline, it is possible that prescribed fires would burn with greater intensity because 

stands would include more areas with crown closure and higher overall stand densities than 

would likely occur under alternative B. 

Effects to soils and watershed resources due to increased road use would be similar to those under 

alternative A. However, alternative C would require more maintenance level 1 and temporary 

roads than under current management (alternative A) to conduct mechanical forest restoration

treatments. Lower road use levels are anticipated under this alternative than under alternative B 

because fewer trees would be removed due to the presettlement tree retention guideline and 

mechanical treatment could only be conducted to achieve desired conditions in the North Kaibab 

Wildlife Habitat Complex (i.e., approximately 260,000 acres), which would reduce the need for 

road use for future mechanical treatments within the management area. 

Alternative C proposes the same number of acres of mechanical and wildland fire restoration 

treatments as alternative B. However, since mechanical treatments in the management area would 

only be conducted to restore stand structure, it is uncertain if future natural disturbances and acres 

that can be treated by prescribed fires would be sufficient to maintain the ecological function of 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types following mechanical treatments 

within the management area. Where wildland fires do not occur, fuel loading would increase over 

time, leaving the management area at higher risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. For this reason, 

alternative C does not provide the ecosystem resilience necessary to mitigate changing climate as 

well as alternative B.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 177
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Watersheds and Soils: Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to alternative C with the exception that the guideline for restoring 

conditions to the desired conditions, and thereafter, would be maintained with fire and natural 

disturbance would apply to the entire forest. Impacts to soils and watershed resources from 

mechanical prescribed thinning would be similar to those described under alternative A with 

acreages approximately equal to alternatives B and C. The presettlement tree retention guideline 

would result in slightly less soil disturbance than alternative B, since fewer large trees would be 

removed and transported to landings. However, treatments under alternative D are not likely to 

fully restore the ecological integrity of the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer 

vegetation types in areas where there are a lot of presettlement trees. Where the desired openness 

is not achieved, there would be an increased risk of large-scale, uncharacteristic, stand-replacing 

wildfire and subsequent adverse effects to soils and watersheds. This risk may be increased in a 

hotter or drier climate. 

Effects to soils and watershed resources due to increased road use would be similar to those under 

alternative A. However, alternative D would require more maintenance level 1 and temporary 

roads than under current management (alternative A) to conduct mechanical forest restoration

treatments, but lower road use levels than alternatives B or C.

Grazing impacts to soils and watersheds under alternative D would be similar to alternatives B 

and C. The presettlement tree retention guideline may decrease the effectiveness of forest 

restoration treatments since the remaining presettlement trees would contribute to shading of the 

forest floor. By limiting the amount of sunlight reaching the forest floor, biological soil activity is 

decreased due to cooler soil temperatures. As a result, microbial decomposition rates are reduced, 

resulting in lower nutrient availability to understory plants. Additionally, grasses and forbs require 

sunlight to maintain adequate ground cover to protect soil surfaces from erosion by wind and 

water.

Comparison of Alternatives for 

Soils and Watersheds

Table 26 summarizes the projected trends in soil and watershed condition based on estimates of 

vegetative ground cover, soil organic matter content, and potential soil loss. Each PNVT was 

examined to determine whether soil and watershed conditions would generally trend toward, 

away, or remain static with implementation of the objectives of each alternative.

178 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 26. Estimated trends in soil condition for each vegetation type by alternative

Vegetation 

Type (PNVT)

Current 

Departure 

From DC†

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Ponderosa 

pine forest

Moderate Stable Toward. Greatly 

improved soil 

vegetative ground 

cover; increased 

organic matter 

content; improved 

nutrient cycling; 

improved soil 

moisture; reduced 

erosion hazard; 

greatest reduction of 

risk from 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire disturbance.

Toward. Slightly 

improved vegetative 

ground cover and 

organic matter 

content; improved 

nutrient cycling; 

slightly improved 

soil moisture; 

moderate reduction 

in erosion risk and 

protection from 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire.

Toward. Slightly 

improved vegetative 

ground cover and 

organic matter 

content; improved 

nutrient cycling; 

slightly improved 

soil moisture; 

moderate reduction 

in erosion risk and 

protection from 

uncharacteristic 

wildfire.

Frequent fire 

mixed conifer 

forest

Low Stable Toward. Reduced 

surface fuel loads 

and increased 

vegetative ground 

cover; improved 

nutrient cycling; 

improved soil 

moisture; decreased 

erosion risk.

Toward. Reduced 

surface fuel loads 

and increased 

vegetative ground 

cover; improved 

nutrient cycling; 

improved soil 

moisture; decreased 

erosion risk. Slightly 

less reduction in risk 

of uncharacteristic 

wildfire than 

alternative B.

Toward. Reduced 

surface fuel loads 

and increased 

vegetative ground 

cover; improved 

nutrient cycling; 

improved soil 

moisture; decreased 

erosion risk. Slightly 

less reduction in risk 

of uncharacteristic 

wildfire than 

alternative B.

Great Basin/

Colorado 

Plateau 

grassland and 

steppe

None Away Stable Stable Stable

Montane/ 

subalpine 

grassland

Low Away Toward. Removal of 

encroached trees 

improves vegetative 

ground cover, soil 

nutrient cycling, soil 

organic matter and 

moisture content, and 

reduces erosion risk.

Toward. Removal of 

encroached trees 

improves vegetative 

ground cover, soil 

nutrient cycling, soil 

organic matter and 

moisture content, and 

reduces erosion risk. 

Presettlement tree 

retention guidelines 

limit the 

effectiveness of this 

alternative at 

achieving DC.

Toward. Removal of 

encroached trees 

improves vegetative 

ground cover, soil 

nutrient cycling, soil 

organic matter and 

moisture content, and 

reduces erosion risk. 

Presettlement tree 

retention guidelines 

limit the 

effectiveness of this 

alternative at 

achieving DC.

Pinyonjuniper 

woodland

High Away Stable Stable Stable

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 179
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Vegetation 

Type (PNVT)

Current 

Departure 

From DC†

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Wetland/ 

cienega

Low Away Toward. Prescribed 

thinning and fire use 

would decrease 

water uptake by trees 

and shrubs resulting 

in a potential 

increase in surface 

runoff and 

groundwater 

recharge. Native 

emergent vegetation 

would increase.

Toward. Prescribed 

thinning and fire use 

would decrease 

water uptake by trees 

and shrubs resulting 

in a potential 

increase in surface 

runoff and 

groundwater 

recharge. Native 

emergent vegetation 

would increase. 

Presettlement tree 

retention guidelines 

limit the 

effectiveness of this 

alternative at 

achieving DC.

Toward. Prescribed 

thinning and fire use 

would decrease 

water uptake by trees 

and shrubs resulting 

in a potential 

increase in surface 

runoff and 

groundwater 

recharge. Native 

emergent vegetation 

would increase. 

Presettlement tree 

retention guidelines 

limit the 

effectiveness of this 

alternative at 

achieving DC.

†Current departure estimates (KNF 2008b)

Under alternative A, desired conditions for soils and watersheds in ponderosa pine and frequent 

fire mixed conifer vegetation types would not be achieved as effectively as under the action 

alternatives. 

Alternative B proposes the most mechanical harvest treatments and, thus, the most risk from soil 

compaction and ground cover removal, followed by alternatives C and D. However, 

implementation of BMPs and SWCPs as previously discussed would minimize and mitigate 

potential adverse effects to soils and watershed conditions. 

The majority of treatments in both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer under action 

alternatives B, C, and D, would occur on level to moderately steep landscapes. Site-specific 

BMPs and SWCPs would be prescribed to reduce impacts of mechanized equipment in all 

treatment areas. Soil disturbance monitoring (Page-Dumroese et al. 2009a and 2009b) would 

provide the necessary feedback for adaptive management to protect soil productivity. 

Use of prescribed fire provides resource managers the opportunity to control the severity of the 

fire and to avoid creating large areas that burn at high severity. Each alternative proposes the use 

of prescribed fire for fuel reduction and ecosystem restoration on the same acreage. However, 

alternative D prescribes the most fire for ecosystem restoration, followed by B, C, and then A.

Fire treatments range from low-severity broadcast burning for ground fuel reduction, to isolated 

torching (less than 10 acres) that creates and maintains heterogeneity and desired openings. 

In aspen, the effectiveness of treatments is likely to be somewhat higher for the proposed action 

or alternative A than for alternative C or D due to differences in the presettlement tree retention

guidelines.

The road system (miles, management level, and location) is the same for all alternatives;

however, road use is estimated to be higher under alternative B followed by C and D because 

alternative B would have the greatest level of timber harvest/mechanical restoration treatments 

180 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and suitable timber base of all alternatives. Since alternatives C and D would include removal of 

land from the suitable timber base, these alternatives would have the lowest impact to soils and 

watershed condition from roads over time.

Cumulative Environmental 

Consequences for Soils and Watersheds

The cumulative effects analysis area for soils and watersheds includes all of the 4th- (HUC8), 

5th- (HUC10), and 6th-level (HUC12) hydrologic units that contain, at least partially, Kaibab 

lands. 

Almost all of the watersheds associated with the forest have private inholdings and areas outside 

of the forest boundary. Many of the impacts discussed above occur on lands of other ownership, 

such as unpaved roads, grazing, mining, forest management, and fuel treatments that may result 

in reduced watershed conditions. 

The Coconino and Prescott National Forests are currently revising their forest plans. These forests 

share boundaries with the Kaibab NF and implement similar management practices. Forest 

management and planning efforts are closely aligned with the Kaibab NF through cooperation 

and coordination throughout the forest plan revision process. 

The BLM, Arizona Strip shares a boundary with the North Kaibab Ranger District. The Arizona 

Strip Proposed Plan/Final EIS was completed in 2007. Land management practices on BLM lands 

are implemented in a manner similar to Forest Service lands under NEPA requirements. 

Coordination between the Kaibab NF and BLM, Arizona Strip is ongoing where resource 

management issues overlap Kaibab NF and BLM managed lands.

Grand Canyon National Park has shared boundaries with the Tusayan and North Kaibab Ranger 

Districts. The Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan was completed in 1995 in 

accordance with NEPA. The Kaibab NF coordinates with the park on natural resource 

management projects and planning efforts as needed. 

Coconino and Yavapai Counties have implemented management plans that provide frameworks 

for managing land use, the natural environment, and conservation of natural resources. As 

populations in these counties continue to grow, increased pressure on NFS lands can be expected. 

Planning on the forest would, therefore, require considering the impacts that population growth in 

these counties and expansion of the wildland-urban interface toward the forest ownership has on 

implementing forest management practices.

Potential cumulative environmental consequences from other landowners and jurisdictions, when 

added to the environmental consequences of the action alternatives, include:

• Adverse impacts to soils and watershed condition caused by road construction and 

maintenance;

• Adverse impacts to soils and watershed condition as a result of grazing of domestic 

livestock;

• Adverse impacts to soils and watersheds caused by minerals and mining activities;

• Beneficial effects of low-intensity wildland fire including nutrient cycling and fuel load 

reduction; and

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 181
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Beneficial effects of reduced overstory and corresponding increase in vegetative 

understory abundance and diversity.

The potential cumulative environmental consequences of the action alternatives when combined 

with the past, present, and foreseeable effects of activities on lands within the watershed 

boundaries is a mix of beneficial and adverse effects, with most of the adverse effects being short 

term and the beneficial effects being long term. The overall effects of the action alternatives are 

beneficial, as well as the overall effects of other land management agencies in the cumulative 

effects analysis area. Therefore, when combined, the net cumulative effect on soil and watershed 

resources is positive.

Water Resources

Affected Environment for Natural Waters

Natural waters are highly productive ecosystems in otherwise low productivity arid landscapes. 

Wildlife is more concentrated around open water sources than across the general landscape, and 

obligate aquatic and semiaquatic species depend on these limited and dispersed water sources. 

Springs are frequently more stable ecologically than surrounding upland ecosystems in arid 

regions, and may offer biological refugia for some species, particularly narrowly endemic 

species. Contemporary uses include potable local and urban water supplies and agricultural uses 

such as livestock watering. In addition, springs provide traditional cultural and recreational 

opportunities. Detailed information on water resources can be found in the Soils, Watershed and 

Water Resources Specialist Report (KNF 2013e).

Perennial Streams

The only known historic perennial streams on the Kaibab NF are North Canyon Creek and Kanab 

Creek. The perennial reach of North Canyon Creek is located in the Upper North Canyon Wash 

subwatershed (HUC12) of the North Canyon Wash watershed. The creek runs approximately 1.5 

miles before becoming subsurface flow. Current riparian conditions are thought to be near historic 

conditions with a wide variety of riparian species present. However, the stream contributes only 2 

percent of the perennial stream miles in this watershed, while the forest area makes up almost 25 

percent of the watershed. 

The Forest Service, in cooperation with the Arizona Game and Fish Department, recently 

completed repair and replacement of log drop and other fish habitat structures in North Canyon 

Creek. This project has helped protect a genetically important population of Apache trout by 

rehabilitating pools that provide winter habitat and refugia in times of stream dewatering from 

limited precipitation. The project was completed in the lower to middle portion of North Canyon 

Creek below North Canyon Spring in Saddle Mountain Wilderness. This stream channel is 

currently classified in good condition. It is in the Saddle Mountain Wilderness and is not diverted 

for human uses.

Kanab Creek is also a perennial stream within the forest, but with current upstream water use and 

diversion, the perennial flow within the Kaibab NF boundary has been reduced substantially. 

Flooding disturbance and flow, which are critical ecological processes, are also greatly reduced. 

The base flow of Kanab Creek now originates primarily from springs that issue from canyon 

walls within the Kanab Creek Wilderness. High-intensity, short-duration monsoon thunderstorms 

also contribute to the base flow of Kanab Creek during the monsoon season. These storms can 

182 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

cause localized flash flooding along the Kanab Creek drainage, but with upstream water capture 

and diversion, this process is now less pronounced. 

Natural Lakes

On the Kaibab NF, most of the lakes exhibit ephemeral characteristics and do not hold water 

throughout most years, but they often retain sufficient water into the growing season to function 

as lacustrine and palustrine wetlands. Most of the lakes that exhibit perennial characteristics on 

the forest are modified. Perennial lakes include Cataract Lake (37 acres), Coleman Lake (80 

acres), Kaibab Lake (70 acres), Dogtown Reservoir (94 acres), Steel Dam Reservoir (5 acres), 

Stone Dam Reservoir (14 acres), and White Horse Lake (42 acres). 

There are 12 natural lakes on the Williams Ranger District. All of these lakes are ephemeral and 

are more appropriately characterized as ephemeral wetland ecosystems. These include Allen 

Lake, Coleman Lake, Davenport Lake, Dry Lake, Duck Lake, Faye Lake, Holden Lake, Mineral 

Lake, Moritz Lake, Three Mile Lake, Raymond Lake, and Smoot Lake. 

There are 28 known natural lakes on the North Kaibab Ranger District. Most are relatively 

undisturbed by human impacts other than fencing. They include Bear Lake, Crane Lake, Deer 

Lake, Dog Lake, East Lake, Fracas Lake, Franks Lake, Glen Lakes, Indian Lake, Lookout Lake, 

Oquer Lake, VT Lake, and Wall Lake. Fracas Lake and Wall Lake are spring fed. Franks Lake is 

a designated geologic-botanic area in the current plan. 

All of these lakes provide unique riparian plant communities and a diversity of habitats for fish 

(stocked, no native fishery) and wildlife. In the past, domestic livestock would congregate and 

trample or consume riparian and wetland vegetation and defecate and urinate directly in the 

waterbodies, compromising the ecological integrity of these important habitat features. The North 

Kaibab Ranger District, with cooperation and assistance from other organizations (Grand Canyon 

Trust and Arizona Deer Association), has fenced all but two of these lakes to exclude livestock. 

Two unfenced lakes occur at the district boundary and are shared with other ownership. Access to 

these lakes by livestock is discouraged. 

Springs

Arizona has the second highest density of known springs in the United States, with the Mogollon 

Rim and the North Kaibab having among the highest densities of springs in Arizona (Larry 

Stevens, personal communication). According to the National Hydrography Dataset layer, there 

are 709 springs in all the Kaibab NF connected HUC8 subbasins. The forest contains 167 known 

springs or about 23 percent of the total. Ninety-two of these springs occur on the North Kaibab 

Ranger District, 74 occur on the Williams Ranger District, and 1 has been identified on the 

Tusayan Ranger District. 

The historic extent and flow of springs are generally unknown, but are presumed to be 

approximately equal to the current extent and flow. No springs on the Kaibab NF flow more than 

0.2 mile. The extent and flow of springs fluctuate largely as a factor of precipitation. Human 

impacts (i.e., livestock grazing, water capture and diversion, and recreation) have adversely 

affected many springs on the forest. Many of the springs are developed, which probably occurred 

after the Homestead Act of 1862. These developments remove water from the site and reduce 

riparian vegetation extent. Several springs have been documented to be at risk or have 

nonfunctional riparian areas due to ungulate grazing, lack of spring infrastructure maintenance, 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 183
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and recreational activity. Springs can exhibit reduced flows caused by transpirational effect of 

increasingly dense forest vegetation encroaching on these areas, but this has not been 

conclusively documented on the Kaibab NF. In addition, springs located adjacent to wells may 

exhibit reduced flows caused by groundwater pumping, or draw down.

Wetlands/Cienegas

The number and extent of historic wetlands on the Kaibab NF is largely unknown; however, the 

number and extent of wetlands is estimated from information found in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service National Wetlands Inventory. The National Wetlands Inventory data include stock tanks 

as areas identified as wetlands. Generally, wetlands are areas where soil saturation with water is 

the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal 

communities living in the soil and on its surface (Cowardin et al. 1979). This is not the case for 

most stock tanks on the forest.

The National Wetlands Inventory identifies four primary wetland types on the Kaibab NF. These 

include freshwater emergent wetlands, freshwater forested/shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, and 

lakes. There are approximately 295 acres of freshwater emergent wetlands, 1 acre of freshwater 

forested/shrub wetlands, 5 acres of riverine wetlands, and 690 acres of lakes on the forest.

Affected Environment for Developed Waters

Numerous lakes on the Kaibab NF have either been constructed in drainages or wet meadows or 

were natural lakes that have been substantially altered (impounded or excavated) to increase the 

water-holding capacity. Most of these lakes dry substantially during the summer before the 

monsoon. Several of the lakes are artificial impoundments with constructed dams and are the 

source of recreational opportunities for forest visitors. Constructed lakes that exhibit perennial 

characteristics on the forest are summarized in table 27.

Table 27. Perennial constructed lakes of the Kaibab National Forest and associated 

acreages

Lake Name Acreage

Cataract Lake 37

Coleman Lake 80

JD Dam 28.

Kaibab Lake 71

Dogtown Reservoir 94

Steel Dam Reservoir 5

Scholz Lake 63

Stone Dam Reservoir 14

White Horse Lake 42

There are three large reservoirs (500 acre-feet or larger) on the Williams Ranger District. These 

include West Cataract Creek, Dogtown Reservoir, and Kaibab Lake. Dogtown Reservoir is the 

largest with a maximum water storage capacity of 1,390 acre-feet. Kaibab Lake has a maximum 

water storage capacity of approximately 967 acre-feet, and West Cataract Creek has a water 

storage capacity of approximately 860 acre-feet. The most common uses of these reservoirs are 

184 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

public water supply for the city of Williams, recreation, and fire protection. Three other reservoirs 

that that have watersheds originating on the Kaibab NF, but are not on the forest, include City 

Reservoir, Gonzales Lake, and Santa Fe Reservoir.

There are 492 reservoirs and stock tank claims within the 126 subwatersheds (HUC12) on the 

Kaibab NF, and 3,281 in the 4th-code watersheds according to the Arizona Department of Water 

Resources. This represents 15 percent of the total number of structures in the analysis area 

subbasins (HUC8). Most of the reservoirs and stock tanks were built between 1930 and 1980. 

These impoundments have reduced flow volume and duration of some ephemeral and intermittent 

stream channels on the forest. However, a reduction in riparian vegetation has not been observed 

due to the historically short duration that water is present in these stream channels. The reservoirs 

and stock tanks have increased perennial water on the forest for domestic livestock and wildlife,

as well as increased riparian vegetation surrounding them.

Surface Water Quality

Improvements to the Nation’s waters over the past three decades are largely due to the control of 

traditional point sources of water pollution. However, a large number of waterbodies remain 

impaired and the goal of eliminating pollutant discharge and attaining fishable and swimmable 

waters is still unrealized. Nonpoint sources of pollution such as agriculture, construction, forestry, 

and mining are responsible for much of the Nation’s remaining water quality impairment. 

On the Kaibab NF, the most common nonpoint source pollution is sediment generated from roads 

in close proximity to drainages, from residual effects of past, and in some cases, current livestock 

grazing, and from short-term impacts of ground-disturbing activities such as timber harvest and 

high-severity fire. In the 1980s, before widespread use of best management practices for

protecting soils and watersheds, timber harvesting was widespread and was also a nonpoint 

source of pollution in the form of sediment delivery offsite and into adjacent stream courses. 

Currently, the Kaibab NF implements and monitors site-specific BMPs for all activities with the 

potential to pollute Arizona’s waters. 

Surface water quality has generally been satisfactory on the Kaibab NF except during drought 

conditions and extreme flood events, or immediately following high-severity wildfires. There are 

currently no streams or waterbodies on the forest classified as not meeting Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) water quality standards for their designated uses. White Horse Lake is 

the only lake or wetland on the forest that has been classified as impaired (category 5) for the 

designated uses under EPA water quality standards. In 1998, the lake was placed on the EPA 

303(d) list for exceeding the turbidly standard for Aquatic and Coldwater Fisheries designated 

use. From 1997 to 2000, the lake exceeded standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, and turbidity. In 

2002, the lake exceeded the standard for dissolved oxygen. The Arizona Department of 

Environmental Quality classified the lake as Category 5 (for high pH, fish kills in 1994, ammonia 

and turbidity exceedances). In 2006, Arizona Department of Environmental Quality placed White

Horse Lake into an improved class, category 2, Attaining Some Uses. The lake was delisted in 

2008 and is currently meeting EPA water quality standards. White Horse Lake is a popular 

recreation reservoir, and there is potential for future exceedances of water quality standards.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 185
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water Yield and Water Rights

It is estimated that overall water yield on the Kaibab NF is static to slightly upward in 

nonforested areas to slightly downward in forested areas over the last 20 years, based on analysis 

of streamflow water yield and the following conditions:

• Streamflow is directly dependent on annual precipitation, including snowpack. 

Historically, periods of lower or higher annual precipitation has occurred and is expected 

to continue to occur. 

• Greater tree and shrub basal area and canopy cover have been recorded over the last 

20 years, which probably results in increased evapotranspiration and decreased runoff, 

water yield, and groundwater recharge. 

• Drought conditions have prevailed in most years since about 1999, and have probably 

contributed to decreased precipitation, runoff, water yield, and groundwater recharge.

Climatic (drought) and vegetative conditions on the Lower Colorado River watersheds 

are similar to the Verde River watersheds and, therefore, the water yield trend is 

estimated to be similar (static to slightly downward).

• Nonforested areas have less vegetative ground cover than forested areas (pinyon-juniper 

and conifers) and, in many areas, have less vegetative ground cover than under the 

potential plant community as identified in the Kaibab NF Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey. 

In addition, many of these areas have had disturbance resulting in compacted soil 

surfaces. Decreased vegetative ground cover and compacted soils can result in greater 

water runoff rates and amounts than would occur under more natural conditions.

Past studies indicate vegetative treatments only result in short-term water yield increase (1 to 

3 years). However, it is estimated that forestwide, current water yield (supply) is similar to or 

slightly less than in the early 1980s, due to recent climatic drought conditions and greater 

evapotranspiration caused by increased tree basal areas, resulting in increased water consumption.

Periodic flooding is a natural disturbance that is necessary for maintaining stream channels and 

many riparian plant species. Occasionally, high flows can cause damage to road infrastructure and 

other manmade structures. Flooding is more common after large wildfires, where protective 

vegetative cover is removed and soil structure is altered. In severely burned watersheds, studies 

show peak flows (the highest flow rate measured after a storm event) can be slightly to thousands 

of times higher than the prefire flow rate (Neary et al. 2005, Ffolliott and Neary 2003). Damaging 

flow events can also occur from high-intensity summer rainstorms, or when rainfall occurs over a 

melting snowpack.

The current trend of use of surface water by the Kaibab NF is static. The forest’s consumptive use 

is expected to remain static into the future, as surface water in Arizona is considered to be fully 

appropriated. Water right adjudications will dictate the amount and ownership of surface waters 

within the forest. According to Arizona Department of Water Resources Statement of Claim 

Filings for water rights, there are 492 stock tank claims located on the forest and 3,281 stock tank 

claims located in all affected 4th-HUC watersheds. These claims include several watershed level 

reserved water rights claims allowing use of stock water for firefighting and watering of roads

during maintenance. 

186 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

City of Williams Municipal Watershed 

The Williams Municipal watershed is approximately 26,060 acres in size with approximately 

75 percent (19,566 acres) being NFS land and 25 percent (6,494 acres) being privately owned. 

Table 28 lists the eight subwatersheds (HUC12) and their associated acreages that occur within 

the Williams Municipal Watershed. Two of these HUC12 subwatersheds, Cataract Creek 

Headwaters and Dogtown Wash, encompass more than 96 percent of the total municipal 

watershed area.

Citizens of Williams, Arizona, depend on this watershed as a source of public drinking water and 

for other benefits that multiple-use management of this watershed provides. The objective in 

managing the Williams Municipal Watershed is to recognize its water supply values and to 

provide management of its lands and resources to harmonize present and foreseeable resource 

uses with domestic water supply needs, protection of its water supply facilities, and protection of 

the citizens of Williams from catastrophic floods (Elson 1972).

Runoff impounded in reservoirs serves as the primary water supply for the city of Williams. 

Seven primary reservoirs surrounding the city are the source of surface water for municipal uses. 

These reservoirs have a combined water storage capacity of 2,755 acre-feet (897 million gallons) 

of water. Approximately 2,026 acre-feet or 73.6 percent of the available water storage occurs in 

the two largest impoundments, Dogtown Reservoir and Kaibab Lake. However, the majority of 

the city’s water supply (about 90 percent) originates from Dogtown Reservoir and City Dam. 

Groundwater from wells located near Dogtown Reservoir supplements surface water in the city 

municipal water supply. Table 29 provides a list of reservoirs in the Williams Municipal 

Watershed and their approximate water storage capacities and percentages of total available 

surface water supply. Water from these reservoirs originates from snowmelt and summer 

precipitation.

Table 28. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, acreages, and associated percentages of each 

that comprise the Williams Municipal watershed

Subwatershed Name HUC12 Number Acres Percent of Williams 

Municipal Watershed

Cataract Creek Headwaters 150100040502 14,616 56.1

Dogtown Wash 150100040501 10,627 40.8

Upper Red Lake Wash 150100040503 681 2.6

Johnson Creek 150602010302 70 <0.3

Upper Hell Canyon 150602020204 25 <0.3

Upper Cataract Creek 150100040504 23 <0.3

Big Spring Canyon 150602020307 9 <0.3

Pitman Valley-Scholz Lake 150602020305 3 <0.3

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 187
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 29. Reservoirs, associated water storage capacities, and percentages of total 

municipal surface water in the Williams Municipal watershed

Reservoir Name

Water Storage 

Capacity 

(Million Gal.)

Water Storage 

Capacity 

(Acre-feet)

Percent of Total 

Water Storage 

Capacity

Dogtown 360 1,105 40.2

Kaibab Lake 300 921 33.4

Cataract 109 335 12.2

Santa Fe Reservoir 70 215 7.8

City Dam 36 111 4.0

Upper and Lower Saginaw 22 68 2.4

The annual water demand of the city of Williams is approximately 198,184,868 gallons or 

101.37 acre-feet, which includes billed water to customers, unmetered water used at city-owned 

facilities and landscapes, unaccounted-for water, process water used at the drinking water 

treatment plant, raw water used for golf course irrigation, and reclaimed water used for golf 

course irrigation. Process water used at the drinking water treatment plant is nonpotable, raw 

water used for filter backwash, sediment removal, and chemical feed, which amounts to 

approximately 4 percent additional water above total production (Pinkham and Davis 2002). 

Since the city of Williams does not recycle this water back into the water supply system, it is 

considered a water use. Monthly municipal water demand is highly variable. However, the 

months of highest water demand are typically June, July, and August of most years. Water 

demand is lowest during winter months and increases through spring, with highest usage 

occurring during summer. There has been an upward trend (11 percent) in water usage by the city 

of Williams between 2005 and 2010.

Water that enters reservoirs either remains in storage, is withdrawn for use, is lost through dam 

spillage, or is lost through evaporation and infiltration. Evaporation and infiltration from the 

reservoirs is substantial every year. These losses exceed the city’s current annual water use 

(Pinkham and Davis 2002). When the reservoirs are full, they provide a 2.5-year water supply, 

given current average rates of water use. A 2-year drought results in significant stress on the city 

of Williams surface water supply. This occurred in 1996 to 1997, and again in 1999 to 2000. Most 

of the water lost as spillage from reservoirs is lost from the water supply system. Although 

Kaibab Lake is downstream from Dogtown Reservoir on the same drainage, or stream channel, it 

is usually filled by surface runoff at approximately the same rate as Dogtown Reservoir. Most of 

the water that spills from Dogtown Reservoir is, therefore, subsequently spilled from Kaibab 

Lake (Thomsen 1969).

Some regional water stakeholders, including the Havasupai Tribe, have expressed concern 

regarding impacts of the city of Williams well development program on springs in the Grand 

Canyon area. The city of Williams and Havasupai Tribe have entered into an agreement regarding 

regional groundwater management and water conservation efforts by the city of Williams. The 

agreement includes discussions of tribal sovereignty, the significance of the Coconino Plateau to 

the tribe, the importance of water on the Coconino Plateau, the importance of water conservation, 

and the effect of drought on the water resources of the city of Williams. Specific agreement 

clauses address conditions under which the tribe would not contest or may contest well permits 

188 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

from the Forest Service and the city’s right to respond to opposition, monitoring of well levels 

and production, restrictions on provision of water by the city to residents outside the city, city 

opposition to Coconino County allowing home development in areas without water supply, 

mutual support for developing other water supplies, mutual opposition to large-scale development 

proposals that rely on groundwater development, continuation of water conservation efforts by 

the city of Williams, and the city’s support in principle for the tribe’s position that any decrease to 

the natural flow of Havasu Creek cannot be tolerated (Pinkham and Davis 2002).

Climate Change

Climate change predictions for the Southwest include:

• Higher temperatures and increased drought occurrences (IPCC 2007, Sprigg et al. 2000);

• More extreme natural ecological process events, including wildfires, intense rain, flash 

foods, and wind events (Swetnam and Bentacourt 1997);

• Greater vulnerability to invasive species, including insects, plants, fungi, and vertebrates 

(Joyce et al. 2001);

• Long-term shifts in vegetation patterns (Westerling et al. 2006; Millar et al. 2007); 

• Potential decreases in surface and groundwater due to reduced precipitation (USDA 

Forest Service 2008b); and 

• Increased evapotranspirational losses and earlier snowpack melt, which may affect 

available water for forest use (Guido 2008, State of New Mexico 2005). 

Changes in the distribution of water resources, including the timing of precipitation, water storage 

and availability, watershed management, and human water needs, would undoubtedly present 

some of the most important challenges in relation to climate change and management of NFS 

lands in the Southwest. Terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and human socioeconomic conditions 

require water. Two possible climate change scenarios are discussed: wetter/warmer and 

drier/warmer. 

Under a wetter climate scenario, the potential for flooding is likely to increase through earlier and 

more rapid melting of the snowpack, with more intense precipitation. Even if total precipitation 

increases substantially, snowpack would likely decrease due to higher overall temperatures. 

However, it is possible that increased precipitation would improve water supplies, reduce 

demand, and ease some of the competition among competing uses (Joyce et al. 2001, Smith et al. 

2001).

In contrast, a drier climate would be likely to decrease water supplies and increase demand for 

such uses as agriculture, recreation, aquatic habitat, and power generation, thus increasing 

competition for a decreasing supply (Joyce et al. 2001). These trends would increase pressures on 

the already limited water supplies in the Southwest, increase energy demand, alter fire regimes 

and ecosystems, create risks for human health, and affect agriculture in the region (Swetnam and 

Betancourt 1997, Sprigg et al. 2000). 

The potential for future droughts becoming more severe due to changing climate is a significant 

concern, especially since the Southwest currently leads the Nation in population growth. The 

most likely future for the Southwest is a substantially drier one. The Southwest should, therefore,

be prepared for droughts that could potentially result from multiple causes. The combined effects 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 189
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of natural climate variability and human-induced climate change could result in a challenging 

combination of water shortages for the region (Karl et al. 2009).

Development in the Southwest has primarily depended upon technology to deliver water 

resources. Most snowpack and many upland reservoirs are on national forests (Smith et al. 2001, 

State of New Mexico 2005). Some studies predict water shortages and lack of storage capacity to 

meet seasonally changing river flow, and transfers of water from agriculture to urban uses, as 

critical climate-related impacts to water availability (Barnett et al. 2008). 

Agriculture remains the greatest water user in the Southwest. However, there has been a decrease 

in the amount of water used by agriculture, as Arizona’s and New Mexico’s rapidly increasing 

populations demand more water for municipal and other uses, and irrigation technologies 

improve. This has been an ongoing trend and could affect future agricultural uses. 

Flash flooding, particularly following extended drought, may increase the number and severity of 

floods; and accelerate rates of soil erosion. The timing and extent of storm-related precipitation 

will play a key role in determining the degree to which people and the environment are affected 

(Swetnam and Betancourt 1997, Swetnam et al. 1999, Lenart 2007). In the Southwest, intense 

debate will likely continue over water allocation. When combined with a highly variable climate

changes occurring at the landscape scale, there is an increased likelihood for conflict over water 

resources (Lenart 2007). In light of these possibilities, there is a need to reduce vulnerability by 

maintaining and restoring resilient native ecosystems.

Environmental Consequences for 

Water Resources

Environmental Consequences Common 

to All Alternatives

Under all alternatives, mechanical prescribed thinning, burning, grazing, and recreational 

activities are expected to occur. 

Mechanical harvest and restoration treatments can impact soil hydrologic function and soil 

stability through soil displacement, rutting, compaction, puddling, and removal of vegetative 

ground cover. These impacts can have short-term effects on water quality and water yield. If large 

contiguous areas receive mechanical forest restoration treatments, increased erosion and 

sedimentation could degrade surface water quality from water that flows from treatment areas. 

Ground cover is often disturbed during mechanical treatments (including the removal of 

vegetation) and may, therefore, result in some exposure of mineral soil, leaving it at risk of 

raindrop impact and transport to stream and surface waterbodies. However, BMPs and SWCPs

called for by existing Forest Service Handbook direction (FSH 2509.22 R3) have proven effective 

in mitigating ground disturbance and minimizing adverse impacts to soils and surface water 

quality. 

Potential impacts from timber harvest and forest restoration operations and prescribed fire include 

the contamination of water or wetlands from chemical substances such as gasoline, oil, or 

hydraulic fluid that is leaked from forestry equipment. There are also potential effects from 

chemicals used for treating nonnative invasive plants associated with timber harvest activities. 

190 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Prescribed fires and wildfires managed for resource benefit may impact water yield through 

removal of vegetative ground cover over large areas. Low-intensity fire has also been shown to 

affect surface water quality through increased transport of sediment and ash in storm water 

runoff. Adverse effects to water quality are generally short term, lasting between 1 and 3 years. 

After 3 years, vegetative ground cover not only reestablishes, but improves substantially and 

serves as a filter to retain sediments and ash on upland locations.

Surface water quality in springs, wetlands, cienegas, stock ponds, and lakes may be adversely 

affected where adjacent areas are burned. These effects are expected to be short term (i.e., 1 to 

3 years). Burning treatments have the potential to increase spring discharge when areas above 

spring heads are burned. This is due to decreased water uptake by plants, resulting in increased 

water infiltration into the soil. 

While forest restoration treatments are not proposed for the purpose of increasing water yield, it is 

expected to do so for short time periods (i.e., 1 to 3 years) following treatments. This is due to 

decreased interception and evapotranspiration by trees. The resulting increase in soil moisture and 

runoff is expected to increase short-term water yield and groundwater recharge in treated areas. 

Increased groundwater recharge could result in increased flow from springs and possible 

reinitiation of flow from springs that have had no observed discharge for many years. However, 

there is no certainty whether spring flow would be significantly different from pretreatment levels 

following the use of fire.

Treatments to reduce tree encroachment in grasslands would result in minor soil compaction, 

removal of native vegetation, and short-term degradation of surface water quality where tree 

removal is practiced. Implementation of BMPs and SWCPs would minimize these adverse 

effects. Long-term improvement in soil stability and productivity would occur as grasses and 

forbs reestablish in areas where tree canopy cover is reduced. Soil carbon storage and nutrient 

cycling would return to historic levels through improved fine root turnover, organic matter 

accumulation, and increased soil water-holding capacity.

The proposed road system is the same for all alternatives. Roads are the dominant source of 

erosion and sediment in forests (Swank and Crossley1988, MacDonald and Coe 2008). As noted 

in the Watersheds and Soils section, some road locations are in areas that are more sensitive than 

others, such as along riparian areas, or in areas of inherently unstable soils. There are a large 

number of nonsystem roads (estimated to be hundreds of miles, Travel Management Rule

Specialist’s Report) that are contributing to loss of soil productivity as well. 

New road construction is generally not needed for mechanical prescribed thinning operations, 

however, the reopening of maintenance level 1 roads (i.e., those roads placed in storage or closed 

between intermittent uses) increases the amount of open roads and, potentially, the amount of soil 

erosion that occurs during project implementation. Temporary road use results in removal of 

vegetation along the road corridor, exposes mineral soil, and results in soil compaction within the 

travelway. Typically, there is increased erosion from roads during the first two years following 

road construction or reopening (MacDonald and Coe 2008, Megahan 1974). 

New temporary roads would be closed, obliterated, and revegetated following use. Road design, 

avoidance of problem soils, appropriate design criteria, implementation of BMPs for road 

construction and maintenance, and road closures would be implemented to minimize adverse 

impacts to soils. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 191
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Roads located directly above the heads of springs have, in some cases, been shown to adversely 

affect spring water quality and habitat conditions through introduction of sediment from road 

cutbanks and fill slopes. Roads adjacent to wetlands and riparian areas have also been shown to 

have detrimental effects on water quality in these ecosystems. Implementation of BMPs and 

SWCPs would minimize adverse effects to water quality in these areas during project 

implementation.

Recreational uses shown to impact water quality include camping, hiking, mountain biking, and 

horseback riding. All of these activities may result in soil erosion and compaction and water 

quality impacts. Implementing site-specific BMPs and SWCPs for recreation projects would 

minimize adverse impacts to soils and watersheds. 

Environmental Consequences for Water 

Resources: Alternative A – Current Plan, 

Current Management (No Action) 

The current plan (alternative A) has no desired conditions for water resources such as natural 

lakes, wetlands, and springs and offers little guidance for managing these rare and ecologically 

important resources. The location and condition of natural lakes on the forest are generally well 

known. However, knowledge gaps exist with regard to the number, location, and ecological 

condition of wetlands, springs, and cienegas on the forest. Protection and restoration of these 

important natural waters has, therefore, been minimal and current management is not likely to 

achieve desired condition for these resources.

The current plan (alternative A) has no desired conditions for the vegetation types and no 

objectives in the plan to reduce encroaching conifers from grasslands or aspen stands. There are 

no clearly defined desired conditions for vegetation types, so it is unlikely that landscape-scale 

desired conditions for water resources—particularly wetlands, cienegas, springs, and other natural 

surface waters—would be achieved.

Under alternative A, the Kaibab NF would continue vegetation treatments at near the current rate, 

which is approximately 2,100 acres annually in the ponderosa pine forest PNVTs and 200 acres in 

the frequent fire mixed conifer PNVT. Where mechanical vegetation treatments occur and open 

the canopy, there is potential to improve vegetative ground cover in the ponderosa pine vegetation 

type, and improve water yield and water quality. At the current rate of treatment, mechanical 

prescribed thinning has not contributed to a measurable increase in the flow of ephemeral and 

intermittent watercourses or increased spring flow. Acreages for wetlands and cienegas have 

remained static throughout the current planning period. It is unlikely that alternative A would 

achieve desired conditions for water yield and water quality in ponderosa pine and frequent fire 

mixed conifer PNVTs. 

The current trend in water yield is estimated to be static or slightly reduced over time as a result 

of increased stand density. Current rates of prescribed burning are not achieving desired 

conditions for water quality and water quantity, as acres treated are not sufficient to remove 

understory fuels, increase herbaceous vegetative cover, and increase the amount of precipitation 

that reaches soil surfaces and is retained as snowpack.

The road system (miles, management level, and location) is the same for all alternatives; 

however, use of roads and the need for additional level 1 roads is estimated to be lowest under 

alternative A because fewer acres are being treated each year with mechanical methods and 

192 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

prescribed fire. This alternative would, therefore, have the lowest impact to short-term water 

quality than the proposed action alternatives. However, there would be a greater risk of 

uncharacteristic high-intensity wildfire, which has the potential to result in significant effects to 

waters where there is a nexus. 

Because the current plan had no objectives for fencing wetlands or springs, domestic livestock 

and wildlife ungulates would continue to adversely affect springs that are not fenced to exclude 

livestock through trampling of vegetation and browsing. Defecation and urination in and around 

natural waters would continue to adversely affect water quality in these areas.

While the current plan addresses specific management direction for Bill Williams Mountain 

including protection of electronic infrastructure on the mountain, managing visual quality, 

managing the Bill Williams Ski Area, and the ecological significance of Arizona bugbane, it does 

not adequately address the high risk potential for high-severity wildfire, flooding, and debris 

flows that would be expected to adversely affect the Williams and surrounding homesites. The 

water supply for the city of Williams would be at risk and soil erosion would adversely affect 

surface water quality in drainages and impoundments.

At the current rate of forest restoration activities on the Kaibab NF, alternative A provides the 

least resilience to climate change for the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer than the 

proposed action alternatives. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Water Resources Common to Action 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

The action alternatives provide desired conditions and include objectives and strategies for 

managing and restoring wetlands, springs, and cienegas, and protecting other natural waters. It 

further recognizes that actions to protect natural waters are relatively inexpensive and easily 

implemented, provide important values, and have a high concordance with social and economic 

needs. The action alternatives call for the protection of 10 springs over a 5-year timeframe.

The action alternatives address the need for improved cooperation and coordination with partners 

and stakeholders (i.e., Museum of Northern Arizona, Grand Canyon Wildlands Council, The 

Nature Conservancy, Grand Canyon Trust, National Park Service, Arizona Game and Fish 

Department, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) to develop a GIS layer of northern Arizona 

springs and seeps and collaborate with stakeholders to gain support for spring restoration. 

The management approach would include evaluating and minimizing the impacts of normal forest 

management activities on springs, streams, and wetlands; reducing or eliminating the impacts of 

nonnative species in aquatic, wetland, and riparian habitats, where practicable, and secure water 

rights for springs where there are no existing water rights or claims.

Under the action alternatives, there are objectives that propose mechanical thinning in the 

ponderosa pine vegetation type on approximately 11,000 to 19,000 acres annually and 1,200 to 

2,100 acres annually in the frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation type over the plan period. 

Initially, mechanical thinning treatments would increase the risk of adverse effects to water 

quality through accelerated erosion and potential sediment delivery to surface waters. However, 

long-term improvement in plant-water-soil relationships are expected as herbaceous understory 

vegetation and forest structure and function improves following mechanical vegetation 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 193
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

treatments. Additionally, mitigation measures would be implemented to minimize adverse effects 

to soils and water quality. 

Approximately14,000 to 68,000 acres of beneficial wildland fire would occur annually in the 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types. This would include both 

prescribed fire and wildfire, which has the potential to increase short-term water yield in treated 

areas.

Prescribed fires and wildfires managed for resource benefit would have the same effects to water 

quality and water yield as described above for all alternatives. However, the action alternatives 

propose more fire for ecosystem restoration than current management (alternative A). It is 

possible that in the interest of restoring ecosystem function and resilience, short-term localized 

adverse effects to water quality would occur. These effects would generally be short-lived and 

minimized and mitigated by implementing BMPs and SWCPs. The outcome would be a longterm benefit to water quality and water yield.

Treatments to reduce tree encroachment in grasslands would result in minor soil compaction, 

removal of native vegetation, and short-term degradation of surface water quality where tree 

removal is practiced. Implementation of BMPs and SWCPs would minimize these adverse 

effects. Long-term improvement in soil stability and productivity would occur as grasses and 

forbs reestablish in areas where tree canopy cover is reduced. Soil carbon storage and nutrient 

cycling would return to historic levels through improved fine root turnover, organic matter 

accumulation, and increased soil water-holding capacity.

The action alternatives identify Bill Williams Mountain as a management area since it contains 

multiple resources of high natural, cultural, and economic value. The action alternatives also 

recognize the importance of the Bill Williams Mountain watersheds as a source of municipal 

water for the city of Williams and its importance to the Havasupai Tribe since it constitutes the 

headwaters of Cataract Creek. It further recognizes the significance of the mountain as a sacred 

site by American Indian tribes and its eligibility as a traditional cultural property. Finally, the 

action alternatives address the current risk of high-severity wildfire to Bill Williams Mountain 

because of its steep slopes, dense vegetation, and excessive fuel loads. Guidelines for managing 

Bill Williams Mountain include restricting the size of the Elk Ridge Ski Area to the existing 

established permit area, maintaining high-use roads to prevent erosion and protect watersheds, 

eliminating commercial plant collecting, and protecting the Arizona bugbane. The action 

alternatives would, therefore, guide Bill Williams Mountain toward the desired conditions more 

effectively than the current plan.

Under the action alternatives, there is more explicit plan direction to address the bison herd on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District. Guidelines specify that the bison herd should be managed so it is 

concentrated within the House Rock Wildlife Management Area, and that active management 

should be used to minimize impacts from bison to sensitive resources, particularly outside the 

House Rock Wildlife Management Area. Management of the bison herd under these guidelines 

will reduce potential damage to sensitive soil and water resources caused by the bison, and 

decrease the spread of nonnative invasive species.

194 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Water 

Resources: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

The proposed action provides the greatest opportunity to achieve long-term desired conditions for 

water quality and water yield in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer vegetation types by 

guiding stand structure and density toward reference conditions and restoring historic fire

regimes, thus guiding the plant-water-soil relationships toward improved ecological function. 

Mechanical thinning restoration treatments under alternative B would have similar impacts to 

water quality and quantity as described under current management (alternative A). Adverse 

effects would include changes to soil hydrologic function, which could increase water yield in 

treated areas and removal of vegetative ground cover, which would adversely affect short-term 

water quality. Alternative B proposes the most mechanical harvest treatments and, thus, results in 

the highest short-term risk to water quality. With implementation of BMPs and SWCPs during 

forest restoration prescribed thinning operations, adverse impacts to water quality would be 

minimized. Long-term adverse effects to water quality caused by implementing alternative B are 

not anticipated.

Effects of roads to water quality and water yield under alternative B would be similar to those 

outlined under alternative A. However, alternative B has the greatest amount of timber 

harvest/mechanical restoration treatments and suitable timber base of all the alternatives. For this 

reason, use of roads and the additional amount of maintenance level 1 roads are estimated to be 

highest under alternative B. These roads generally recover (i.e., stabilize and revegetation) 

following use and implementation of BMPs and SWCPs. 

The increased understory vegetative cover following forest restoration treatments, including 

removal of trees encroaching on grasslands would contribute to improved water quality since 

herbaceous vegetation would serve to capture sediment and improve soil quality (i.e., aggregate 

stability and porosity, and carbon sequestration), contributing to improved water infiltration rates. 

Alternative B proposes the greatest number of acres for vegetation management (e.g., select 

cutting for age class diversity and structure, and reclaiming and restoring native grasslands) that 

would sustain healthy plant and animal communities, and provide adequate nutrients, soil 

productivity, and hydrologic function. These conditions promote resilience and reduce 

opportunities for uncharacteristic disturbance and damage to ecosystem functions. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Water Resources - Alternative C

This alternative is similar to the proposed action except it contains the previously described 

management area called the North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex. This management area 

would be approximately 260,000 acres in size, and includes the national natural landmark for the 

Kaibab squirrel and several linked ephemeral drainages. This alternative would contain a 

guideline for retaining presettlement trees. Mechanical treatments, including timber harvesting,

could be conducted within the management area to initially restore stand structure to a point 

where natural disturbance processes could be used without uncharacteristic results, and within the 

limitations of the tree retention guidelines. Thereafter, the desired conditions would be maintained 

primarily with natural disturbances and prescribed fire. Such treatments would not likely fully 

restore the ecological integrity of the management area. Where natural disturbances do not occur, 

fuel loading would recur through natural forest ingrowth and tree encroachment into openings. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 195
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Forest ingrowth creates “ladder fuels” that allow ground fires to ascend and spread quickly as 

crown fires. 

Mechanical thinning objectives would be similar to alternative B (i.e., to mechanically thin 

11,000 to 19,000 acres in ponderosa pine annually, and 1,200 to 2,100 acres annually in frequent 

fire mixed conifer acres over the plan period). The number of acres treated per year would 

decrease over time, as treated acres are removed from the suitable timber base in the North 

Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex.

Wildland fire objectives of 30,000 to 60,000 acres of wildland fire disturbance in ponderosa pine 

and frequent fire mixed conifer with desirable fire effects would be the same as in alternative B.

Under alternative C, potential water yield would not be expected to increase as much as under 

alternative B due to the presettlement tree retention requirements. Leaving more trees would 

result in higher evapotranspiration rates than areas where more trees are removed. 

Impacts to water quality and water yield from mechanical prescribed thinning would be similar to 

those described under alternative A with acreages treated being approximately equal to alternative 

B. The presettlement tree retention guideline would result in slightly less soil disturbance than 

alternative B since fewer trees would be removed and transported to landings. However, the 

presettlement tree retention guideline would result in greater long-term transpirational water loss 

than under alternative B. In addition, the resulting higher stand densities would intercept more 

precipitation, preventing it from reaching soil surfaces where it could be utilized by herbaceous 

understory plants or contribute to increased water yield. Overall, a slightly lower water yield 

increase would be expected under alternative C than alternative B. 

With the presettlement tree retention guideline required under this alternative, it is possible that 

prescribed fires would burn with greater intensity because stands would have greater crown 

closure and stand densities than under alternative B. Higher burn intensities have the potential to 

adversely affect surface water quality through sediment and ash transport to surface waters in 

stormwater runoff. 

Lower road use levels are anticipated under alternative C than under alternative B, because fewer 

trees would be removed due to the presettlement tree retention guideline and because mechanical 

treatment would only be used initially to restore conditions, to the extent possible, in the North 

Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex. With lower tree harvest levels, there would be a corresponding 

reduction in truck traffic necessary to transport harvested products from the forest to forest 

product converting facilities. Upon completion of prescribed thinning treatments to restore forest 

conditions, there would no longer be log truck traffic on NFS roads within the North Kaibab 

Wildlife Habitat Complex. 

Grazing impacts under alternative C would be similar to alternative B. However, the 

presettlement tree retention guidelines would decrease the effectiveness of forest restoration

treatments at increasing vegetative ground cover since retention of all presettlement trees would 

limit understory response to mechanical thinning treatments. 

Forest structure would be more open with improved understory abundance and species diversity 

and improved nutrient cycling following prescribed fire. Grassland restoration would include 

removal of encroaching conifers, which would improve understory abundance and species 

196 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

diversity. Removal of encroaching conifers in grasslands could increase short-term water yield in 

these areas.

Environmental Consequences for Water 

Resources - Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to alternative C with the exception that no lands would be managed for 

timber production. Once restored to the desired stand structure, conditions would be maintained 

through fire and natural disturbance. 

Impacts to water quality and quantity from mechanical thinning would be similar to those 

described under alternative A, with acreages treated being approximately equal to alternatives B 

and C. The presettlement tree retention guideline would result in slightly lower potential water 

yield increase under alternative D than alternative B. Where natural disturbances do not occur, 

conditions in ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types would be similar to 

those in the management area under alternative C. These conditions would be conducive to higher 

burn intensities and large-scale uncharacteristic stand-replacing wildfire. Higher burn intensities 

would cause adverse impacts to water quality through increased sediment and ash transport to 

surface waterbodies in stormwater flow. 

Since mechanical treatments to conduct forest restoration would only occur initially, short-term 

adverse impacts to water quality from forest operations would be lower than alternative B.

Effects of roads on soils and watershed resources would be similar to those outlined under 

alternative A. However, alternative D would require more use of existing maintenance level 1 and 

temporary roads than under current management (alternative A) to conduct mechanical forest 

restoration treatments (i.e., transportation of harvested trees and machinery). While the road 

system would be the same, lower use levels would be anticipated under this alternative than under 

alternative B. 

Since lower road use is anticipated under alternative D, short-term adverse effects to water quality 

are expected to be lower than for alternatives B and C. Lower road use under alternative D would 

also mean less compacted soils than under alternative B, resulting in increased water infiltration 

on road surfaces.

Grazing impacts under alternative D would be similar to alternatives B and C. The presettlement 

tree retention guideline would decrease the effectiveness of forest restoration treatments at 

improving understory herbaceous vegetation response because retention of all presettlement trees 

would limit light interception at the forest floor. This alternative would also result in a lower 

predicted water yield than under alternative B. 

Grassland restoration would include removal of encroaching conifers, which would further 

improve understory abundance and species diversity. Removal of encroaching conifers in 

grasslands could increase short-term water yield in these areas.

Since mechanical treatments under alternative D could only be conducted initially across the 

Kaibab NF to restore stand structure, there is uncertainty as to whether future natural disturbances 

would be sufficient to maintain the ecological function and natural range of variability within 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types following mechanical treatments. 

Where natural disturbances do not occur, fuel loading could increase over time, leaving 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 197
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer at risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. For this 

reason, alternative D would not provide the level of protection and improvement of water quality 

and water yield offered by alternative B.

Comparison of Alternatives for Water Resources

Under alternative A, desired conditions for water quality and water yield in ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation types would not be achieved as effectively as under the 

action alternatives. Alternative B has the highest potential to achieve long-term desired conditions 

for water yield and water quality in the ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation 

types. However, short-term risks to water quality are also highest under alternative B. 

Alternatives C and D would guide water yield and water quality in ponderosa pine and frequent 

fire mixed conifer vegetation types toward desired conditions, but it is uncertain whether 

restoration objectives would be fully achieved, leaving these vegetation types at greater potential 

risk of high-intensity wildfire than under alternative B.

Alternative B proposes the most mechanical harvest treatments and, thus, poses the most risk to 

short-term water quality impacts from soil disturbance and ground cover removal, followed by 

alternatives C and D. However, with implementation of BMPS and SWCPs during forest 

restoration, alternative B provides the greatest opportunity to achieve long-term desired 

conditions for water quality and water quantity. Soil disturbance monitoring (Page-Dumroese et 

al. 2009) would provide the necessary feedback for adaptive management to protect soil 

productivity. 

Alternatives B and D have the highest potential to adversely affect water quality through use of 

prescribed fire, followed by alternative A then C. Alternatives B and D also have the highest 

potential to increase water yield followed by alternative C then A.

The road system (miles, management level, and location) is the same for all alternatives, 

however, use of roads and the additional amount of level 1 roads are estimated to be higher under 

alternative B followed by C and D since alternative B has the greatest percentage of timber 

harvest/mechanical restoration treatments and suitable timber base of all alternatives. Since 

alternatives C and D would include removal of land from the suitable timber base, these 

alternatives would have the lowest impact to water quality from roads.

Recreational uses shown to impact water quality include camping, hiking, mountain biking, and 

horseback riding. All of these activities may result in soil erosion with sediment transported to 

streams and waterbodies. These impacts from recreation could occur under all of the alternatives. 

Recreation use and demand is estimated to increase proportionately for all alternatives with the 

increase in population growth.

For a pasture to be available for grazing, it not only has to have sufficient available forage, but 

adequate water availability as well. Some allotments or pastures rely on developed springs, but

many utilize stock tanks to capture snowmelt and monsoon rainfall for use by livestock. During 

recent droughts, many stock tanks on the Kaibab NF have dried up, making some pastures 

unusable for cattle even though forage may have been available. Stock tanks on the forest have 

altered the free-flowing character of many of the forest waters. Most impoundments are found in 

ephemeral drainages. Many of these impoundments provide for sediment capture; however, 

maintaining them often releases or creates sediment as well. Stock tanks provide a well198 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

distributed perennial source of water in many areas for domestic livestock and wildlife in an 

otherwise dry environment.

Restoring and maintaining resilience in forest, woodland, chaparral, grassland, shrublands, 

steppe, and riparian ecosystems are part of the basic elements of forestwide desired conditions 

and objectives provided for in alternatives B, C, and D. Restoring and maintaining resilience

would likely improve the potential for ecosystems to retain or return to desired conditions after 

being influenced by climate change-related impacts and variability. Management practices (e.g., 

forest restoration treatments) that sustain healthy plant and animal communities and provide 

adequate nutrients, soil productivity, and hydrologic function promote resilience and reduce 

opportunities for disturbance and damage. See the Vegetation Specialist’s Report for further 

discussion of ecological condition trends.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for 

Water Resources

The cumulative effects analysis area is the 4th-, 5th- and 6th-level HUCs that intersect Kaibab NF

lands. Almost all of these watersheds have private inholdings and lands administered by other 

agencies. Many of the activities and related impacts discussed above occur on lands of other 

ownership—such as unpaved roads, grazing, mining, forest management, and fuel treatments—

that may result in impacts to water quality and water yield. 

The Coconino and Prescott National Forests are currently revising their forest plans. These forests 

share boundaries with the Kaibab NF and implement similar management practices. These 

revised plans would likely include restoration and protection objectives and guidelines for natural 

waters similar to those of the Kaibab NF since forest management has been similar across these 

forests historically. Future forest management and planning efforts on the Coconino and Prescott 

National Forests are expected to align with the Kaibab NF through similar desired conditions, 

objectives, and guidelines that direct project-specific planning, and through cooperation and 

coordination throughout the forest plan revision process and future forest project implementation. 

The BLM Arizona Strip shares a boundary with the North Kaibab Ranger District. The Arizona 

Strip Proposed Plan/Final EIS was completed in 2007. Land management practices on BLM lands 

are implemented in a manner similar to NFS lands under NEPA requirements. Coordination 

between the Kaibab NF and BLM Arizona Strip is ongoing where resource management issues 

overlap Kaibab NF and BLM-managed lands.

Grand Canyon National Park shares boundaries with the Tusayan and North Kaibab Ranger 

Districts of the Kaibab NF. The Grand Canyon National Park General Management Plan was 

completed in 1995. The Kaibab NF coordinates with the park on natural resource management 

projects and planning efforts as needed. 

Camp Navajo adjoins the Kaibab NF at the eastern boundary of the Williams Ranger District. The 

primary purpose of Camp Navajo is to support the military missions of the Arizona Army 

National Guard. In July 2009, Camp Navajo revised their integrated natural resource management

plan (INRMP). The INRMP is designed to support and accommodate accomplishment of the 

military missions while providing for natural resources stewardship and management. Specific 

goals identified by the revised INRMP are found on page 1-2. These goals are consistent with 

Kaibab NF desired conditions for water resources. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 199
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Coconino and Yavapai Counties have implemented management plans that provide frameworks 

for managing land use and the natural environment and for conserving natural resources. As 

populations in these counties continue to grow, increased pressure on NFS lands can be expected. 

Potential cumulative environmental consequences from other landowners, when added to the 

environmental consequences of the action alternatives, include:

• Adverse impacts to natural waters on other ownerships caused by road construction and 

maintenance;

• Adverse impacts to natural streamflows by construction of impoundments and other 

infrastructure designed to capture surface runoff or transport spring water to offsite areas;

• Adverse impacts to natural waters (i.e., drawdown) caused by groundwater pumping;

• Beneficial effects of low-intensity wildland fire that reduces the risk of stand-replacing 

wildfires; and 

• Beneficial effects of reduced overstory and corresponding increase in vegetative ground 

cover. 

Protection and restoration of natural waters on the Kaibab NF under the action alternatives would 

benefit natural and constructed waters on adjacent lands where there are stream courses that 

connect forest waters to other lands. Additionally, the action alternatives call for increased 

prescribed thinning and burning from current levels. Increased mechanical prescribed thinning

treatments would increase the risk of adverse effects to water quality through accelerated erosion 

and potential sediment delivery to surface waters in the short term. However, long-term 

improvement in plant-water-soil relationships is expected as herbaceous understory vegetation 

and forest structure and function improve following mechanical vegetation treatments. 

The potential cumulative environmental consequences of the action alternatives, when combined 

with the past, present, and foreseeable effects of activities on lands within the watershed 

boundaries, include both beneficial and adverse effects, with most of the adverse effects being 

short term and the beneficial effects being long term. Overall effects of the action alternatives are 

beneficial, as well as the overall effects of other land management agencies in the cumulative 

effects analysis area. Therefore, when combined, the net cumulative effect would be positive. 

Air Quality 

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition) – Air Quality

The information in this section comes from the Air Quality Specialist Report (KNF 2012a), which 

evaluates and discloses the potential environmental consequences on air quality that may result 

with the adoption of a revised land management plan. 

The Clean Air Act establishes National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for six principal 

pollutants that pose health hazards: carbon monoxide (CO), lead, nitrogen dioxide, particulate 

matter less than 10 microns in size (PM10), particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size 

(PM2.5), ozone, and sulfur dioxide. The major pollutant of concern in smoke from wildland fire, 

including prescribed burns and wildfires, is fine particulate matter (Ottmar 2001). Particles larger 

than 10 microns in size tend to settle out of the air; smaller particles remain airborne and can 

cause respiratory problems. Studies indicate that 90 percent of smoke particles emitted during 

200 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

wildland fires are PM10, and about 90 percent of PM10 is PM2.5 (Ward and Hardy 1991). Human 

health studies on the effects of particulate matter indicate that PM2.5 is largely responsible for 

health effects (Core and Peterson 2001). Because of its small size, PM2.5 has an especially long 

residence time in the atmosphere and penetrates deeply into the lungs (Ottmar 2001). 

The same particulate matter that poses health risks is also largely responsible for these 

impairments to visibility. To protect high scenic value of our nation’s national parks and 

wildernesses, Congress designated all wilderness areas over 5,000 acres and all national parks 

over 6,000 acres as mandatory Federal Class I areas in 1977, subject to the visibility protection 

requirements in the Clean Air Act. The Class I areas most likely to be impacted by activities on 

the Kaibab NF are the Grand Canyon National Park and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness. 

Problem or nuisance smoke is defined by the EPA as the amount of smoke in the ambient air that 

interferes with a right or privilege common to members of the public, including the use or 

enjoyment of public or private resources. While no laws or regulations govern nuisance smoke, it 

effectively limits opportunities of land managers to use fire. Public outcry regarding nuisance 

smoke often occurs long before smoke exposures reach levels that violate NAAQS (Achtemeier 

et al. 2001). 

Coconino County enjoys good air quality. For the past 10 years, 70 percent or more days were 

rated in the good category by the EPA Air Quality Index. Good is the best rating, where air 

pollution poses little risk to human health. Less than 1 percent of days per year rated in the 

unhealthy for sensitive groups category, and no days were rated unhealthy, very unhealthy, or 

hazardous (US EPA 2010).

Few pollution sources such as large metropolitan areas, industry, or power plants exist in northern 

Arizona, contributing to its reputation for clean air. On rare occasions, pollution from distant 

large population centers in California affects the air quality in the area. Huge dust storms that 

occur during the summer monsoons in the Phoenix valley can produce large amounts of fugitive 

dust that have also been known to affect air quality in northern Arizona, but these events are 

generally limited to a few days a year. Ozone levels are increasing and trending up in northern 

Arizona. Natural background ozone concentrations are naturally high in the West; transport from 

industry and large urban areas in California and other nonlocal sources also contributes 

significantly (Koo et al. 2010, Tong and Mauzerall 2008). Under current regulations, ozone levels 

in northern Arizona are largely outside of the regulatory control of the State of Arizona. Spikes 

seen in ozone levels do not correlate with fire activity, although, under certain weather 

conditions, smoke from fires has the potential to create ozone. It is not known how much ozone is 

created from wildland fire, or what prescriptive criteria could deter ozone creation.

The forest management activity with the potential to exceed air quality health standards, impair 

visibility in Class I airsheds, and generate nuisance smoke is prescribed burning. Road dust has 

not been demonstrated to be a measurable contributor on a regional level to visibility in the 16 

Class I areas located on the Colorado Plateau (ADEQ 2003). 

During the comment period for the proposed land management plan and draft environmental 

impact statement, a comment was received expressing concern that accumulated radionuclides 

would be released from prescribed fires and wildfires. In Northern Arizona there are several types 

of radioactive elements. Most of these are naturally occurring, such as Radon, Potassium, and 

Thorium. Northern Arizona also has deposits of uranium, which can and has been used for 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 201
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

commercial purposes. In addition, Northern Arizona, like much of the world, also has traces of 

man-made radioactive material, primarily from weapons testing conducted in the mid-20th 

century. These radioactive elements include cesium and strontium. These man-made forms of 

radiation tend to be non-volatile.

Radioactive elements are often found in plants and soils, although the concentration levels are 

very low. This is a type of background radiation that is always present. Our bodies are able to 

withstand this amount of radiation.

When a fire burns through an area, these radioactive particles may become re-suspended and drift 

into the air and spread, much like any other fire emission. The levels of radioactive material that 

could be released in a prescribed fire or other fire, based on studies that have been conducted on 

other fires, are very low and below thresholds which produce a health risk. A study that included 

Lockett Meadow on the neighboring Coconino National Forest found levels of radioactive 

materials in the soil were no different than background levels, and would provide no added 

human health risk (Ketterer et al. 2004, Graham 2012).

The Kaibab NF has burned an average of 8,500 acres per year since 2000. No notice of violation 

of the NAAQS has ever been issued to the Kaibab NF. 

Wildfires, though they are not planned forest management activities, also contribute to air quality 

impacts. If naturally ignited by lightning, the forest may use wildfires to achieve resource 

objectives if current and expected fire behavior is desirable. Among the many factors fire 

managers and line officers must carefully weigh when deciding whether to suppress a wildfire, or 

manage it to perform its natural role in the ecosystem, is whether the potential benefits of the 

wildfire outweigh the smoke impacts to the airshed, affected communities, and rural residents. 

The 10-year running average occurrence for wildfires is around 200 fires per year. Most are 

contained and controlled at 0.1 acre in size. The average number of acres per year treated by 

wildfires for resource objectives since 2003 is 11,700. For wildfires where suppression action is 

taken, 0.5 percent to 2 percent escapes initial attack efforts. This small percentage of escaped 

wildfires results in an average of over 5,000 acres per year burned by high-severity wildfires. 

Baseline visibility conditions have been established for the Grand Canyon National Park and 

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness, which are the two Class I areas potentially affected by activities 

and wildfires on the Kaibab NF. The Forest Service will continue to adhere to requirements in the 

Arizona State Implementation Plan to meet natural condition visibility goals (table 30, Fitch and 

Truman 2007). 

Table 30. Baseline and 2064 air quality goals in 2003 Arizona State Implementation Plan

(SIP) for Natural Conditions (Fitch and Truman 2007). Deciview (dv) is a measure of 

visibility.

Class I Area Baseline Data Years Baseline Conditions 2064 Goal in 2003 

AZ SIP

Grand Canyon National Park 1999-2000, 2002-2004 11.6 dv 6.95 dv

Sycamore Canyon Wilderness 2001-2004 15.2 dv 6.96 dv

202 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Winds from the southwest are predominant throughout the Southwest. As a result, during daytime 

hours, fire activity on the Kaibab NF is most likely to affect smoke-sensitive receptors to the 

north and east of fire locations. Nighttime settling of residual smoke from fires, however, 

generates far more concerns and complaints of nuisance smoke. 

The Williams Ranger District has the largest number of smoke-sensitive receptors they need to 

consider during fire management activities, where nuisance smoke can be an issue. Receptors 

include the cities of Flagstaff and Williams, and the community of Parks, and multiple smaller 

housing developments scattered across the district. The most sensitive smoke receptor in the State 

of Arizona is the Verde Valley, which is easily impacted with nuisance smoke from the 

cumulative burning on the southern part of the Williams Ranger District, the western side of the 

Coconino National Forest, and the eastern side of the Prescott National Forest, as diurnal drainage 

of smoke from fires settles into this valley. Considerable coordination between forests happens

when burns and wildfires that can affect the Verde Valley take place, facilitated by the interagency 

Smoke Management Group housed at Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. Multiple 

smoke monitors in the Verde Valley track emissions concentrations, as well as cameras that 

capture images of visibility conditions. Spikes are found in particulate matter concentrations as 

smoke from fire activity on the surrounding forests settles into the valley at night, although levels 

have not, as yet, exceeded NAAQS thresholds. Many complaints of nuisance smoke in the 

Sedona area are primarily concerned with the reduced quality of highly valued scenic views of 

the Red Rocks. Visibility in the Class I area of Sycamore Canyon Wilderness can also be affected 

by smoke from fires in the southeast portion of the district.

The predominant smoke-sensitive receptors on the Tusayan Ranger District are the town of 

Tusayan, Grand Canyon Airport, and developed areas in the Grand Canyon National Park. Smoke 

that may affect the visibility and scenic values of the park is always a concern. 

The North Kaibab Ranger District has relatively few smoke-sensitive receptors, which are small 

and widely scattered. Few complaints on nuisance smoke are ever received. On the southwest 

side of the district, smoke from fires may settle into the Grand Canyon overnight and reduce 

visibility until inversion layers lift the following day.

Description of Alternatives

Alternative A – No Action Alternative

Under this alternative, no changes would be made to the current Kaibab NF land management 

plan, and management practices would continue at current rates. No objectives for acres burned 

by beneficial fire exist, though fire managers are currently burning about 8,500 acres per year 

with prescribed fire and manage wildfires to achieve resource objectives on around 11,700 acres 

per year. This equates to just over 20,000 acres per year that receive low to moderate fire entry. 

The forest currently thins about 2,100 acres per year in ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed 

conifer to modify or restore stand structure.

Action Alternatives B, C, and D

The action alternatives include the following desired conditions for air quality:

• Air quality meets or surpasses State and Federal ambient air quality standards.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 203
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Management activities on the Kaibab National Forest do not adversely impact Class I 

airshed visibility as established in the Clean Air Act.

Two guidelines apply to the action alternatives: 

• Project design for prescribed burns, and strategies for managing wildfires, should 

incorporate as many emission-reduction techniques as feasible, subject to land 

management objectives and economic, technical, and safety criteria.

• Decision documents, which define the objectives and document line officer approval of 

the strategies chosen for wildfires, should identify smoke-sensitive receptors and include 

objectives and courses of action to minimize and mitigate impacts to those receptors as 

feasible.

The action alternatives all include the following objectives:

• Burn 13,000 to 55,000 acres in ponderosa pine and 1,000 to 13,000 acres in frequent fire 

mixed conifer annually, using a combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited 

wildfires.

• Mechanically thin 11,000 to 19,000 acres in ponderosa pine and 1,200 to 2,100 acres in 

frequent fire mixed conifer to modify stand structure toward desired conditions. 

Alternative C

Alternative C differs from alternative B in that it contains a new management area called the 

North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex. This management area would be approximately 

260,000 acres in size and would not be managed for timber or biomass production. Stand 

structure would be modified as nearly as possible toward desired conditions using a combination 

of mechanical thinning treatments, prescribed fires, and wildfires with beneficial fire effects. 

After that, no further mechanical treatments would take place, so fewer and fewer acres would be 

mechanically thinned over time. Maintenance of the vegetative desired conditions would be 

largely with wildland fire. 

Alternative D

This alternative also contains the same objectives as in alternative B. It differs in that forestwide, 

no lands would be managed for timber or biomass production. Mechanical treatments would be 

used to move stand structure as nearly as possible to desired conditions; after that, no further 

mechanical treatments would take place, so fewer and fewer acres would be mechanically thinned 

over time. Again, maintenance of desired conditions would be largely with wildland fire.

Environmental Consequences for Air Quality

Air quality is not expected to be a primary driver in the selection of one alternative over another.

Transient impacts to air quality from fire are present in all alternatives. Most of the forest is 

occupied by fire-adapted vegetation types, and smoke from fires, regardless of ignition source or 

fire effects, is inevitable. 

All alternatives are expected to achieve the desired conditions for air quality: 

• Air quality meets or surpasses State and Federal ambient air quality standards.

204 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Management activities on the Kaibab National Forest do not adversely impact Class I 

airshed visibility as established in the Clean Air Act.

These desired conditions pertain specifically to the management activity of prescribed burning. 

No other management activities on the forest have been found to impair air quality. 

The number of acres burned with prescribed fire is expected to be the same under all alternatives 

due to legal, climatological, social, and logistical limits. The reasons for this are fully explored in 

the assumptions section of the Air Quality Specialist Report (KNF 2012a). 

The desired conditions focus on adherence to State and Federal regulations. The Smoke 

Management Group, housed at Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, greatly facilitates 

the forest’s ability to adhere to the Arizona State Implementation Plan and Federal and State 

regulations. This also is true under all alternatives.

Again, because desired conditions are expected to be met under all alternatives, air quality is not 

expected to be a primary driver in selecting one alternative over another.

Some comparison between alternatives can be made by looking at the indirect effects of 

management activities that reduce the likelihood of high-severity fires. High-severity active 

crown fires produce large quantities of emissions that are often heavily concentrated. The 

alternative that best alters stand structure to promote characteristic surface fire over active crown 

fire would have the least negative environmental consequences to air quality.

Mechanical treatments to restore stand structure have indirect beneficial effects on air quality 

because they alter future fire behavior. Stands with open states, with 30 percent canopy cover or 

less, are more likely to exhibit surface fire behavior, even under hot, dry, windy weather 

conditions. The crown bulk density is lower, and gaps and interspaces in the canopy inhibit the 

spread of active crown fire from group to group (Friederici 2005, Rothermel 1991, Scott and 

Reinhardt 2001). Some passive crown fire (individual tree torching and isolated group torching) 

occurs in open states, even under low or moderate fire weather conditions, but is not sustained 

from group to group as active crown fire across the landscape. 

Less biomass is consumed by a fire during a surface fire because primarily only litter and debris 

on the forest floor are consumed rather than the canopies of the trees. The amount of mechanical 

treatment, modeled for each alternative in the Vegetation Dynamics Development Tool (VDDT), 

influences the attainment of open states, promoting surface fire over active crown fire and, thus,

fewer emissions from wildfires.

Alternatives are compared using outputs from the VDDT of summation of the percentage of 

ponderosa pine and frequent fire (dry) mixed conifer in open states with 30 percent crown cover 

or less. For further information on the VDDT analysis, refer to the Vegetation and Fire section of 

this chapter. Tables 31 and 32 display the percentage of area in open states for ponderosa pine and 

frequent fire mixed conifer, for each alternative, and at current and four future time marks. The 

highest attainment of open states at each time mark is shaded.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 205
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 31. Percentage of the ponderosa pine vegetation community in open states with 

30 percent crown cover or less

Alternative

Time Mark – Years

0 10 15 50 250

A

36

46 48 59 67

B 64 68 76 78

C 42 46 68 70

D 44 47 75 71

Table 32. Percentage of frequent fire mixed conifer vegetation community in open states 

with 30 percent crown cover or less

Alternative

Time Mark – Years

0 10 15 50 250

A

33

28 30 34 43

B 43 47 52 59

C 41 44 46 50

D 44 47 47 53

Environmental Consequences for Air 

Quality: Alternative A – No Action, Current Plan

In ponderosa pine, alternative A has 11 to 20 percent less area in open states than the preferred 

alternative. This is because of the lower rate of mechanical thinning treatments which would 

create more open stand structure. 

In frequent fire mixed conifer, alternative A has a markedly lower percent of area in open states 

than all other alternatives and, thus, the greatest susceptibility to high-severity, elevated-emission

production fires.

Environmental Consequences for Air 

Quality: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative would have the least susceptibility to uncharacteristic, high emission 

producing fire over time inferred from greater attainment of open states in both ponderosa pine 

and frequent fire mixed conifer.

The proposed mechanical treatments in the preferred alternative would set stand structure on a 

trajectory toward desired conditions more quickly than in other alternatives. The combination of 

mechanical thinning and regular wildland fire under low and moderate conditions would increase 

the percentage of the ponderosa pine and mixed conifer communities in open states promoting 

surface fire behavior over active crown fire. 

206 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Air Quality: Alternatives C and D 

Once restored within the limits of the presettlement tree guideline, mechanical treatments in

alternatives C and D would decrease over time, because mechanical thinning would only be used

initially to restore the desired structure. A detailed discussion of the potential effects of the 

presettlement tree retention guideline of alternatives C and D compared to the tree retention

guideline in the proposed action is found in the Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter.

In ponderosa pine, alternatives C and D have about 20 percent less area in open states than in the 

preferred alternative. This indicates a higher potential for high emission producing high-severity 

fire. At the 50- and 250-year time marks, alternatives C and D exhibit an increasing area in open 

states even though the amount of mechanical thinning treatment is decreasing. This is due to 

continued entry with wildfire. 

At the 250-year time mark, it should be noted that there is an elevated percentage of area in an 

unnatural open state that is the result of high-severity fire. These areas take a long time to 

regenerate and attain desired conditions as they are large, seed sources at the edges are distant, 

and because the large old trees that are part of the desired condition take a hundred years or more 

to grow. The preferred alternative has the least area in uncharacteristic open states at all time 

marks.

In frequent fire mixed conifer, alternatives C and D have a similar amount of area in open states 

as alternative B at the 10- and 15-year time marks. This is because, at these time marks, a 

comparable amount of mechanical treatments to achieve more open states is occurring in all three 

alternatives. This indicates a comparable potential for high-emission-producing, high-severity 

wildfires among all three alternatives at these time marks. By the 50- and 250-year time marks, 

alternatives C and D have 5 to 9 percent less area in open states than the preferred alternative, as 

mechanical treatments continue to decrease, so the potential for high-emission-producing fires 

becomes somewhat higher than under the preferred alternative.

Comparison of Alternatives for Air Quality

In ponderosa pine, VDDT modeling for alternative B indicates the least susceptibility to highseverity wildfires with elevated emissions over time inferred from greater attainment of open 

states at all time marks. Alternatives A, C, and D are fairly comparable to each other at all but the 

50-year time mark, when alternative A has 9 percent less open states than alternative C, and 16 

percent less area than alternative D. 

In frequent fire mixed conifer, alternative A has a markedly lower percent of area in open states 

than alternatives B, C, and D and, thus, the greatest susceptibility to high-severity, elevatedemission-production fires with 7 to 18 percent less area in open states than all other alternatives at 

all time marks. Alternatives B, C, and D are fairly comparable. However, alternative B has 

somewhat more area in open states than alternative C at all time marks, and equal or more than 

alternative D at three of four time marks, so alternative B is the least susceptible to high-severity 

wildfires with elevated emissions. 

Overall, in both ponderosa pine and frequent fire mixed conifer, alternative B results in the 

highest percentage of open states at all but two time marks, and the least susceptible to highseverity fires with elevated emission production. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 207
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

on Air Quality

Northern Arizona enjoys good air quality. Few pollution sources such as large metropolitan areas, 

industry, or power plants exist, contributing to its reputation for clean air. The forest management 

activity with the air quality potential to exceed health standards, impair visibility in Class I 

airsheds, and generate nuisance smoke is prescribed burning. 

Examining cumulative effects from smoke on air quality differs from the evaluation of 

cumulative effects for many other resources due to the transient nature of air quality impacts from 

smoke. Cumulative effects are not the total emissions produced in a day or a year, but rather the 

concentration of all fire emissions in a given airshed at a given time. For NAAQS, these 

concentrations have a varying time-weighted period depending on the pollutant. For PM10 and 

PM2.5, they are measured as a 24-hour average and as an annual arithmetic mean. 

Cumulative effects from prescribed burns and from wildfires that are not being actively 

suppressed on Federal, State, and tribal lands are largely mitigated through implementation of the 

Enhanced Smoke Management Program, in the Arizona State Implementation Plan, by the 

interagency Smoke Management Group. The personnel in the group are funded largely by the 

Federal agencies, which demonstrates the initiative of the agencies to, in some degree, selfregulate emissions produced from prescribed burns across Federal and State boundaries. 

The Smoke Management Group assists land managers in mitigating cumulative effects of smoke 

from prescribed burns across the State, and assists the forest in not exceeding NAAQS or 

visibility thresholds through coordinating, reporting, evaluating, and scheduling activities within 

and between agencies when potential emissions would likely exceed desired conditions. 

While emissions from wildfires are not regulated, Federal, State, and tribal land managers 

understand their responsibility to balance the ecological benefits of wildfires with the social 

impacts of the smoke they produce. The Smoke Management Group also assists land managers in 

this area by limiting prescribed burn approvals during periods when wildfires are already 

impacting an airshed. The group makes recommendations on the timing—or assists in the 

coordination between units—of tactical operations such as burn outs that would produce large 

amounts of emissions, so that they are completed, when possible, under the most favorable 

ventilation conditions, or spread out over several burning periods to reduce total emissions when 

ventilation is not as good, or through other emission reduction techniques.

Through the services of the Smoke Management Group, cumulative effects from wildland fire 

that are within the control of Federal and State land managers are managed to keep air quality 

across the State of Arizona within desired conditions, including not exceeding NAAQS, 

protecting visibility in Class I areas, and promoting general public support of prescribed burn and 

wildfire management programs. The coordination of the Enhanced Smoke Management Program 

across Arizona thus manages for no significant cumulative environmental smoke effects in the 

State of Arizona.

Recreation 

The Kaibab NF offers visitors a wide variety of opportunities for motorized and nonmotorized 

recreation activities in settings that range from primitive and unconfined to urban and highly 

developed. Picnicking, camping, viewing wildlife, hunting, fishing, driving for pleasure, all208 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

terrain vehicle riding, snowmobiling, and backpacking occur in front country and back-country 

areas of the forest. The front country is composed of outdoor areas that are easily accessible by 

vehicle and mostly visited by day users. Developed campgrounds are included in the front 

country arena. Front country locations tend to be more crowded and attract a wider range of 

visitors than back country. Back-country areas emphasize isolation, remoteness, lack of 

development, and more difficult access. Four designated wilderness areas on the Kaibab NF

provide outstanding back-country opportunities. Recreation is enhanced by the scenic beauty of 

the area which includes dramatic forest, mountain, and high desert landscapes. 

Proximity to the Phoenix and Flagstaff metropolitan areas, several Colorado River communities,

and Grand Canyon National Park has made the Kaibab NF an important recreation destination in 

Arizona. Furthermore, many local residents have a long-term connection with the forest for dayuse recreation, annual gatherings, holiday celebrations, and hunting camps. High visitation occurs 

on summer weekends and holidays as people from nearby urban areas seek the higher elevation 

pine forests of the forest for relief from desert heat. More information can be found in the

recreation specialist report (KNF 2012b).

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition) – Recreation 

Recreation Settings

Visitors to the Kaibab NF desire a variety of recreation options, ranging from undeveloped, 

remote opportunities to more development and easier access. The forest’s goal is to provide an 

appropriate mix of recreation settings for a variety of motorized and nonmotorized uses. To 

facilitate achievement of this goal, the Forest Service uses the recreation opportunity spectrum

(ROS), a nationally recognized classification system that describes six different recreation 

settings (primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, 

and urban) and the associated opportunities and experiences (USDA Forest Service 1982). 

Factors that determine the ROS class for an area include access, remoteness (including distance 

from roads and settlements), degree of naturalness (level of human modification to the 

landscape), facilities and site management, social encounters (number of encounters with other 

people within a typical day), visitor impacts, and visitor management (degree of visitor controls). 

Recreation facilities are constructed to an appropriate development level based on ROS. National 

policy has identified the ROS framework as the common foundation for recreation and wilderness 

resource input into land and resource management plans. ROS provides a framework for defining 

the types of motorized and nonmotorized outdoor recreation opportunities the public might desire 

and identifies that portion of the spectrum a given national forest might be able to provide and/or 

sustain. 

The ROS is typically used to set management direction to reflect “desired” recreation conditions 

in land and resource management plans. However, the 1988 Kaibab NF forest plan did not 

comprehensively map forestwide ROS classes. In 2000, recreation managers located on the 

Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts contracted with Northern Arizona University (NAU) to 

complete forest visitor use surveys, the results of which, combined with other recreation planning 

efforts, led to amendment 6 of the 1988 forest plan on October 21, 2004, to include an updated 

programmatic ROS and Scenery Management System classifications and standards (KNF 2004a). 

To assist with managing and maintaining desired ROS classes, the South Zone Districts 

developed the “Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 209
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management System Guidebook (KNF 2004b). Forest plan direction under Amendment 6 directs 

the South Zone to follow the guidebook for project analysis and implementation. Some 

exceptions for meeting desired ROS classes were given in the amended direction especially for 

meeting forest health, grassland restoration, and fuels treatment desired conditions. In 2006, the 

North Kaibab Ranger District began a similar planning effort, which was deferred in anticipation 

that it would be addressed in this plan revision. 

Two wilderness areas are located entirely within the Kaibab NF and two are co-located on the 

Coconino and Prescott NFs. These and other wilderness areas are congressionally mandated to 

provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and primitive and unconfined recreation. 

Consequently, all motorized recreational uses are excluded. The Kaibab NF also emphasizes 

nonmotorized recreation opportunities in the semiprimitive nonmotorized ROS classes. 

The Kaibab NF also contains scenic and historical trails. Approximately 90 miles of the Arizona 

National Scenic Trail traverses the Tusayan and North Kaibab Ranger Districts. This primitive, 

nonmotorized trail highlights the State’s diverse ecosystems, scenery, and history. The Beale 

Wagon and Overland trails highlight early European settler history in the area, and the Bill 

Williams Mountain Complex National Recreation Trails provides a variety of hiking 

opportunities. 

Table 33. Current plan desired recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) acres by ranger 

district (2004 amendment)

Desired ROS Class Tusayan and Williams North Kaibab

Non-wilderness

Urban 641 0

Rural 52,570 0

Roaded Natural 282,462 328,853

Roaded Modified 62,351 587

Semiprimitive Motorized 248,132 171,829

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 42,390 48,097

Wilderness

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 11,721 61,350

Primitive 2,813 44,302

Developed recreation includes a variety of distinctly defined sites and/or areas where facilities 

such as campgrounds, picnic areas, interpretive sites, information centers, and snow play areas 

have been developed for concentrated public use and enjoyment. Privately developed facilities 

are approved by the Forest Service and permitted under special use authorizations. Developed 

recreation sites are generally in a rural or roaded natural ROS setting. Roads, parking lots, picnic 

tables, toilets, drinking water, ski lifts, boat ramps, fishing piers, and buildings such as lodges and 

cabins may be present at developed sites and areas.

210 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Dispersed Recreation

Dispersed recreation occurs on areas that are not developed for concentrated or intensive public 

use, including roads, trails, and general forest and water areas not treated as developed sites. 

Popular dispersed recreation activities include driving for pleasure, nature/wildlife viewing, 

hiking, camping, hunting and fishing, and off-highway vehicle (OHV) riding. People who enjoy 

dispersed activities often avoid developed sites because they prefer less human disturbance and 

onsite control.

Many people camp along roadsides and use these areas for staging additional activities such as 

walking, biking, hunting, riding horses, bicycling, and off-road vehicle use. The highest 

concentrations of dispersed use sites are found on the Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts. 

Much of this use occurs in shaded flat areas where few natural or constructed barriers block 

access to the general forest area. Some of these concentrated use areas have experienced 

crowding during peak seasons, health and safety concerns (e.g., littering and human waste), and 

resource degradation (e.g., vegetation removal, trampling, soil erosion, wildlife disturbance, etc.). 

Inventory and monitoring of concentrated dispersed use areas has been limited, so detailed, 

comprehensive information regarding their location and related uses throughout the forest does 

not exist.

Much dispersed recreation use occurs on trails located throughout the forest. The Forest Service 

uses a database application called INFRA to house information on national resources, such as 

buildings, trails, roads, wilderness areas, and water systems. According to information entered 

into the INFRA trails database, there are 506 miles of trails on the forest, with 96 miles in 

wilderness and 410 in nonwilderness. Managed use is a mode of travel that is actively managed 

and appropriate on a trail, based on its design and management. A trail or trail segment may have 

more than one managed use and numerous uses may be allowed. 

Motor Vehicle Use 

The Forest Service Travel Management Rule, published in 2005, requires each national forest or 

ranger district to provide for a system of NFS roads, trails, and areas designated for motor vehicle

use. It acknowledges motorized recreation as an appropriate use of NFS lands under proper 

management and provides a definition for OHVs. Implementation of the rule restricts motorized 

cross-country travel. 

A requirement of the Travel Management Rule is publication of a motor vehicle use map 

(MVUM) (36 CFR 212.56) that identifies motorized route/area designations. Once the map is 

published, motor vehicle use inconsistent with designations is prohibited (36 CFR 261.13). 

The Kaibab NF is utilizing a district-by-district approach to implement the Travel Management 

Rule. For each district, an environmental assessment has been prepared to document the purpose 

and need for action and the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental effects of the proposed 

action and various alternatives to the proposed action. For all districts, a final MVUM identifying 

which routes/areas are available for motorized vehicle use on the Kaibab NF will be or has been 

published. Decisions for all three districts have recently been signed. The final decisions for the 

Williams and Tusayan Ranger District amended the current forest plan to prohibit motorized 

travel off of designated routes except as identified on the MVUM. The MVUM for the North 

Kaibab Ranger District has recently been issued. Each decision and resultant MVUM would also 

provide direction for motorized vehicle use in the revised forest plan.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 211
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Current Trends in Recreation Use

As the population in Arizona grows, it is inevitable that competition for existing resources, 

including land and water, will become a more critical issue. An increase in development to 

accommodate incoming residents and visitors would undoubtedly conflict with demand for more 

and varied outdoor recreation opportunities. It is also likely that access to existing recreation 

resources could be compromised by growth, as less private land is being opened up to recreation 

uses (Cordell et al. 2004). Finally, the number of people using existing outdoor recreation 

resources is likely to increase, while at the same time tax support for outdoor recreation areas 

may decrease, which could result in the degradation of natural and cultural resources and a lack 

of available capital to maintain and manage these sites (Cordell et al. 2004). The resolution of 

such conflicts has important long-term implications for the future of tourism and quality of life in 

Arizona.

On the Kaibab NF, historic participation in various recreation activities is a good indicator of the 

types of recreation opportunities and settings recreation visitors demand (table 34). In 2000, the 

top five recreation activities were viewing wildlife and natural features, camping, general 

relaxation, and hiking or walking. In 2005, the top five recreation activities were viewing natural 

features, hiking or walking, viewing wildlife, driving for pleasure, and relaxing. In 2010, the top 

five activities were viewing wildlife and natural features, hiking or walking, driving for pleasure, 

and relaxing.

Projected Recreation Use

As part of the requirement for the analysis of the management situation, a comprehensive

evaluation report (CER) was prepared in April of 2009 to evaluate the needs for change in light of 

how management under the current Kaibab NF forest plan is affecting current conditions and 

trends related to sustainability (KNF 2009).

212 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 34. Visitor activity results from national visitor use monitoring on the Kaibab 

National Forest

Activity Percent Participation

2000 2005 2010

Viewing natural features (scenery, flowers, etc.) 64 54.7 55.4

Viewing wildlife, birds, fish, etc. 60 44.8 45.5

Relaxing, hanging out, escaping noise and heat, etc. 47 36.7 35.6

Hiking or walking 44 47.2 53.2

Developed camping 26 13.7 16.8

Picnicking 26 12.4 14.6

Driving for pleasure 23 44.2 49.4

Nature center activities 19 18.9 17.6

Resort use 17 8.9 19.4

Hunting – all types 14 4.9 0.9

Horseback riding 12 2.4 1.8

Gathering natural forest products 12 1.7 5.8

Primitive camping 11 13.2 9.2

OHV use (4-wheelers, dirt bikes, etc.) 7 3.4 4.7

Fishing – all types 5 3.6 16.3

Nature study 4 10.9 9.9

Other nonmotorized activities 4 8.3 0

Backpacking 1 2.8 4.8

Bicycling, including mountain bikes 1 6.4 4.2

Downhill skiing or snow boarding 1 1.6 0.5

Visiting historic and prehistoric sites 0 21.5 17.4

Cross-country skiing, snowshoeing 0 0.1 0.0

Snowmobiling 0 0 0.2

Motorized/nonmotorized water travel (jet boats, ski sleds, 

canoe, kayak, raft, etc,)

0/0 0.3/0.2 0.7/2.3

Methodology and Analysis

Probable management activities related to alternatives A, B, C, and D were used to evaluate or 

predict long- and/or short-term effects on recreation settings. These activities were evaluated in 

relation to their effects on recreation settings, opportunities, and/or experiences.

This analysis used the running averages of acres of ponderosa pine and frequent fire (dry) mixed 

conifer treated by wildland fire, acres mechanically treated (thinned), and acres identified for 

potential wilderness areas from the objectives for each alternative as fixed numbers per year in 

order to make broad comparisons between alternatives.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 213
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Assumptions

Recreation is not expected to be a primary driver in selecting one alternative over another, 

because predicted impacts between alternatives with regard to recreation are not dramatically 

different. The reasons large differences do not exist include:

• All alternatives are expected to achieve the desired conditions for recreation in the 

proposed plan.

• All projects implemented on the forest will require a site specific assessment of their 

potential impacts to recreation resources and verification of the need for mitigation to 

meet or exceed desired ROS classes.

• All alternatives provide for an appropriate array of motorized and nonmotorized 

recreational opportunities.

• None of the alternatives prohibit future site specific recreation project planning.

Environmental Consequences for Recreation 

Environmental Consequences for Recreation: 

Alternative A – Current Plan, Current Management (No 

Action)

Management under the current forest plan does not have comprehensive adopted ROS classes for 

the North Kaibab Ranger District. Amendment 6 of the 1988 forest plan incorporated new 

direction for recreation and adopted ROS classes on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts 

only. Therefore, under alternative A, no new direction or adopted ROS classes for the North 

Kaibab Ranger District are included. Recreation management for the forest would maintain its 

present course with guidance provided by amendment 6 for the Tusayan and Williams Ranger 

Districts. ROS classes could be mapped and adopted for the North Kaibab Ranger District 

through an additional amendment. No new acres of wilderness are proposed under the current 

plan, and 400,943 acres are designated as suitable timberlands.

Environmental Consequences for 

Recreation Common to All Action Alternatives

Land management activities directed by the LMP have the potential to impact recreation 

opportunities, settings, and/or experiences under all action alternatives (B, C, and D). Recreation 

resources are affected when management activities alter the recreation setting, experience, and/or 

related opportunities. These effects can be both short and long term. With the exception of 

differences in proposed wilderness and effects associated with differences in prescribed 

thinning/prescribed burning, implementation of the action alternatives would likely have similar 

impacts on recreation.

Alternatives B, C, and D would include desired ROS classes for the North Kaibab Ranger District

and subsequently improve the management of recreation by developing a consistent forestwide 

approach. Decisions related to recreation settings and related physical and social components 

would be consistent with ROS classes. Under alternatives B, C, and D, the revised plan would 

adopt desired ROS classes for the entire forest and include guidance for the entire forest to follow 

the ROS/Scenery Management System (SMS) Guidebook for project analysis and 

implementation.

214 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direction in the form of desired conditions, guidelines, and standards for recreation is contained 

primarily in the Recreation and Scenery section of the revised plan.

Forest acreage is represented by ROS classes ranging from primitive to urban. An overlay 

consisting of the desired/adopted ROS classes is shown on a map in the proposed plan. For all 

alternatives, all ROS classes were developed in conjunction with the 2003 National ROS 

Mapping protocol. Table 35 displays the acres of ROS class prescribed under each plan 

alternative.

Table 35. Acres of desired recreation opportunity spectrum (ROS) classes by alternative

ROS Class Alt. A* Alts. B, C, and D

Nonwilderness

Urban 641 641

Rural 52,570 52,570

Roaded Natural 282,462 611,045

Roaded Modified 62,351 62,938

Semiprimitive Motorized 248,132 419,961

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 42,390 93,758

Wilderness

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized 11,721 11,721

Primitive 2,813 105,434

*Alt. A does not include acres of ROS classes for the North Kaibab Ranger District because ROS 

acres for the district were not mapped. 

The alternatives utilize ROS and the SMS as integrated, complimentary management systems 

(see the Scenery section of this chapter for detailed information regarding SMS). Integrated 

management of recreation and scenery via the ROS/SMS Guidebook helps provide effective and 

coordinated direction including adequate mapping and standards and guidelines to ensure 

management activities achieve desired ROS conditions. 

Management areas that emphasize recreation in their desired conditions include wilderness, 

Kaibab Plateau-North Rim Parkway (Arizona State Scenic Road and National Forest Scenic 

Byway), the Arizona National Scenic Trail, Overland and Beale National Historic Trails, I-40 

Parks Nature Trail, Bill Williams Mountain Complex National Recreation Trails, and developed 

recreation sites. Aspen has also been identified as having high recreational value. Desired 

conditions for aspen include an emphasis on providing opportunities for scenic enjoyment, 

recreation, and cultural/spiritual experiences.

All projects implemented on the forest will require a site-specific assessment of their potential 

impacts to recreation resources, experiences, and settings. Projects affecting National Scenic, 

Historic and Recreation trail corridors will be planned, project effects evaluated, and mitigation

measures developed to preserve the nature and purposes of these trails. This will include an 

inventory of qualities, values, resources and associated settings (as defined in the National Trails 

System Act and in order to comply with Executive Order 13195). The ROS/SMS Guidebook

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 215
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

provides management guidance to help ensure ROS classes are sustained and mitigation is 

consistent across the forest. The prescribed ROS classes for the forest would serve as a guide for 

the design and implementation of management activities when formally adopted into the revised 

forest plan. Each alternative would sustain the same range of ROS settings and provide an 

appropriate array of motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities. Where an existing or 

current ROS class is the same as an adopted or desired ROS class, management activities would 

not change or diminish the setting. This is primarily the case with primitive and semiprimitive 

motorized and nonmotorized settings that are contained in designated or recommended 

wilderness or in areas with little to no scheduled management activities.

The Recreation Facility Analysis process is an important administrative tool that enables the 

Forest Service to continue offering quality developed recreational experiences on national forests 

and grasslands. None of the alternatives would change previous decisions made in the 2007 

Kaibab Recreation Facility Analysis planning process, nor would any of the alternatives prevent 

subsequent planning efforts related to the Recreation Facility Analysis process or other national 

policy requirements related to developed recreation. Any new developed recreation facilities 

would be subject to site-specific project planning and analysis, and the development level of new 

projects would be consistent with ROS designations.

None of the alternatives focus on dispersed recreation in front country and back-country areas on 

the forest. However, none of the alternatives would prevent or preclude subsequent site specific 

planning for dispersed recreation, which could result in future opportunities as well as closures, 

prohibitions, and/or restrictions to some uses and/or areas.

Virtually every acre of the Kaibab NF provides opportunities for recreation. As a result, almost 

every management activity associated with the action alternatives, as well as a wide array of 

disturbance events, has the potential to affect recreation opportunities and experiences. The most 

obvious and significant management activities affecting the quality of recreation are mechanical 

and fuel treatments used for managing vegetation for timber production and/or wildlife 

objectives. Activities such as prescribed burning, mechanical thinning, and herbicide treatments 

can cause changes to recreation settings and/or disturb recreationists. These activities can have 

physically obtrusive effects in the short term, but often provide for positive visual elements, such 

as structural and species diversity, larger trees, and healthier vegetation that enhance recreation in 

the future.

Mechanical thinning activities typically impact access (i.e., road construction or reconstruction) 

and scenic quality of the treated area. Roads that are constructed or reconstructed to 

accommodate mechanical treatments can have both positive and negative effects on the recreation 

experience. Negative effects may include increased noise and nuisance dust levels, altered 

landscapes (i.e., the presence of slash piles, denuded ground, and tree stumps), additional traffic, 

temporary closure of recreation facilities or trails, disrupted travel routes due to road closures,

conflicts, and potential safety hazards associated with logging trucks on roads. Positive effects 

can include improved access to an area for recreation activities such as pleasure driving, 

gathering forest products, hunting, fishing, and roadside dispersed camping. Mechanical 

treatments can positively impact those seeking a more developed, roaded recreational experience 

associated with improved access. Additionally, it can improve habitat for some species and 

enhance wildlife-related recreation opportunities. 

216 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Prescribed fire could result in short-term impairment of scenery (through burned landscapes), air 

quality (through increased smoke), and other aspects of recreation experiences through increased 

traffic, temporary closure of recreation facilities, trails or roads, and potential safety hazards 

associated with fire equipment on roads and creation of hazardous conditions. The extent of these 

effects may, however, be less than those of a wildland fire because prescribed fire is typically of a 

lower intensity and shorter duration.

Environmental Consequences for 

Recreation: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative (alternative B) is aimed at addressing four primary needs for change:

(1) modifying stand structure and density of forested ecosystems toward reference conditions; 

(2) protecting and regenerating aspen; (3) protecting natural waters; and (4) restoring grasslands 

by reducing tree encroachment in grasslands and meadows. This alternative also calls for 

providing a balanced range of recreation opportunities within limits of the administrative and 

resource capacity. Activities associated with working toward achieving these needs for change 

have the potential to affect recreation in both short and long timeframes. Mechanical treatments 

and prescribed burning may temporarily displace recreationists and impact recreation 

opportunities and experiences in the short term, but in the long run would likely enhance the 

recreation environment by reducing the risk of uncharacteristic wildland fire and improving 

scenery, habitat, and watershed function. Alternative B recommends the designation of 

6,394 acres of wilderness through additions to the Kanab Creek, Saddle Mountain, and Sycamore 

Canyon wildernesses, as well as a small area adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park. Under 

alternative B, management of recreation would be guided by comprehensive adopted ROS classes 

for all three ranger districts on the Kaibab NF.

Environmental Consequences 

for Recreation: Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D address the same primary needs for change as alternative B, call for 

providing a balanced range of recreation opportunities within limits of the administrative and 

resource capacity, and call for management of recreation opportunities to be guided through the 

adoption of comprehensive ROS classes for the forest’s three ranger districts. These alternatives 

differ from alternative B in that in addition to the recommended wilderness in the proposed 

action, they would recommend five areas (Burro Canyon, Coconino Rim, Seegmiller, South 

Canyon Point, Sycamore Canyon Addition, and Willis Canyon) totaling approximately

37,900 acres for wilderness designation. Alternative C calls for the retention of trees greater than 

120 years of age and designation of a 260,000-acre North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex

Management Area and its removal from the suitable timber base, wherein desired conditions 

would be maintained by restoring the natural fire regime following restoration to desired 

conditions. Alternative D also calls for the retention of trees greater than 120 years of age, but 

does not designate the new management area; it removes the entire forest from the suitable timber 

base and applies the guideline that following restoration, desired conditions would be maintained 

by restoring the natural fire regime to the entire forest. This could provide for greater wildlife 

viewing opportunities and reduced visitor displacement over time.

Comparison of Alternatives for Recreation

Alternative A has the most land in the suitable timber base and, consequently, would have the 

greatest potential to negatively affect recreation opportunities and experiences through timber 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 217
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

harvest activities. Alternatives B and C have less land in the suitable timber base than alternative

A. Alternative D would have the least management activity disturbance to recreation because all 

lands are removed from the suitable timber base. Under all alternatives, the desired ROS settings 

would be sustained, but alternatives B, C, and D would propose the adoption of comprehensive 

ROS classes for the entire Kaibab NF to bring them in line with national standards. As long as 

vegetative enhancements set a trajectory toward desired conditions, mechanical treatments that 

improve both vegetation and wildlife habitat should be acceptable short-term deviations from 

ROS classes in any of the alternatives.

Alternatives B, C, and D recommend varying acreages for wilderness designation. Alternative B 

proposes additions to existing wilderness totaling 6,394 acres. Alternatives C and D recommend 

designation of six other wilderness areas in addition to those proposed in alternative B. As a 

result, opportunities for primitive, unconfined recreation consistent with wilderness designation 

would increase slightly with alternative B, and more considerably with alternatives C and D. 

Motorized and nonmotorized recreation opportunities would neither increase nor decrease under 

any of the alternatives as a result of the proposed wilderness areas, as these areas have

consistently been managed for nonmotorized uses.

Trampled and reduced vegetation, manure, and interaction with livestock have the potential to 

affect recreation experiences, particularly for people unaccustomed to recreating in an 

environment with livestock. Because no differences exist among the alternatives in the number of 

allotments open to grazing, no change from current conditions in grazing impacts on recreation is 

anticipated. Adaptive management and site specific project planning would address any needed 

changes to management. 

Maintenance, construction, reconstruction, and decommissioning of roads and trails can affect 

recreation opportunities and experiences. Road construction and reconstruction are usually 

associated with timber harvest, forest health projects, facility development, utility corridors, 

telecommunication sites, and mineral and energy development. Road construction and 

reconstruction can create changes in the factors (access, remoteness, degree of naturalness, site 

management, and social encounters) that determine the ROS class for an area. Decommissioning 

roads can lead to a shift from the more developed, modified settings to the less developed. Under 

all alternatives, roads would be constructed, maintained and/or decommissioned according to the 

ROS classifications formally adopted in the revised forest plan.

Utility developments such as cell towers, windmills, solar grids, pipeline corridors, power lines, 

and access routes can result in short-term impacts to recreation through construction, vegetative 

clearing, and other ground-disturbing activities. Long-term effects from operations and 

maintenance of permanent structures are usually greatest when they occur in primitive, 

semiprimitive, and roaded natural areas with a high scenic component and little or no previous 

existing development. In such cases, recreationists who prefer less developed settings and more 

natural-appearing environments may experience substantially modified environments with 

moderate to high evidence of the sights and sounds of humans within the immediate area of the 

utility development. All plan alternatives would emphasize restricting utility development to 

designated corridors and sites. Subsequently, utility development effects on recreation would be 

similar for all alternatives.

Under all alternatives, there is potential to place undeveloped private land in public ownership 

through land exchange or purchase, thereby providing additional opportunities for recreation. 

218 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

There is also potential for lands purchased or exchanged into private ownership to decrease the 

amount of public land available for recreation on the forest. These potential beneficial and 

adverse effects to recreation exist equally under all alternatives. 

Under all alternatives, integration, collaboration, and active engagement with communities are 

essential components of creating long-term sustainable recreation programs. The importance of 

community stewardship and partnerships would grow increasingly important over the life of the 

plan, requiring agencies at all levels to share resources and increase collaborative efforts 

regarding sustainable resource management.

Existing levels of outdoor recreation funding are inadequate to meet the recreation needs of 

Arizona’s residents and visitors. Funding is limited or not available for construction and 

renovation of facilities, operations and maintenance, planning and monitoring, and staffing 

programs. Budget stresses are presenting challenges to local, State, and Federal governments as 

they attempt to continue providing recreation for a growing and changing population. Securing 

adequate funding to maintain, construct, and/or reconstruct recreation facilities and trails to meet 

the needs of a growing population will be a challenge under all alternatives.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Recreation

The analysis area for cumulative effects includes the Kaibab NF and adjacent lands in northern 

Arizona including the Coconino and Prescott National Forests, Grand Canyon National Park, 

several local national monuments, Arizona State Parks, Bureau of Land Management lands in 

northern Arizona and southern Utah, and Coconino County and local parks. These public lands 

provide a wide range of recreation opportunities in addition to the Kaibab NF. However, 

differences in agency missions often result in different types of recreation experiences. National 

Park Service tends to more tightly manage visitor activities. They provide highly developed and 

managed visitor facilities in front country locations, and often offer permitted back-country 

opportunities. The BLM and other national forests provide opportunities similar to the Kaibab 

NF. Arizona State Parks typically emphasize particular land features such as a lake, and offer 

related recreation opportunities such as boating, fishing, swimming, and camping. Local and 

county park facilities are typically oriented toward day users (some offer camping) and more 

urban recreation opportunities such as volleyball and basketball. Kaibab NF management 

emphasizes dispersed recreation and provides many opportunities for related activities. Adjacent 

national forests receive more recreation visitation than the Kaibab NF, and have employed 

additional recreation management actions or have installed additional developed facilities to 

prevent damage to natural and cultural resources. Provision of the less developed, dispersed 

recreation activities is the niche filled by the Kaibab NF.

Within the planning period (the next 10 to 15 years), human population growth—as well as 

growth and demand for a variety of recreation settings, experiences, and opportunities—is 

expected to increase. Arizona’s human population has been growing at a far greater rate than the 

national average, which is likely to continue throughout the life of this plan. A growing human 

population places increasing demands on recreation that could result in more human 

concentration and use at existing recreation areas, increased human-human conflicts, increased 

density of watercraft and off-highway vehicles, and reduced quality of recreation settings. The 

increasing use of OHVs may result in increased conflict among motorized and nonmotorized user 

groups throughout the cumulative effects analysis area. As use increases, compliance with 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 219
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

regulations could become a greater challenge as recreational participants increase and often 

compete for limited space and resources. Especially vulnerable are semiprimitive and primitive 

settings, which emphasize solitude, challenge, risk, unmodified natural environments, and 

minimal encounters and/or signs of other users.

As Arizona’s population increases, the demand for recreational opportunities and open space will 

grow. However, the land and resources required to provide these opportunities are finite. Land 

management agencies will continue to provide a variety of recreation opportunities, but are not 

likely to be able to meet all demand for every activity desired. In the context of recreation-related 

decisions in and around the forest, the preferred plan alternative provides for long-term, 

continued opportunities for dispersed recreation in a landscape where these opportunities are 

becoming more valuable due to increased demand and limited opportunities for these experiences 

in the greater landscape. 

Scenery

One of the primary attractions of the Kaibab NF is its scenery. Scenic resources vary by location 

and are greatly influenced by existing natural features such as vegetation, water bodies, landforms 

and geology. Ecological systems contain three ever-changing and interrelated dimensions: 

physical, biological, and social. All three relate to the aesthetics of ecosystems. Land and resource 

planning, along with the resulting administrative actions on the land, determine how ecosystems 

and their aesthetics are evaluated and managed. Additional information can be found in the

Scenery Resource Specialist Report (KNF 2012c).

Description of Affected 

Environment (Existing Condition) – Scenery

Visitors to the Kaibab NF have identified scenery as one of the forest’s greatest attractions. 

National Visitor Use Monitoring conducted in 2000, 2005, and again in 2010 identified “viewing 

scenery” as one of the top primary activities visitors engaged in during their visits to the forest

(USDA Forest Service 2000, 2005, and 2010). Benefits derived from scenic settings include 

identity, self-image of communities, and enhanced quality of life. Sightseeing, driving for 

pleasure, and outdoor photography are among the Nation’s leading recreational activities, and 

projected demand for these activities along with high quality scenery are expected to grow. The 

high scenic quality of the Kaibab NF can be partially attributed to the 1996 amendment to the 

Kaibab NF forest plan, which called for uneven-aged timber harvest that emphasized scattered 

groups of trees and retention of large, old trees that are especially desirable to visitors of the 

forest. The Arizona National Scenic Trail traverses the Kaibab NF. This trail was designated for 

the opportunities it provides for primitive, nonmotorized recreation in outstanding scenic settings. 

In response to growing agency and public concern for visual resources, the Forest Service 

developed a Visual Management System (VMS) in 1974 to integrate aesthetic considerations into 

large-scale resource management decisions (USDA Forest Service 1974). VMS included 

objective criteria, such as viewing distance and the degree of visual change to the landscape for 

estimating the effects of management activities. VMS included mapping of visual quality 

objectives (VQOs) at the forest level. However, VMS used somewhat subjective definitions of 

what constituted an aesthetic landscape and relied on professional judgment to quantify effects.

220 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In 1996, the new SMS was released (USDA Forest Service 1995). SMS updates VMS and 

provides a nationally standardized approach for analyzing, planning, and implementing stages of 

ecosystem management. SMS integrates increased understanding of ecosystem processes and 

cultural landscapes in identifying the effects of various management practices on scenic 

resources. The SMS provides guidelines that are used to inventory the landscape and classify the 

effects of management activities. 

In 2004, the Kaibab NF used the SMS to establish new programmatic direction for scenery 

management on all Federal land within the Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts (South Zone)

(KNF 2004b). Analysis in the environmental assessment included establishing measurable scenic 

integrity objectives (SIOs) for each portion of the landscape. 

A companion guidebook, the Kaibab National Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Scenery Management Guidebook, was created as part of the 2004 planning effort (KNF 2004b). 

Forest plan direction included in amendment 6 of the 1988 forest plan instructs the forest to use 

the guidebook as a primary source for scenery and recreation management. Direction contained in 

the guidebook includes goals, strategies, standards, and guidelines.

The environmental assessment for amendment 6 of the forest plan includes constituent 

information, the significance of scenic quality and aesthetic experience to people including

expectations, desires, and preferences, acceptable levels of quality, behaviors, and values. 

Constituent information provides the foundation for understanding and identifying valued 

landscape attributes, landscape character, scenic integrity, and concern levels. The environmental 

assessment and subsequent guidebook identified the combination of physical, biological, and 

cultural images (landscape character) that gives the Kaibab NF its unique visual and cultural 

identity and helps to define “sense of place.”

Landscape character and scenic integrity are the key components used to inventory and describe 

existing conditions for scenery. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or a measure of the 

degree to which a landscape is visually perceived to be “complete.” The highest scenic integrity 

ratings are given to those landscapes with little or no deviation from the landscape character 

constituents value for its aesthetic quality. Landscape character provides a frame of reference 

from which scenic attractiveness and scenic integrity can be determined. Landscape character 

types and specific scenic integrity setting descriptions are contained in the “Kaibab National

Forest Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management Guidebook.”

Scenery was not addressed as a priority need for change in the proposed plan; however, all topics 

in the plan indirectly relate to scenery. Restoration of vegetation structure and improvement of 

forest health improves scenery, especially in the long term. Aspen is recognized as having high 

scenic quality and, therefore, the need to protect and regenerate aspen improves and enhances 

scenery. Likewise, water features increase the scenic attractiveness of the forest and measures to 

protect seeps, springs, ephemeral wetlands, and North Canyon Creek improve and enhance 

scenery. Restoration of grasslands and meadows also has a positive outcome for scenery. 

Though not identified in the comprehensive evaluation report (CER; KNF 2009) as a priority 

need for change, the Kaibab NF places a high level of concern on managing the landscape’s 

scenic quality. There is public concern over the visibility of forest management activities and the 

impact of those activities on scenery, local residents, adjacent communities, landowners, and the 

user public, particularly recreationists.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 221
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The key indicator used in this analysis to determine how the alternatives affect scenery is the area 

allocated to scenic integrity objectives (SIOs) adopted for each alternative, and the level at which 

various management activities are evident or meet an acceptable threshold of dominance. The 

term “scenic integrity objective” refers to the degree of acceptable visual alteration of the 

landscape and is defined as a desired level of scenic excellence based on physical and 

sociological characteristics of an area. Typically, more stringent or very high SIOs are 

incorporated to protect the most highly visible and frequently seen areas that have the greatest 

variety in vegetation and other naturally occurring features. SIOs are rooted in the SMS. The 

SIOs applicable to the Kaibab NF revised forest plan are:

• Very High: Characteristic landscape is intact, with only minute deviations.

• High: Characteristic landscape appears intact. Deviations may be present, but should

repeat form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character so 

completely and at such a scale that they are not evident.

• Moderate: Landscape appears slightly altered. Noticeable deviations are visually 

subordinate to the landscape character.

• Low: Landscape appears moderately altered. Deviations may be dominant, but are shaped 

to borrow from the natural landform and other visual dominance elements (line, form, 

texture, color), and are subordinate to the characteristic landscape when viewed as a 

background.

Probable management activities related to the alternatives were used to evaluate or predict longand/or short-term effects on scenery. Activities were evaluated in relation to their ability to meet 

or exceed forestwide desired SIOs established in the revised forest plan.

This analysis used the running averages of acres of ponderosa pine and frequent fire (dry) mixed 

conifer treated by wildland fire, acres mechanically treated (thinned), and acres for potential 

wilderness areas from the objectives for each alternative as a fixed number per year in order to 

make broad comparisons between alternatives.

Environmental Consequences for Scenery

Land management activities directed by the plan have the potential to impact the scenic condition 

in both the long and short term. Scenic resources are affected when management activities alter 

the natural appearance of the landscape. Scenery is not expected to be a primary driver in 

selecting one alternative over another, as predicted, impacts between action alternatives are not 

dramatically different. This is because all action alternatives are expected to achieve the desired 

conditions for scenery, and all projects implemented on the forest will require a site specific 

assessment of their potential impacts to scenic resources that verifies the need for mitigation in 

order to meet or exceed SIOs.

The proposed forest plan provides the following guidelines with regard to activities affecting 

scenery:

• In areas with high SIOs, only minimal alterations from landscape character goals 

described in the desired conditions should be allowed. 

• In areas with moderate SIOs, only slight alterations should be allowed, which ensure that 

deviations remain visually subordinate to the landscape character. 

222 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• In areas with low SIOs, only moderate alterations should be allowed.3

Further discussion of how the scenery guidelines would be applied is specified in the ROS/SMS

Guidebook. The guidebook was developed to help meet the desired conditions that emphasize 

healthy, sustainable forests. At the completion of all site specific projects, the entire project area 

landscape should meet the mapped SIO. Management activities within very high and high SIO 

areas maintain the scenic integrity of these corridors and would not be apparent from the 

travelway.

In the revised plan, all forest travelways on the Kaibab NF (e.g., roads, trails, high-use routes, 

important sites, etc.) were evaluated and all major and secondary corridors were assigned various 

levels of concern. Foreground views are generally the most sensitive to viewers from concern 

level 1 and 2 roads, trails, and sites. Foreground is described as 0 to 0.25 mile from the observer 

based on the standards for a flat landscape and limited distant views on the plateau; middle 

ground is 0.25 to 3 miles; and background is 3 or more miles. These distance zones have been 

defined for consistency with the SMS national standard, resulting in a much larger middle ground 

and a smaller background than the 1988 forest plan. High SIOs assigned to the foreground of the 

travel corridors of most concern indicate those areas of scenic importance to the visitors’ 

experience.

The revised plan also uses SMS and the ROS as integrated, complimentary management systems 

(see the Recreation section of this chapter for detailed information regarding ROS). Integrated 

management of scenery and recreation via the ROS/SMS Guidebook helps provide effective and 

coordinated direction including adequate mapping standards and guidelines to ensure 

management activities achieve desired conditions (SIOs).

Additional guidance for monitoring and development of mitigation measures is provided in the 

ROS/SMS Guidebook. Monitoring is intended to assist managers in tracking changes in scenic 

classes and scenic integrity over time. Progress toward desired conditions is tracked and 

additional measures are identified when needed to ensure that implementation of project level 

management activities achieves or sustains the desired conditions established in the revised plan

and by amendment.

The Kaibab NF’s conversion from VMS in the 1988 plan to SMS in the revised plan is consistent 

with a shift to more far-sighted ecosystem management benefits and principles. Activities such as 

prescribed burning, large-scale vegetation management activities, and herbicide treatments are

examples of management activities that illustrate the benefits of a longer-term scenery 

management philosophy. These activities have visually obtrusive effects in the short term 

(typically out of step with adopted SIOs), yet they provide for more positive visual elements such 

as variety, larger trees, and healthier vegetation in the relatively near future.

3 Descriptions of the terms “minimal,” “slight,” and “moderate” can be found in Agricultural Handbook Number 701, 

“Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management.” In general, “minimal” means deviations are not 

evident because they closely follow the form, line, color, texture, and pattern common to the landscape character; 

“slight” means that noticeable deviations are subordinate to the landscape character being viewed; and “moderate” 

means deviations may begin to dominate the landscape, but borrow from the characteristics of the valued landscape 

character. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 223

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Management of adopted SIOs in the action alternatives would provide consistent direction for 

scenery. These adopted SIOs indicate the desired or acceptable level of human-induced alteration 

to the natural landscape character. The very high SIO allocation is assigned to primitive and 

semiprimitive nonmotorized settings, which include designated wilderness. 

Table 36 displays the acres of SIOs prescribed for each alternative. A “very low” SIO is not 

included as a scenery objective in the revised plan. All acreage is consistent with the SMS model 

of scenic classes. Acreage is lower in alternative A (current plan) because the SMS has not yet 

been adopted on the North Kaibab Ranger District. 

Table 36. Acres allocated to scenic integrity objective by alternative

SIO Alternative A Alternatives B, C, and D

Very High 17,603 123,920

High 221,764 415,160

Moderate 460,846 815,760

Low 15,684 16,245

Environmental Consequences for Scenery

Environmental Consequences for Scenery Common to All 

Alternatives

All projects implemented on the Kaibab NF would require a site specific assessment of their 

potential impacts on scenic resources. If mitigation is needed, the ROS/SMS Guidebook would

provide management guidance to ensure SIOs are met and mitigation is consistent across the 

forest. The prescribed SIOs for the forest would guide the design and implementation of 

management activities when formally adopted into the revised forest plan. 

If implemented, each alternative would have the potential to maintain, alter, or enhance the visual 

character of the forest’s landscapes to varying degrees. Where an existing or current SIO is the 

same as an adopted or desired SIO, management activities would not change or diminish the SIO. 

This is primarily the case in areas with high and very high SIOs, which are in designated or 

recommended wilderness or in areas, such as semiprimitive nonmotorized settings, where little to 

no management activities would occur.

Activities such as motorized use, vegetation management, fire management, livestock grazing, 

minerals exploration and extraction, recreation, and the construction and maintenance of utility 

corridors can change the character of natural landscapes. The specific effects of these activities on

scenic resources are dependent on time and intensity. Effects to scenery are typically greatest in 

the first 5 years following activities. 

Mechanical thinning treatments would occur under all alternatives to meet vegetation and wildlife 

management objectives. Thinning often improves scenic quality, particularly where there are 

opportunities to enhance scenic views, regenerate aspen stands, and grow bigger trees, especially 

ponderosa pine. Well-designed treatments can provide for a landscape consistent with the public’s 

expectation for high quality scenery by increasing the variety of vegetative species and/or 

reducing stand homogeneity (stands with uniform spacing and tree size). In general, short-term 

change to the existing scenic integrity resulting from mechanical treatments is more acceptable 

224 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

where existing disturbance is already apparent in the natural landscape. In areas where little 

evident change in natural scenery has previously occurred, disturbance may be less acceptable to 

the public. These areas are typically associated with visually sensitive viewsheds assigned more 

stringent SIOs. 

There is potential to temporarily impact the existing landscape from annual mechanical treatment 

activities under all alternatives. Mechanical treatments that target aspen regeneration, as well as 

other vegetative conditions, could change the short-term character of the landscape in some local 

areas. Short-term effects to the scenic landscape include unnatural appearing slash piles, stumps, 

denuded vegetation, bare soil, and scarring. Project design and/or mitigation under all alternatives 

would consider scenic resources so that vegetation would appear natural, particularly in the long

term. In many instances, variety, texture, and color are actually enhanced along with the primary 

goal of improving wildlife and/or vegetative conditions. SMS incorporates this type of humancaused effect to achieve the more farsighted desired SIOs.

Environmental Consequences for Scenery: Alternative A, 

No Action

Under alternative A, scenery management for the forest would maintain its present course with 

guidance provided by amendment 6 for the Tusayan and Williams Ranger Districts. The current 

forest plan does not have adopted SIOs for the North Kaibab Ranger District. Therefore, under 

the current plan (alternative A), no new direction or adopted SIOs for the North Kaibab would 

occur. SIOs could be adopted for the North Kaibab Ranger District with a separate analysis and 

forest plan amendment. Alternative A proposes no new wilderness areas and retains the greatest 

amount of land that would be managed for timber production. 

Environmental Consequences for Scenery: 

Alternatives B, C, and D – Action Alternatives

Desired conditions and guidelines for scenery are similar across alternatives B, C, and D. These 

alternatives would incorporate SIOs for the North Kaibab Ranger District and subsequently 

increase the importance of high-quality scenery as a component of the recreation experience and 

setting. Under these alternatives, the revised plan would adopt SIOs for the entire forest and 

include guidance for the entire forest to follow the ROS/SMS Guidebook for project analysis and 

implementation. Decisions related to scenery would be consistent with the SMS. Differences 

among alternatives regarding proposed wilderness areas and acreages of suitable timber, and the 

retention of old trees (discussed in more detail in the Recreation section) have the greatest 

potential to impact scenery resources.

Comparison of Alternatives for Scenery

In the long run, all action alternatives would likely meet or exceed established SIOs. Alternatives 

B and C would have the greatest potential to modify stand structure and regenerate aspen and,

consequently, would have the most management activity disturbance to scenery. Alternative D 

would have the least management activity disturbance to scenery. As long as vegetative 

enhancements set the forest on a trajectory toward desired conditions, mechanical treatments that 

improve both vegetation and wildlife habitat should be acceptable short-term deviations from 

SIOs.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 225
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

For all nonwilderness and roadless areas, prescribed fire would be utilized under all action 

alternatives to benefit certain wildlife and plants, improve scenery, assist in nutrient cycling, and 

reduce the threat of large, high-severity wildfires in the future. Under all action alternatives, the 

use of prescribed fire (outside of wilderness) has the potential to improve scenic integrity 

especially in regard to reducing uncharacteristic wildland fire and improving vegetative health 

and structure.

Annual prescribed fire management activities have the potential to temporarily impact scenery. 

Alternatives B, C, and D apply prescribed fire to the same acreage. Alternative A currently treats 

the smallest area, which has the least potential to affect SIOs through management activities, but 

has the lowest potential for meeting the desired conditions over the long term. Prescribed fire may 

temporarily reduce desired SIOs, but in the long term, SIOs are expected to be met or exceeded in 

prescribed fire treatment areas.

Secondary or indirect effects resulting from some methods used to fight wildfire have the 

potential for long-term visual impacts. Fuel breaks bladed with heavy equipment often leave 

enduring scars on the landscape. In wilderness and roadless areas, fire suppression techniques are 

more restricted than in nonwilderness and roadless areas. The more restrictive methods reduce 

permanent scarring such as that created by heavy equipment. Therefore, it is anticipated that 

potential negative secondary effects associated with wildfire suppression and recovery activities

would be inversely proportional to the amount of wilderness or inventoried roadless area in each 

alternative. Alternatives B, C, and D include additional recommended wilderness. None of the 

alternatives would change the distribution or amount of SIOs. 

Livestock grazing would continue under all alternatives. Although seasonal use of bedding areas, 

heavy utilization of forage, and structural improvements such as fences and livestock watering 

tanks may be evident in the landscape and could detract from the natural appearance if not 

properly located, the potential for change to the existing scenery as a result of continued livestock 

grazing is minimal. If adaptive management is applied successfully, the effects from livestock 

grazing are anticipated to be acceptable for all alternatives. 

Soil erosion, whether caused by increased snow/water flows or development activities such as 

road construction, timber harvest, or mining, may result in a change in scenic conditions due to 

soil displacement and the disturbance or removal of vegetation. Soil erosion does occur naturally 

and, as with wildfire, would be transparent relative to meeting SIOs. Under all alternatives, any 

development or proposal for increased water yield would use BMPs to protect the soil resource 

and reduce the potential change to scenic quality. 

A reduction in air quality may affect the ability to view an area or to see clearly; however, unless 

the air quality deteriorates to the point that vegetation dies at visually apparent levels, changes in 

air quality would have no lasting direct effect on scenery. Effects would be similar for each 

alternative, but the potential for uncharacteristic smoke emission producing fires is greater under 

alternative A because of limited treatments that would reduce the risk of uncharacteristic wildland 

fire.

Although the construction of roads could create new opportunities for viewing scenery and the 

closure of roads could decrease viewing opportunities, the primary effects to the scenic resource 

of changes in roads relate to potential change to the existing landscape. Roads typically affect 

form, line, color, and texture negatively. Often the most apparent impacts are landscape scarring 

226 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and unnatural linear features in background views. In middle ground, cut and fill slopes also 

affect form, color, and texture. Signage, gates, barriers, and other traffic control devices are 

typically most evident in the foreground. Highly and/or fully developed motorized trails exhibit 

similar effects on scenery as roads. Vehicle access needed for vegetation management activities 

under alternative B would allow for the most construction and reconstruction of roads and, thus,

have the greatest potential for scenic impact. Alternatives A and D have the lowest potential for 

the construction and reconstruction of roads because fewer trees would be removed. Electronic 

sites and/or structures are, by their very nature, in juxtaposition to the visual elements that define 

or ground one within the national forest landscape. If placed insensitively, this form of 

development can conspicuously advertise human-caused change, resulting in a marked 

degradation of the scenic quality of the natural landscape. It is probable under all alternatives that 

existing scenic quality could be altered by the placement of new utilities or the replacement and 

improvement of existing utilities. Under all alternatives, emphasis would be placed on restricting 

utility development to designated corridors and sites. Subsequently, any effects would be largely 

independent of any given alternative. 

Under all alternatives, mineral or energy exploration and subsequent development have the 

potential to affect scenic resources. Although most of the areas with the potential for mineral 

development have been withdrawn, valid existing mining claims may still be developed where 

valid existing rights can be proven. Although efforts would be made to reduce the scenic effects 

of mining activity, the nature of mineral development is such that SIOs are often difficult to meet 

when mining takes place. In some cases, SIOs might not be met over the short term, although 

long-term mitigation would be achieved through effective site location, application of BMPs, and 

adherence to rehabilitation plans. Under alternatives C and D, the potential for scenic change 

resulting from mining activities would be the least of any alternative, as additional wilderness

would be withdrawn from new mineral entry (contingent upon congressional designation). 

However, mining and associated development could still occur on valid, existing claims. 

Alternative A recommends no additional wilderness acreage and would have the greatest potential 

for change to the existing landscape or scenery from impacts associated with mineral 

development.

There is potential to place undeveloped private land in public ownership through land exchange 

or purchase, which would likely best protect scenic quality for the long term. There is also 

potential for lands purchased or exchanged into private ownership to be developed to the 

detriment of scenic quality. These potential beneficial and adverse effects exist equally under all 

alternatives. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Scenery

The Kaibab NF is adjacent to a number of developing communities and large towns. Viewsheds 

containing portions of the forest affect the quality of life for many people living in the local area.

Private lands near the forest are generally more valuable when they possess a scenic view of NFS 

lands. As a result, property values may increase or decrease depending upon the quality of 

adjacent scenery.

Lands managed by other government agencies at the county, State, and Federal levels have the 

potential to affect the scenic viewing experience of visitors to the Kaibab NF. Differences in 

agency missions and management of scenic resources could result in inconsistencies between 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 227
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

agencies, with the potential to negatively alter the appearance of lands adjacent to the forest. 

Other agencies’ management activities that do not result in a natural landscape can affect the 

experience of forest users who are viewing scenery. 

Urbanization of lands adjacent to the forest also affects the experience of those viewing the 

scenery. In some areas, housing developments are defining the edge of the forest boundary. When 

a limited number of structures are designed to blend into the landscape, the effect is minimal; 

however, if the structures or associated developments are not blended into the landscape or are 

large in scale, they can have a negative impact. 

As stated earlier, tourism is often based on visitors seeking high quality scenic settings. The 

Kaibab NF provides a highly scenic backdrop for many adjacent communities. Any activities 

detrimental to the scenic landscape, whether on NFS, private, or other public lands, may 

negatively affect the quality of many people’s experience.

Wilderness

The Wilderness Act of 1964 defined a wilderness as an area of undeveloped Federal land 

designated by Congress that has the following characteristics:

• It is affected primarily by the forces of nature, where people are visitors who do not 

remain;

• It may contain ecological, geological, or other features of scientific, educational, scenic, 

or historic value;

• It possesses outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of 

recreation; and

• It is an area large enough so that continued use would not change its unspoiled natural 

condition.

As a part of the plan revision process, the Kaibab NF performed an evaluation of all areas within 

the forest not yet designated as wilderness that satisfy the definition of wilderness found in the 

Wilderness Act of 1964. This analysis determined the wilderness capability of these areas, their 

availability for wilderness designation, and the need for additional wilderness in the planning 

area. For additional information on this evaluation, see appendix E, Wilderness Area Evaluation 

Summary, and the Potential Wilderness Evaluation Report (KNF 2013f).

Affected Environment (Existing Condition)

The Kaibab NF manages and/or co-manages four wilderness areas: Kanab Creek Wilderness

(68,474 acres), Saddle Mountain Wilderness (41,115 acres), Kendrick Mountain Wilderness 

(6,660 acres), and Sycamore Canyon Wilderness (58,408 acres). There are 

61,505 acres of Kanab Creek Wilderness located on the North Kaibab Ranger District of the 

Kaibab NF ; the remaining 6,969 acres are administered by the Bureau of Land Management. 

Roughly two-thirds of Kendrick Mountain Wilderness lies within the Kaibab NF. The other 

portion is within the Coconino National Forest, but the entire wilderness area is managed under 

the Kaibab NF forest plan. Sycamore Canyon Wilderness is located within three different national 

forests—the Coconino, Kaibab, and the Prescott—but management direction for the Sycamore 

Canyon Wilderness is located in the Coconino forest plan. Saddle Mountain Wilderness is the 

only wilderness that is entirely located in and managed by the Kaibab NF. 

228 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Kanab Creek Wilderness contains the Forest’s only segment of river eligible for classification 

as “Wild and Scenic.” The eligibility of this segment is discussed further in the “Kaibab National 

Forest Wild and Scenic River Assessment,” which is located in the project record.

All activity, including maintenance of trails and dispersed campsites, is to be nonmotorized and 

nonmechanized in designated wilderness. Activities such as hiking, hunting, fishing, camping, 

horseback riding, and cross-country skiing are allowed. Motorized and mechanized equipment 

and vehicles including bicycles are prohibited in designated wilderness, as are commercial 

enterprises except for outfitters and guides under permit. 

Management activities in designated wilderness on the Kaibab NF have focused primarily on 

minimal trail construction and maintenance that meet wilderness standards, interpretation and 

education, law enforcement, and boundary marking and maintenance. Allowed management 

activities include search and rescue, research (with restrictions), fire control, and access to 

existing inholdings and private rights. Timber harvest, road construction, creation or maintenance 

of wildlife and viewpoint openings by motorized methods, and maintenance of trails with 

motorized equipment such as chain saws are examples of prohibited activities in wilderness. 

The demand for wilderness goes beyond recreation. Other values include long-term 

environmental monitoring, scenic backdrops for tourism, watershed protection, and maintenance 

of biological diversity. Many people who do not regularly visit primitive, roadless, or designated 

wilderness areas still value protection of such areas to maintain the opportunity for visits in the 

future (option value). People also gain benefits simply from knowing that natural areas exist 

(existence values) and that their protection today sustains them for future generations (bequest 

value). The option, existence, and bequest values, when combined are known as passive use 

values (Loomis 2000).

Several studies have shown the importance and value people place on these passive use benefits 

of wilderness (Cordell et al. 1999). These values or needs are reflected in the National Survey on 

Recreation and the Environment finding that roughly 70 percent of those surveyed agreed or 

strongly agreed to the question, “How do you feel about designating more Federal lands in your 

state as wilderness?” Over 96 percent agreed or strongly agreed with the statement, “I enjoy 

knowing that future generations will be able to visit and experience wilderness areas.”

Wilderness designation, with its associated benefits and limitations, engenders passionate debate 

in the American public. On the Kaibab NF, the public has been divided on this subject. While 

some desire more wilderness, others do not want the restrictions that come with a wilderness 

designation. 

Recommended Wilderness Areas 

Common to the Action Alternatives

The following contains a brief description of the potential wilderness areas (PWAs) common to 

the action alternatives (see table 37). Full descriptions can be found in the Potential Wilderness 

Area Evaluation Report (KNF 2013f), which is available on the Kaibab NF Web site.

Kanab Creek Additions 

The Kanab Creek Additions include eight small areas (4,710 acres) adjacent to Kanab Creek 

Wilderness. These areas would extend the wilderness boundary to the rim, making it more 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 229
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

recognizable and manageable. The primary recreational uses of the Kanab Creek Wilderness 

include horseback riding, hiking, backpacking, hunting, photography, watching birds and other 

wildlife, and dispersed camping. Multiple trails provide access to and traverse the wilderness. 

Most visitors use trailheads originating on the east side of the wilderness, since road access on the 

west side is poor. Trail systems are minimally maintained and conditions vary from year to year. 

Spring and fall are the optimal seasons of the year for using the area. Summer visitation is lower 

as temperatures can exceed 110 degrees Fahrenheit.

Current recreational uses within the Kanab Creek Addition are similar to those within Kanab 

Creek Wilderness. The current ROS classification for most of this PWA is semiprimitive 

nonmotorized (SPNM). 

Saddle Mountain Addition 

The Saddle Mountain Wilderness addition is 1,296 acres and is commonly referred to as the 

“Cocks Comb.” It is located on the eastern side of Saddle Mountain Wilderness. Primary 

recreational uses of the Saddle Mountain Wilderness include horseback riding, hiking, 

backpacking, photography, watching birds and other wildlife, and dispersed camping. 

Trailheads accessing the wilderness originate at the top of the Kaibab Plateau and at its base in 

House Rock Valley. Saddle Mountain Trail parallels the main ridge for approximately 4 miles, 

where views of Marble Canyon Gorge, Cocks Comb, House Rock Valley, and the Vermilion 

Cliffs can be observed. The trail also provides access into Grand Canyon National Park. The 

North and South Canyon Trails, 7 and 4 miles long, respectively, follow canyon bottoms. Portions 

of both trails, when descending from the top of the Kaibab Plateau into lower elevations, are very 

steep. This area receives relatively heavy human use, but in winter and early spring, snow often 

makes access difficult. 

The proposed Saddle Mountain addition provides extraordinary views into Marble Canyon and 

House Rock Valley. The Cocks Comb area contains cliff dwelling structures, rock art, and various 

archaic and pueblo habitation sites. Current recreational uses within this area are similar to those 

within Saddle Mountain Wilderness. Although the current ROS classification for this area is 

semi-primitive motorized, its remote location provides for semiprimitive non-motorized use. 

Grassy and Quaking Aspen Canyons 

(Adjacent to P roposed Wilderness in Grand Canyon 

National Park ) 

In 1980, Grand Canyon National Park conducted a wilderness evaluation in which the Park 

Service proposed approximately 1 million acres of park to be designated as wilderness by 

Congress. The lower portions of Grassy and Quaking Aspen Canyons in Grand Canyon National 

Park are proposed for wilderness designation. The administrative boundary between Grand 

Canyon National Park and the Kaibab NF crosses both steep canyons and is not well marked. 

Recommendation of the upper portions of Grassy and Quaking Aspen Canyons (232 acres) for 

wilderness designation would result in all of Grassy and Quaking Aspen Canyons being managed 

more consistently and with a more identifiable boundary. Although this area is classified as 

roaded natural, the steepness of these two canyons would allow only nonmotorized use.

230 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Jacks Canyon 

Jacks Canyon is 156 acres in size and encompasses the steep (greater than 40 percent slope) 

portions of Jacks Canyon, which is a tributary to Sycamore Canyon. This PWA was added to all 

action alternatives after release of the draft Plan and DEIS to correct a mapping error in the initial 

PWA evaluation. This area was incorrectly included as part of Sycamore Canyon Wilderness in 

the GIS layers used in the initial evaluation, and was thus excluded from subsequent analysis. 

When evaluated for capability, availability, and need, this area was found to meet the criteria for 

inclusion in the action alternatives as a PWA. This area is adjacent to the Sycamore Canyon 

Wilderness and is characterized by steep canyon walls and limestone outcroppings. This PWA 

extends the boundary of the Sycamore Canyon Wilderness into a side canyon. The area is 

currently used for backcountry recreation and hunting, and although most of the PWA is classified 

as semi-primitive motorized the steepness of the canyon would likely limit mechanized and 

motorized vehicle use.

Additional Potential Wilderness 

Areas Recommended in Alternatives C and D

In addition to the recommended wilderness in the proposed action, alternatives C and D would 

recommend six other areas:

Burro Canyon – Burro Canyon lies within one of the Kaibab NF’s inventoried roadless 

areas (IRA) and is recognized for its values as a large, relatively undisturbed landscape.

Burro Canyon is an area totaling 10,735 acres. Current recreational uses of the area are 

identified in the potential wilderness area (PWA) report as limited dispersed camping. 

Key attractions include outstanding views of House Rock Valley and the Vermillion 

Cliffs, but there is no water available. The current ROS classification for the majority of 

the area is SPNM.

Coconino Rim – Coconino Rim also lies within one of the Kaibab NF’s IRAs. It is an 

area covering 7,750 acres. Current recreational uses of the area are identified in the PWA 

report as dispersed recreation. A number of user-created “2-track” trails and campsites 

exist within the area. Key attractions include outstanding views of the Little Colorado 

River, Painted Desert, and parts of the Grand Canyon from the top of the rim. The 

Coconino Rim provides topographical relief in a generally flat area. The current ROS

classification is SPNM.

Seegmiller – Seegmiller is a 6,168-acre area. Current recreational uses of the area are 

identified in the PWA report as hunting and limited dispersed recreation. Key attractions 

include a variety of cultural resources including habitation sites, rock art, prehistoric 

storage structures, and historic water developments. Much of this area is flat and remote, 

providing some opportunities for challenging recreation, particularly backpacking and 

hunting. The ROS is currently classified as semi-primitive motorized. 

South Canyon Point – South Canyon Point is a 5,829-acre area. Current recreational 

uses of the area are identified in the PWA report as activities associated with House Rock 

Wildlife Management Area. The House Rock Wildlife area has a free-ranging bison herd

managed by AGFD. Activities at the ranch include hiking, photo opportunities, wildlife 

viewing, and sport hunting. The opportunity for solitude or primitive and unconfined 

recreation is ranked as medium. The ROS for this area is semi-primitive motorized. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 231
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Willis Canyon – Willis Canyon is an area totaling 6,418 acres. Current recreational uses 

of the area are identified in the PWA report as hunting and limited dispersed camping. No 

key attractions have been identified. Due to its proximity to a nearby highway, the sights 

and sounds of civilization are likely. The ROS for this area is SPNM. 

Sycamore Canyon Addition – The Sycamore Canyon Addition, also known as 

Government Canyon, is a 988-acre area on the Williams Ranger District that is adjacent 

to a PWA under consideration by the Prescott National Forest. Current recreational uses 

of the area are identified in the PWA report as hunting and limited dispersed camping.

Although this area ranked “high” for capability and availability in the PWA evaluation 

process, due to its small size it was only to be recommended by the Kaibab NF for 

wilderness designation if the adjacent section on the Prescott NF was recommended in 

the Prescott’s revised forest plan. This portion of the Prescott NF was not included in 

their proposed action, so the Sycamore Canyon Addition is not recommended as a PWA 

under the Kaibab NF’s Alternative B (proposed action).

Table 37. Acres of proposed wilderness areas by alternative

Name of PWA Alt. A

Acres 

Alt. B

Acres

Alt. C

Acres

Alt. D

Acres

Kanab Creek Additions 0 4,710 4,710 4,710

Saddle Mountain Addition 0 1,296 1,296 1,296

Grassy and Quaking Aspen Canyon Additions 0 232 232 232

Jacks Canyon 0 156 156 156

Burro Canyon 0 0 10,735 10,735

Coconino Rim 0 0 7,750 7,750

Seegmiller 0 0 6,168 6,168

South Canyon Point 0 0 5,829 5,829

Willis Canyon 0 0 6,418 6,418

Sycamore Canyon Addition 0 0 988 988

Total Acres 0 6,394 43,294 43,294

Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences 

of Potential Wilderness Area Designation 

For the purposes of determining the effects of the alternatives on the recreation and wilderness 

resources in this analysis, the PWAs are examined as if they would be managed as wilderness 

areas. 

Alternative A – No Action Alternative, 

No New Wilderness Recommended

Alternative A represents the current management alternative, with no additional wilderness areas 

recommended. Alternative A, therefore, offers the least opportunity for expanded wilderness 

among the alternatives. An additional effect of this alternative is that the desire by a certain 

segment of the public for more wilderness on the Kaibab NF would not be fulfilled. Alternative A 

does, however, respond to the segment of the public that desires no additional wilderness and who 

232 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

prioritize nonwilderness uses and values, such as timber harvesting, road construction, recreation 

development, and the use of prescribed fire.

Alternative A would not convert any SPNM acres to wilderness. Wilderness is more restrictive 

than SPNM, as SPNM allows for future recreation development options such as rustic and 

rudimentary facilities with subtle site modifications. The forest plan also does not establish group 

size limits for SPNM. Those desiring semiprimitive type recreation with the ability to have rustic 

facilities and no group size limits would have the most opportunity under this alternative. 

Some of the existing wilderness boundaries in Kanab Creek Wilderness would continue to be 

difficult to identify on the ground.

Alternative B (Proposed Action): Wilderness

Alternative B contains about 6,394 acres of PWAs, all of which received a combined rating of at 

least high/medium capability and availability in the wilderness evaluation report. The 

recommended areas include the Kanab Creek Wilderness additions (4,710 acres), Saddle 

Mountain Wilderness addition (1,296 acres), Quaking Aspen and Grassy Canyon additions

(232 acres), and Jacks Canyon (156 acres). For more information on the wilderness evaluation 

process and identification of the preferred alternative, see appendix E. Table 38 displays the 

PWAs and acres for alternative B.

Table 38. Alternative B – acres and proposed wilderness areas

Name of PWA Acres

Kanab Creek Additions 4,710

Saddle Mountain Addition 1,296

Quaking Aspen and Grassy Canyon additions to Grand Canyon National Park 

Recommended Wilderness

232

Jacks Canyon 156

Total Acres 6,394

This alternative would increase the amount of land managed as wilderness on the Kaibab NF and

improve boundary recognition of the area managed for wilderness values. Boundaries that follow 

natural features—such as ridgelines and breaks in slope—help to facilitate on-the-ground location 

and management. Boundaries that are easy to define and locate, both on a map and on the ground, 

generally increase the manageability of wilderness as well as other special areas. 

Alternative B would provide better management of Kanab Creek Wilderness than alternative A, 

as the Kanab Creek Wilderness Addition would extend the west side of Kanab Creek Wilderness 

to conform to the Kaibab NF boundary. The smaller additions contained within the Kanab Creek 

Wilderness Additions on the east side of Kanab Creek Wilderness would also improve 

manageability by extending the boundary to well defined canyon rims.

Alternative B would also provide better management of Saddle Mountain Wilderness than 

alternative A as the Saddle Mountain Wilderness Addition would improve the boundary by 

placing it along an easily identifiable NFS road. The Grand Canyon National Park Recommended 

Wilderness Addition also makes the boundary more easily identifiable and more manageable in 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 233
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

alternative B than in alternative A, by moving the boundary from a not well marked 

administrative boundary to the rim of a prominent canyon.

Alternative B also addresses public concern for more wilderness than alternative A by 

recommending an additional 6,394 acres to the National Wilderness Preservation System. An 

additional effect of this alternative is that the desire by some segments of the public for more

wilderness on the Kaibab NF would be fulfilled. Alternative B, however, would not provide for as 

much wilderness as alternatives C and D.

Alternative B converts more acres of SPNM to wilderness than alternative A, but less than 

alternatives C and D. As mentioned, wilderness is more restrictive than SPNM. Therefore, 

alternative B provides fewer opportunities for future recreation development options than 

alternative A, but more than alternatives C and D. Additionally, rustic and rudimentary facilities 

and subtle site modifications that are allowed in SPNM would not be allowed in the PWAs. 

Group size limits would also be established in the PWAs subject to the wilderness group size limit 

established in the forest plan. Consequently, those desiring semiprimitive type recreation with the 

ability to have rustic facilities and no group size limits may be displaced to other SPNM settings 

on the forest. This alternative provides more opportunity for displacement than alternative A, but 

less than alternatives C and D. However, since this alternative adds small areas to existing 

designated wilderness, displacement to other SPNM areas is not anticipated to be high. 

Finally, Alternative B contains a guideline stating “activities in the section of Kanab Creek 

identified as eligible as wild in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory should improve or maintain its 

free-flowing condition and outstanding/remarkable values.” This would ensure the continued 

eligibility of this segment for designation under the Wild and Scenic River system. 

Alternatives C and D: Wilderness

Alternatives C and D would recommend the PWAs that were included in alternative B, plus six 

additional areas (see table 39). Like alternative B, the PWAs that were also proposed in 

alternatives C and D would improve the manageability of existing wilderness more than 

alternative A. The effects from adding the Kanab Creek Wilderness Additions, Saddle Mountain 

Wilderness Addition, and Grand Canyon National Park Recommended Wilderness Addition 

would be the same as described under alternative B in the previous section.

In addition to the areas identified in alternative B, alternatives C and D would add five areas, each 

of which is greater than 5,000 acres, and one area approximately 988 acres on the Williams 

Ranger District that is adjacent to a PWA on the Prescott National Forest. Due to its small size, 

this area would only be recommended by the Kaibab NF for wilderness designation if the 

adjacent section on the Prescott National Forest is recommended in the Prescott’s revised forest 

plan. 

Finally, Alternatives C and D contain a guideline stating “activities in the section of Kanab Creek 

identified as eligible as wild in the Nationwide Rivers Inventory should improve or maintain its 

free-flowing condition and outstanding/remarkable values.” This would ensure the continued 

eligibility of this segment for designation under the Wild and Scenic River system.

234 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 39. Alternatives C and D – acres and proposed wilderness areas

Name of PWA Alternatives C and D Acres

Kanab Creek Additions 4,710

Saddle Mountain Addition 1,296

Grand Canyon National Park Recommended Wilderness Addition 232

Jacks Canyon 156

Burro Canyon 10,735

Coconino Rim 7,750

Seegmiller 6,168

South Canyon Point 5,829

Willis Canyon 6,418

Government Canyon 988

Total Acres 44,126

Alternatives C and D add more PWAs than alternatives A and B. Consequently, alternatives C and 

D provide the most opportunities for a primitive and unconfined type of recreation than the other 

alternatives. 

Comparison of Alternatives: Wilderness

Alternatives C and D would provide the highest probability of solitude; alternatives A and B 

would provide the least in comparison. Additionally, alternatives C and D respond the most to 

those who desire more wilderness and the least to those who oppose additional wilderness. 

Alternative B would also fulfill this desire; however, it would be less than alternatives C and D. 

Alternative A does not fulfill this desire at all. 

Alternatives C and D would provide the most opportunity for wilderness experiences through 

increased acreage recommended for wilderness designation. Because of the increased opportunity 

for a wilderness experience under these alternatives, the greatest opportunity exists to reduce 

pressure and potential crowding in existing and proposed wilderness areas. By distributing 

wilderness use across more wilderness areas, the ability to protect wilderness character and values 

also increases. Alternative A does not propose any additional wilderness acreage and would do 

nothing to further disperse wilderness use. Under alternative B, dispersal of wilderness use would 

likely be negligible because of the nominal increase in wilderness, and because alternative B does 

not add new stand-alone areas. However, alternative B would provide more opportunities to 

disperse use than alternative A, but less than alternatives C and D.

Alternatives C and D would convert the most acres to wilderness. As mentioned, wilderness is 

more restrictive than nonwilderness SPNM. Therefore, alternatives C and D provide fewer 

opportunities for future recreation development options than alternatives A and B. Additionally, 

rustic and rudimentary facilities that are allowed in SPNM would not be allowed in the PWAs. 

Like alternative B, group size limits would also be established in the PWAs subject to the 

wilderness group size limit established in the forest plan. Consequently, those desiring 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 235
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

semiprimitive type recreation with the ability to have rustic facilities and no group size limits may 

be displaced to other SPNM settings on the forest. This may cause added pressure and increased 

potential for crowding in other SPNM areas. Alternatives C and D would result in the most 

potential for displacement over alternatives A and B. 

Management of Potential Wilderness 

Areas if Recommended as Wilderness

The areas recommended for wilderness in the plan decision would be managed under the 

Recommended Wilderness Management Area. The focus of this management area would be to 

manage these areas to protect wilderness characteristics pending legislation and designation, and 

to provide for existing uses where compatible with protecting wilderness character.

Under alternatives B, C, and D, use of motorized equipment and equipment used for mechanical 

transport would be prohibited as these uses are inconsistent with the Wilderness Act. The use of 

motor vehicles, motorboats, bicycles, hang gliders, wagons, carts, portage wheels, and the landing 

of aircraft including helicopters would not be allowed, except under special circumstances as 

analyzed and authorized following a minimum tool analysis. Dispersed recreation that includes 

nonmotorized and nonmechanized activities—such as hiking, backpacking, fishing, hunting, 

horseback riding, and cross-country skiing—would be allowed under these alternatives.

A primary effect to recreation under alternatives B, C, and D would result from eliminating 

motorized/mechanized equipment that may have been or may be used in the future for recreation 

maintenance and construction purposes in the PWAs as the use of chain saws and other 

motorized/mechanized types of maintenance and construction equipment are also prohibited in 

designated wilderness. Costs typically increase when more labor intensive equipment is used such 

as cross-cut saws versus chain saws. Consequently, the cost to maintain recreational use in the 

PWAs may increase if alternative B, C, or D is selected. Both alternatives C and D would 

potentially increase more than alternative B as there are more PWAs allocated to these 

alternatives. It is important to note that recreation maintenance may be needed whether or not 

there are designated trails or campsites in the PWAs. Maintenance may be needed to reduce 

impacts caused by human recreational use. This could come in the form of physical closures 

and/or rehabilitation activities.

Trail directional signing and marking would conform to wilderness sign standards. Under 

alternatives B, C, and D, existing signs and trail markers would need to be replaced or removed to 

meet wilderness standards. Wilderness designation may also warrant future public use restrictions 

by limiting visitor use and distribution including establishment of group size limits to preserve the 

wilderness character of the area, whereas if not designated, the areas would allow for greater 

visitor use and group size limits. Currently, there are no restrictions on group size within these 

areas. 

Recreation objectives for wilderness are to provide outstanding opportunities for solitude and a 

primitive and unconfined type of recreation. Areas proposed as wilderness under alternatives B, 

C, and D would allow no new facilities for user comfort. Also under the B, C, and D alternatives, 

group size limits established for existing wilderness areas in the revised forest plan would apply. 

Another primary effect of selecting alternative B, C, or D is that no commercial vegetation 

management activities would be allowed in PWAs to achieve healthy forest conditions or wildlife, 

recreation, and scenery management objectives identified in the revised forest plan. Vegetation 

236 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

management activities that include thinning and prescribed fire could occur and the use of 

mechanized equipment could be used for maintenance purposes if the areas are not designated as 

wilderness. There would be less opportunity for vegetation management in alternatives C and D 

than B, as there are more PWAs allocated to these alternatives. 

Potential wilderness areas may also have an impact on motorized and mechanized users in 

nonwilderness areas. As acreages of wilderness increase, acres available in nonwilderness for 

motorized and mechanized recreation would decrease. However, increases in future demand for 

recreation opportunities will likely have a greater impact on pressure and crowding on NFS lands 

than managing the PWAs as recommended wilderness.

Management of Potential Wilderness 

Areas if Not Recommended as Wilderness

If not recommended for wilderness designation, the forestwide desired conditions for vegetation 

and back-country recreation would apply to the PWAs. Vegetation management activities that 

make the areas suitable for timber production, as well as new road construction, are the primary 

activities that could alter the wilderness character of the areas. The following discussion 

addresses the effects to PWAs if not recommended as wilderness. 

The PWAs would be managed for SPNM back-country recreation. No bicycles or other 

mechanized recreational use equipment such as off-road motor vehicles and snowmobiles would 

be allowed. The landing of aircraft such as helicopters could potentially occur. Dispersed 

recreation that include nonmotorized and nonmechanized activities such as hiking, backpacking, 

fishing, hunting, horseback riding, and cross-country skiing would be allowed. 

The SPNM recreation classification allows for greater recreation use than wilderness designation

and provides opportunities for greater alteration of the land to manage and maintain trails, 

scenery, wildlife, and forest health conditions. Future planning for the areas if not designated as 

wilderness could result in increased opportunities for rustic development such as small dispersed 

campsites for hikers, as well as increased trail development opportunities including opportunities 

for bicycling. Designation of these areas as wilderness would eliminate or restrict future options 

for these types of recreation activities and improvements.

Although timber harvest and road construction management activities within the PWAs would be 

unlikely under any of the alternatives due to the fact that they are mostly steep and not part of the 

suitable timber base, these types of activities would diminish the apparent naturalness of the 

PWAs and the degree to which the area is without permanent improvements or human habitation, 

both of which are principal wilderness characteristics. Mechanical disturbances would also 

diminish opportunities for solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation, another principal 

characteristic of wilderness. Overall, mechanical disturbances would diminish the area’s 

capability to be managed as wilderness, and new road construction could eliminate an area’s 

potential for wilderness designation all together (see Potential Wilderness Inventory and 

Evaluation Report, KNF 2013f). The PWAs that would have the greatest impact from mechanical 

activities are those with high capability rankings, followed by those with medium and then low 

(see Potential Wilderness Inventory and Evaluation Report for more detail on capability).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 237
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Environmental Consequences for 

Wilderness

The cumulative effects discussion of potential wilderness area management areas occurs in the 

context of the National Wilderness Preservation System and other designated wilderness areas in 

Arizona. 

Alternative A

Only one designated wilderness area lies completely within the Kaibab NF (Saddle Mountain 

Wilderness). The majority of Kanab Creek Wilderness, about half of Kendrick Mountain 

Wilderness, and a small fraction of Sycamore Canyon Wilderness also lie within the boundaries 

of the Kaibab NF. 

No new wilderness on the forest could have a spatial displacement effect where people would 

find other locations for their wilderness experience because the forest has only one wilderness 

area completely located within the forest boundary. Viewed in the context of Arizona’s expansive 

wilderness public land base, increased pressure on existing wilderness caused by alternative A 

would likely be negligible. No new wilderness could be viewed as maximizing the region’s 

potential for SPNM recreation opportunities, as well as maintaining options for management that 

would be precluded by a wilderness designation.

Alternatives B, C, and D

The cumulative effects discussion of potential wilderness areas occurs in the context of public 

and private lands in Arizona that provides wilderness opportunities. Alternatives B, C, and D all 

provide opportunities for expanding the wilderness resource on the Kaibab NF and, subsequently, 

in the State. Outside of the forest, there are approximately 1.5 million acres in the National 

Wilderness Preservation System in Arizona. An additional 48 PWAs are within 100 air miles of 

the Kaibab NF boundary including 24 PWAs within BLM-administered lands, 23 PWAs on 

adjacent national forests (Tonto, Prescott, and Coconino National Forests), and 1 on NPSadministered lands. It is important to note that the above only addresses existing wilderness. The 

Prescott and Coconino National Forests are also completing a plan revision and may be 

recommending additional acres for wilderness designation.

Public land in Arizona is abundant, making the State uniquely capable of providing wilderness 

opportunities throughout the region. The question then becomes whether the region needs more 

wilderness opportunities, a topic on which the public is divided. While some would argue the 

current National Wilderness Preservation System land base is sufficient and any additions would 

detract from other competing uses, others feel wilderness-quality lands are disappearing to urban 

development and adding potential wilderness now represents the only permanent option for 

preserving wilderness before it disappears. Alternatives B through D address this regional 

wilderness resource situation by offering a range of potential wilderness additions.

Heritage Resources

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition) – Heritage Resources

The Kaibab NF is rich in historically and culturally significant heritage properties. To date, 

approximately 30 percent of the forest has been surveyed for heritage resources and over 9,600 

238 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

archaeological sites have been identified and documented. On the national level, the Kaibab NF

ranks second among national forests in the number of documented archaeological sites and third 

in the Nation in sites eligible for the National Register of Historic Places based on the data from 

the Forest Service INFRA database. Additional information regarding this section can be found in 

the Heritage and Tribal Relations Report (KNF 2012d).

These heritage properties are related to a long history of human occupation and use of the forest 

dating back at least 12,000 years. Such sites include preceramic lithic scatters associated with 

Archaic hunter-gatherers, pithouse and masonry structures associated with early farmers, historic 

sites related to Native American and early Anglo-European use of the area, numerous petroglyph 

and pictograph sites, and traditional cultural properties. To date, 44 historic properties on the 

Kaibab NF have been listed on the National Register of Historic Places for their historic 

significance and more than 2,400 additional sites have been determined to be eligible for 

inclusion in the National Register.

For decades, Kaibab NF archaeologists have monitored samples of archaeological sites before, 

during, and after project implementation. In rare cases, monitoring has shown isolated unintended 

impacts to heritage properties as a result of project implementation. However, in general terms 

project-specific mitigation measures have been largely successful in avoiding impacts to cultural 

resources. Furthermore, many impacts to heritage properties identified during monitoring are 

either associated with activities not related to agency actions, such as unmitigated off-road 

vehicular travel or recreational use, or to historic activities that were implemented prior to the 

National Historic Preservation Act.

In recent years, most adverse impacts to heritage resources have been caused by high-intensity, 

stand-replacing wildfire and increased erosion associated with such fires. The majority of 

archaeological sites on the forest are prehistoric and lack combustible features; these are 

considered to be nonfire sensitive under low- to moderate-intensity burning. However, all 

archaeological sites are susceptible to adverse impacts from high-intensity burning, as is well 

documented after the recent Warm (Reid et al. 2008) and Schultz Fires (Haines and Lyndon 

2010).

Environmental Consequences for Heritage Resources

Environmental Consequences for Heritage Resources: 

Alternative A – Current Plan, Current Management (No 

Action) 

The no action alternative would not alter the existing condition and would have no measurable 

direct effects on any heritage resources. However, current management does not address specific 

management issues related to traditional cultural properties (TCPs) included in the alternatives 

below. Furthermore, under the no action alternative, existing fuel loading and the high risk of a 

stand-replacing wildfire could have an indirect effect on heritage sites. Historic sites with 

wooden, glass, and other similar components (fire sensitive sites) would remain at the greatest 

risk from burning. All sites would remain at risk from increased erosion associated with highintensity fires. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 239
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Heritage 

Resources: Alternative B – Preferred Alternative

Alternative B would have no measurable direct effects on any heritage resources. However, 

alternative B includes additional direction related to TCPs, heritage resources, and culturally 

significant tribal resources that should result in improved management. For example, alternative 

B designates the Bill Williams Mountain TCP as a management area with specific guidance based 

partly on cultural concerns. This guidance includes standards and guidelines limiting snow 

making on Bill Williams Mountain and restricting the footprint of the existing ski area. Tribes 

have indicated that both ski area expansion and snow making would adversely impact the Bill 

Williams TCP. Red Butte is similarly designated as a management area due to cultural concerns. 

Of the existing alternatives, alternative B would result in the most rapid ecological restoration and 

reduction of fuels on historic sites, coupled with a comparatively lower risk of high-intensity fire 

across the landscape. Therefore, alternative B would result in quicker restoration to conditions 

favorable for cultural resources. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Heritage Resources: Alternatives C and D

Alternatives C and D would have no measurable direct effects on heritage resources. Alternatives

C and D are identical to alternative B in regard to additional direction related to TCPs, heritage 

resources, and culturally significant tribal resources, which should result in improved 

management. However, increased risks of high-intensity fire (and postfire erosion) associated 

with these alternatives would correlate with increased risks of unplanned adverse impacts to 

heritage resources. Therefore, alternatives C and D may result in indirect effects to heritage 

resources.

Alternatives C and D would recommend an additional 44,126 acres of PWAs on all three districts.

Of these PWAs, 7,852 acres have been previously surveyed for cultural resources and 234 

heritage properties have been identified. Burro Canyon, Kanab Creek, Houserock Valley, 

Sycamore Canyon, and the Coconino Rim are predicted to contain moderate to high densities of 

heritage resource sites based on existing survey data. However, several of these PWAs contain 

prominent geographic landscape features that are culturally significant to area tribes and may be 

eligible to the National Register of Historic Places as traditional cultural properties.

If human visitation to PWAs declines as a result of decreased access, decreased visitation may 

indirectly increase protection of cultural resources. Wilderness designation may also limit some 

undertakings that otherwise may impact cultural resources. However, no mechanical thinning 

would be permitted within PWAs. As with alternative C, a “burn only” management strategy is 

predicted to result in increased high-intensity fire and associated erosion, increasing potentially

indirect impacts to cultural resources, particularly in mixed conifer and pinyon-juniper 

woodlands.

The increased risks of high-intensity fire (and postfire erosion) associated with these alternatives

would correlate with increased risks of unplanned adverse impacts to heritage resources.

Therefore, alternatives C and D may result in indirect effects to heritage resources.

240 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative B may increase the risk of unplanned impacts to cultural resources due to increased 

mechanical thinning treatments. However, threats to cultural resources from uncharacteristic 

high-intensity wildfires far outweigh relatively minimal risks of unintended adverse impacts for 

project implementation. Therefore, increased restoration of the forest to minimize high-intensity 

wildfire under alternative B would have an overall beneficial effect that far outweighs potential 

adverse impacts. Higher risks of high-intensity fire associated with alternatives C and D may 

increase the potential for adverse impacts to cultural resources over time.

Cumulative Environmental 

Consequences for Heritage Resources

Archaeological Sites

The Kaibab NF manages for “no effect” or “no adverse effect” to cultural resources for all 

planned management activities. Monitoring data indicate that project activities, such as those 

related to ecological restoration work, may result in unplanned or inadvertent adverse impacts to 

cultural resources in rare cases. Such unplanned or inadvertent adverse impacts are addressed and 

mitigated on a case-by-case basis and are more than offset by the benefits of ecological 

restoration.

Traditional Cultural Properties and 

Traditional Use Areas

The Southwestern Region is a cultural landscape with a long history of occupation by numerous 

tribes. Places of historic traditional and cultural significance to these tribes (TCPs) and traditional 

resource collection areas (traditional use areas) are located across the landscape. Many of these 

TCPs and traditional use areas are located on nontribal lands including State, Federal, private, 

county, and city lands. 

Across this cultural landscape, there is a trend toward the degradation of places of traditional 

cultural importance. Every management decision that adversely impacts these places contributes 

to the cumulative loss of TCPs and traditional use areas across the region. The proposed plan

provides for proactive protection of known TCPs, important resources, and traditional use areas 

on the forest. Therefore, the proposed plan helps to offset the general loss of TCPs in the region 

by providing increased protection for local forest resources.

Livestock Grazing

Range management on the Kaibab NF has changed dramatically since the early 1900s. In the 

early days of the forest, grazing was largely unregulated and the range was typically grazed by 

cattle, sheep, and horses. During the 1930s, fences began to divide the forest into permitted 

grazing allotments. The peak of grazing was during World War II when Congress demanded as 

much protein as possible from national rangelands. Since the 1970s, livestock numbers have 

steadily declined and rangeland improvements have been put in place to improve livestock 

distribution. For additional detail and analysis pertaining to this section please see Appendix D, 

which discusses the grazing suitability and capability analyses conducted as a part of the plan 

revision process, and the Range Specialist Report (KNF 2013g).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 241
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Kaibab NF has 38 livestock grazing allotments, covering approximately 1,414,000 acres 

(92 percent) of the forest area. Areas not included in current permits include: Bill Williams 

Mountain/city of Williams, Kanab Creek, high recreational areas, and various livestock 

exclosures, primarily around wetland vegetation.

Permitted animal unit months (AUMs) have declined on the forest throughout the years. The 

following is a breakdown of permitted AUMs in the last 40 years: 1971 - 108,545; 1986 - 86,375; 

2002 – 73,541; 2009 – 64,351. Of the 64, 351 AUMs in 2009; 51,416 AUMs permitted in cattle, 

12,683 in sheep, and 252 in horses. The forest does not anticipate significant reductions in 

permitted numbers in the future. Livestock actual use in any given year is typically between 70

and 90 percent of permitted numbers. In drought years these numbers can be significantly lower. 

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition): Livestock Grazing

The Vegetation and Fire section of this chapter and supporting specialist report provide detailed 

information on the conditions and trends of the vegetation environment. 

Since 1992, all current range allotments on the Kaibab NF have been through a rigorous 

evaluation and NEPA process. Forage production has been properly matched with permitted 

livestock numbers. Adaptive management is being used to maintain and improve the rangeland 

resources.

Livestock grazing occurs throughout the forest on a wide variety of vegetation types from the 

upper elevation subalpine spruce-fir to lower elevation desert grasslands. Ecological conditions 

and trend of forage areas have been evaluated annually (utilization and actual use) and 

extensively (long-term monitoring sites) during the NEPA analysis for each allotment. The 

majority of long-term monitoring sites show an improvement in condition and trend since the 

1950s (district range allotment analysis files). The exception to this is where tree density has 

increased, which has resulted in a reduction in forage production.

Species composition has changed throughout this time period in a direct response to the amount 

and timing of moisture. From the 1950s to the early 1990s cool season grasses replaced warm 

season species with the increase in winter and spring moisture. Since the 1990s, warm season 

species have increased with a decrease in winter moisture and increase in summer moisture. 

Ground cover has increased with warm season species, primarily because blue grama is a sod 

forming species. 

Livestock are attracted to areas with high amount of forage and water. Wetlands, springs, and 

aspen stands on the Forest can be negatively affected by this use. Recent range NEPA analyses 

have addressed issues in these areas, but the forest will continue to evaluate livestock effects in 

sensitive portions of the forest.

Description of Alternatives

Alternative A, No Action (Current Plan)

Alternative A continues to use adaptive management to balance livestock numbers with forage 

capacity.

242 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Action Alternatives B, C, and D

Alternatives B, C, and D also would use adaptive management to balance livestock numbers with 

forage capacity. In addition, the following desired conditions and guidelines were added to 

provide more specific direction. The action alternatives also include plan components for 

restoring fire adaptive ecosystems, restoring grasslands, and providing protection to aspen, 

wetlands, and springs.

Desired Conditions for Livestock Grazing for 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

• There are opportunities to engage in ranching activities and graze livestock on NFS lands. 

These activities contribute to the stability and social, economic, and cultural aspects of 

rural communities.

• Grasses and forbs provide adequate forage for permitted livestock 

• Livestock use is consistent with other desired conditions.

• Allotment fencing allows for passage of animals susceptible to movement restrictions 

such as pronghorn.

Guidelines for Livestock Grazing for 

Alternatives B, C, and D 

• Livestock management should favor the development of native cool season grasses and 

forbs.

• As grazing permits are waived back to the forest, they should be evaluated for conversion 

to forage reserves to improve flexibility for restoring fire-adapted ecosystems and in 

response to other range management needs.

• New construction and reconstruction of fences should have a barbless bottom wire that is 

at least 18 inches high to facilitate pronghorn movement.

• Annual operating instructions for livestock grazing permittees should ensure livestock 

numbers are balanced with capacity and address any relevant resource concerns (e.g., 

forage production, weeds, fawning habitat, soils, etc.). 

• Grazing of domestic sheep and goats should not be authorized on the Tusayan and North 

Kaibab Ranger Districts due to the proximity of bighorn sheep in Grand Canyon and 

Kanab Creek to prevent the spread of disease between domestic and wild populations.

• Post-fire grazing should not be authorized until Forest Service range staff confirms range 

readiness. 

• Livestock use in aspen areas should be authorized at levels that are consistent with the 

desired conditions for aspen regeneration and establishment. 

• Livestock use in and around wetlands should be evaluated on an allotment specific basis. 

Mitigation measures such as deferment and fencing (full or partial) should be 

implemented as needed to minimize potential livestock effects. 

• The concentrated use of montane meadows for livestock grazing should be minimized 

when soils are saturated to reduce grassland impacts. When no other options are 

available, use should be rotated annually. 

• The term permit for the Rain Tank grazing allotment should be first offered to the 

Havasupai Tribe if one becomes available.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 243
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Livestock Grazing

Environmental Consequences Common to 

All Alternatives

All alternatives would continue to provide for continued availability of forage for domestic 

livestock and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired conditions.

Livestock grazing under all alternatives would be managed with adaptive management to match 

livestock numbers with annual forage production. The Kaibab NF would continue to keep grazing 

at conservative use levels, which should provide for plant integrity, density, diversity, and 

regeneration over time, as well as forage availability for all species (livestock and wildlife).

All alternatives would use adaptive management to address climate change, but climate change is 

specifically addressed in the action alternatives. Climate change is expected to affect forage 

conditions on the forest. The adaptive management used in allotment management planning 

allows for adjustments in the number of livestock and season of pasture use so that livestock use 

matches forage production for every grazing season. The Forest Service has given regional and 

forest direction of use of rangelands after a drought to ensure health of this forage resource.

The impact of livestock grazing to riparian habitat at wetlands and springs would be analyzed in 

all new range NEPA projects on the forest. If substantial negative effects cannot be mitigated 

through grazing management practices (i.e., herding and grazing deferment when the areas are 

wet), then livestock exclosures may be necessary. These exclosure areas would likely not be 

available for forage, but are not big enough to reduce stocking rates in a pasture. The use of water 

by livestock at these exclosures is mitigated with alternative water sources, providing lanes to the 

water, or piped to a livestock drinker.

The impact of livestock grazing to aspen would be analyzed in all new range NEPA projects on 

the forest. If it is found that livestock are having a significant effect on a clone, the clone will 

likely be fenced or adjustments in grazing management will be made, i.e., seasonal deferrals of 

pastures, reduction in pasture graze periods, or reduction in livestock numbers. These exclosures 

areas would likely not be available for forage, but are not big enough to reduce stocking rates in a 

pasture.

Under all alternatives, dispersed recreation, firewood gathering, wildfires, roads, OHV use, and 

elk grazing can also affect the forage resources. The intensity of these effects varies throughout 

the forest depending on the intensity of these activities. When conflicts arise from these uses that 

threaten the long-term condition and trend of forage resources, the forest will look for multipleuse solutions that properly balance these effects.

Environmental Consequences for Livestock 

Grazing: Alternative A – Current Plan, Current 

Management (No Action)

Alternative A would maintain the current level of vegetation treatments and fire, which would 

result in an increase in tree density on the forest, reducing the amount of understory vegetation. 

This reduction in understory vegetation would reduce the amount of forage available to livestock. 

Over time, livestock numbers would be reduced until the number of trees decreased.

244 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Livestock 

Grazing: Action Alternatives B, C, and D

The action alternatives (alternatives B, C, and D) would decrease tree density by mechanical 

harvest and prescribed burning. This would have a long-term beneficial effect to livestock grazing 

by increasing the amount of available forage. This increase in forage within existing treed areas 

increases livestock distribution in pastures, which reduces use on more typical grazing areas like 

meadows. Improved livestock distribution would improve conditions throughout each pasture.

Prescribed burning and natural fires remove forage available to livestock in the short term until 

the forage plants can regrow, typically within one year. Grazing management can be affected by 

this burning and would likely be adjusted by changing pasture rotations, livestock numbers, or 

livestock season of use on a grazing allotment. Livestock in this situation would need another 

location to graze.

The action alternatives increase the amount of forage available to livestock over the long term 

through plan direction of reducing tree densities by harvesting and prescribed burning. Short-term 

reductions would occur as a result of burning, but this would be offset with the long term increase 

in forage.

The impact of livestock grazing to riparian habitat would be analyzed in all new range NEPA 

projects on the forest. This analysis will likely increase the amount of exclosures around wetland 

and spring riparian areas. These exclosure areas would likely not be available for forage, but are 

not big enough to reduce stocking rates in a pasture. The use of water by livestock at these 

exclosures is mitigated with alternative water sources, providing lanes to the water, or piped to a 

livestock drinker.

Comparison of Alternatives

Alternative B would provide for the biggest increase in forage and best distribution of livestock. 

The guideline for large tree retention in alternatives C and D somewhat hinders the creation of 

interspaces and results in a denser canopy, and thus the forest would be less open, resulting is 

slightly less forage. Alternatives C and D would also result in higher susceptibility to 

uncharacteristic crown fires, which could result in large areas being unavailable for grazing. 

Alternative A would result an increase in tree density, increased risk of uncharacteristic wildfire, 

and reduced forage production over time. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Livestock Grazing

The cumulative environmental consequences for a programmatic forest plan also consider lands 

managed by other entities in the area and describe the relative contribution of the forest plan

decision when considering surrounding landscape with other similarly scaled planning efforts and 

opportunities. 

The cumulative effects area for range includes the 6th-code watersheds on the Kaibab NF that 

contain the grazing allotments (see the Watersheds and Soils section of this chapter). The forest 

occupies an average of about half of each of the watersheds that the Kaibab NF intersects, with 

several wholly contained within the forest boundary and the minimum occupancy of a single 

watershed being less that 0.01 percent. These watersheds are the appropriate scale because the 

effects from grazing on the forest follow these watersheds. Cattle grazing effects on forest 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 245
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

allotments and other allotments within these watershed areas affect vegetation by reducing plant 

height, canopy cover, and ground cover.

The timeframe for these combined effects is 10 years in the future because changes in condition 

and trend in the vegetation depend on the presence of favorable growing conditions after cattle 

leave the pasture. If growing conditions are favorable, plant height and canopy cover would 

completely recover within 1 year. If growing conditions are not favorable, plant recovery would 

occur more slowly (up to 2 to 3 years). Vegetation recovery from the other activities and natural 

events may take this long, depending on climate.

The cumulative effects area off the forest is primarily private, State of Arizona, BLM, Navajo 

Tribe, Havasupai Tribe, and NPS. Livestock grazing occurs in the majority of these areas except 

within Grand Canyon National Park. Private lands within communities are not typically grazed by 

livestock except for by horses. Private lands outside of communities typically provide forage for 

smaller livestock operations, but can support larger livestock operators when the private land is in 

larger blocks. These larger private blocks of lands are typically used for winter grazing for the 

forest’s permitted livestock. State lands are also typically used for winter grazing of the forest’s 

permitted livestock. The BLM has both year-round grazing and winter grazing. Winter grazing is 

also from forest permitted livestock. Both the Navajo and Havasupai Tribes graze cattle and 

horses on their lands, which are owned by individual tribal members. There are no indications 

that livestock use within these areas is going to change much over the next 10 years.

Vegetative treatments, primarily burning and thinning of trees, would occur on these other lands. 

These types of treatments would increase forage for livestock and improve rangeland conditions 

in these areas.

Livestock grazing under the action alternatives would provide for continued availability of forage 

for domestic livestock and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired 

conditions in the plan. Because an adaptive management strategy is used to adjust use with 

capacity and minimize any adverse effects, the cumulative consequences associated with 

continued grazing use are minimal. The expected relative significance of the implementation of 

the action alternatives’ plan decisions within the context of the greater landscape would be a 

slight increase in available forage with minimal consequences to other resources and continued 

opportunities to graze livestock in northern Arizona.

Transportation 

Information related to the forest road system was obtained from the Infra Database (I-Web), the 

database of record for the transportation system and facilities, and from the Kaibab NF

Geographic Information System (GIS). GIS is a spatial tool and is linked to the Infra Database.

The data includes, but is not limited to, miles of roads, maintenance levels of roads, features of 

the roads (culverts, grade dips, cattleguards, etc.), road management objectives, maintenance 

items, and costs. This data reflects the current motorized transportation system and administrative 

facilities to the best of our available knowledge, how the forests have been managing the 

motorized transportation system and administrative facilities, and how the public has been using 

the motorized transportation system. Additional information can be found in the transportation 

specialist report (KNF 2011a).

246 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition): Transportation

The transportation system within the planning area consists of roads and trails that provide people 

with access to public lands and to private inholdings. Virtually every activity that takes place 

within the planning area uses the transportation system, including outdoor recreation, wildfire 

management, livestock and wildlife management, natural resource development, private 

inholding access, and electronic communication sites and utility corridor maintenance, as well as 

the management and monitoring of NFS lands. 

Motorized travel on the forest has evolved over time. Historically, the road system on the Kaibab 

NF was constructed for commodity access, primarily timber, livestock production, mining, and 

administration. Some roads were used to access points of interest or areas used for specific 

activities, such as hunting and camping. While the transportation system continues to provide 

access for administration of the forest, the majority of use today is for public recreation and 

vegetation management activities.

The primary forest road system for the forest has already been established. The motorized

transportation system is composed of about 480 miles of roads open only to highway-legal 

vehicles (maintenance level 3 through 5), 4,110 miles of roads open to all motorized vehicles 

(maintenance level 2), 1,646 miles of roads closed to all motorized vehicles (maintenance level 

1), and 323 miles of trails open to motorized vehicles less than 50 inches wide. Three NFS roads 

are designated as forest highways in the Kaibab NF. The miles of open motorized transportation 

system include roads with access restricted on a seasonal basis. Roads may be closed during 

extreme weather conditions for public safety and to minimize resource damage. 

Generally, new road construction may occur when access to a particular resource or private 

inholding is needed. These roads may be permanent, if intended for long-term use, or they may be 

temporary for a short-term use and then obliterated. Any adjustments to the road network would 

be made as necessary at the project planning level. Temporary roads have been used for 

vegetation management activities where permanent roads are not needed for future access. 

The Travel Management Rule (November 9, 2005, 36 CFR 212.51) requires that each national 

forest designate a system of roads, trails, and areas for motor vehicle use by vehicle class and, if 

appropriate, by time of year. The rule addresses any future proliferation of unauthorized routes by 

prohibiting cross-country motorized travel, except in designated areas and for designated uses. 

The designation of specific routes, trails, and areas for motorized vehicle travel is not within the 

scope of the plan revision process. Motorized vehicle travel has been analyzed in separate 

environmental assessments for each District. The Kaibab NF continually reviews these analyses 

in response to feedback provided by the public. 

Over the last few decades, funding has not been sufficient to maintain all NFS roads and NFS 

motorized trails to appropriate standards to meet the road management objective level. Generally, 

the funding received has been focused on maintaining higher standard roads that serve multipleaccess needs. There is currently a backlog of road maintenance referred to as deferred 

maintenance, tasks that are the cumulative total of all annual maintenance tasks that are not 

accomplished as needed or scheduled. These maintenance items include, but are not limited to,

surfacing, drainage and drainage structures, and closure structures.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 247
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for 

Transportation

Environmental Consequences Alternative A –

Current Plan, Current Management (No Action)

In alternative A, management of motorized transportation would continue under management area

specific goals, objectives, standards, and guidelines in the 1988 forest plan (as amended), which 

were driven primarily by timber harvesting. There are no specific objectives to identify miles of 

unauthorized routes to be decommissioned (e.g., recontoured and/or revegetated in riparian areas) 

and no specific objectives to improve, obliterate/decommission, recontour, or revegetate system 

roads in riparian areas. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Transportation: Action Alternatives B, C, and D 

The action alternatives (B, C, and D) all contain direction for roads and motorized trails that 

include specific objectives within the planning period to maintain and obliterate roads. All 

motorized route construction and maintenance would be done in accordance with applicable 

Forest Service handbooks and manuals, standards and guidelines, BMPs, laws, regulations, and 

policy. Decommissioning of identified unneeded NFS roads for current or future use would occur 

by recontouring, ripping, and seeding, as appropriate.

Both mechanical and fire treatments are planned for the action alternatives (B, C, and D). All 

alternatives would use a mix of mechanical treatment and fire. Mechanical treatments may 

require more reconstruction (e.g., curve widening, hardened drainage crossings) of roads to 

accommodate the design needs of the critical vehicle to perform mechanical treatment than fire 

treatments would require. Mechanical treatment may also require more construction of temporary 

roads during the treatment period to access the treatment areas than treatment by fire. This may 

result in mechanical treatment having a higher cost per acre due to motorized access costs. Under 

alternative C, there would be less need for temporary roads over the long term on the North 

Kaibab Wilderness Habitat Complex Management Area (approximately 260,000 acres of 

ponderosa and mixed conifers in the North Kaibab Ranger District), because the desired 

conditions for vegetation would primarily be maintained with fire. Under alternative D this would 

be true forestwide.

Cumulative Environmental Consequences

for Transportation

The bounds of the cumulative effects analysis are the adjoining national forests, Arizona State 

Highways that access and traverse the Kaibab NF, counties encompassing the Kaibab NF, and the 

designated forest highways on the Kaibab NF.

The Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI), a landscape-scale restoration activity to reduce the 

threat of high-intensity, potentially destructive fires on a significant number of acres on the 

Apache-Sitgreaves, Coconino, Kaibab, and Tonto NF s, could impact the forest transportation 

system to access the western side of the Coconino National Forest for treatments and/or removal 

of biomass. Use of these roads for access to the treatment areas and biomass removal on the west 

side of the Coconino National Forest would result in increased traffic and a need for more 

248 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

frequent road maintenance. The increase in traffic and the different types of vehicles could 

require improvement of the road to accommodate these activities safely. 

The Arizona Department of Transportation 2012 – 2016 Tentative Five-Year Transportation 

Facilities Construction Program in the vicinity of or on the Kaibab NF does not consist of any 

activities that are expected to increase or decrease the amount of access to the Kaibab NF. 

Arizona Department of Transportation road improvements could facilitate an increase in forest 

visitors, as the driving time to the forest from other urban areas decreases as a result of these 

improvements. This potential increase of forest visitors using the forest motorized transportation 

system could result in more frequent road maintenance needs.

Forest Lands

The acquisition and disposal of national forest managed lands are designed to consolidate interest 

and management of the Federal estate to enhance public benefit, and to consolidate the 

management and ownership of Federal, State, and private lands within the proclaimed forest 

boundary. The establishment of rights-of-way throughout the forest is needed to create easy 

accessibility to both public and private lands within the proclaimed boundary of the national 

forest. 

The rules and regulations that govern rights-of way and land acquisition/disposal are dictated by 

congressional acts or laws and legislation are beyond the discretion of the land management plan.

The guidance that is given in the Forest Service manuals and handbooks is based on this 

legislation and resulting regulations, along with interpretation of the laws by Federal courts. 

Management direction is located in FSM 5420 Land Purchases and Donations, FSM 5430 

Exchanges, FSM 5460 Right-of-Way Acquisition and FSH 5409.13, FSH 5409.17. The boundary 

line program management direction is located in FSM 7150. More information on forest lands 

can be found in the Forest Lands Specialist Report (KNF 2011b).

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition): Forest Lands

Currently, 38,200 acres are under private ownership within the Kaibab NF. The majority of these 

parcels are located on the Williams Ranger District in the vicinity of the communities of 

Williams, Ash Fork, and Parks. The Tusayan Ranger District has approximately 3,000 acres of 

private inholdings and the North Kaibab Ranger District has close to 60 acres. 

The Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts contain established communities within their 

boundaries, including the newly designated town of Tusayan. A number of the larger parcels in 

these communities are no longer desirable for acquisition by the forest due to the fact that they 

have been subdivided and developed (mostly for housing). The Tusayan Ranger District has a 

number of small inholdings scattered across the district. The majority of them are old ranches and 

homesteads which are undeveloped and still exhibit the characteristics of the surrounding forest.

The North Kaibab Ranger District is almost entirely government-owned but contains two small 

parcels totaling 39 acres under State ownership, and two parcels under private ownership (19 

acres adjacent to Jacob Lake and 38 acres of Kane Ranch in the House Rock Valley of the east 

edge of the district).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 249
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Environmental Consequences for Forest Lands

Environmental Consequences Common to All Alternatives 

Under all alternatives, particular tracts or national forest lands are identified for exchange to meet 

the needs for community expansion in the vicinity of Tusayan, Parks, Ash Fork, and Williams. 

The tracts of land that are identified for exchange are independent of the alternatives. Other 

program funding provides for the acquisition of rights-of-way. The continuation of the land 

ownership boundary line management program is also independent of the alternatives. Under all 

the alternatives, there would be continued efforts to consolidate land ownership within the forest 

boundary and establish new rights-of-way, which would benefit both private landowners and 

Federal land management. The elimination of small isolated inholdings and outholdings within 

the forest would simplify management activities and treatments of the national forest. The need to 

acquire rights-of-way for road and trail access is reduced with a consolidated land pattern.

Environmental Consequences for Forest Lands: 

Alternative A – Current Plan, Current Management 

(No Action)

Within alternative A (the current forest plan), the lands and realty management sections are 

redundant from one management area to another, or reiterate direction that comes from the Forest 

Service manuals and handbooks. The plan identifies specific inholdings for acquisition and tracts 

of national forest that are suitable for exchange with the goal of land ownership consolidation to 

improve management efficiency. A number of these properties have been acquired or exchanged, 

while others have been developed and no longer meet the criteria for lands that are desirable. The 

need to acquire rights-of-way across State and private property is still a concern. As ownership 

patterns change within the boundaries of the forest, access to national forest-managed lands will 

remain an issue. 

Environmental Consequences for Forest Lands 

Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D

In order to reduce the redundancy between the management areas in the plan and to remove the 

verbiage from the forest plan that repeats other relevant laws, regulations, and policy, much of the 

language regarding land consolidation in these alternatives has been changed or dropped. The list 

of property has changed from the 1988 plan to the 2008 review of ownership. None of the 

alternatives is expected to have an effect on the Kaibab National Forest lands program. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Forest Lands

The geographic area of analysis for cumulative impacts to forest lands is the Kaibab NF and 

adjacent lands. The forest is located within three counties in Arizona: Coconino, Yavapai, and 

Mohave. The vast majority of it lies within Coconino County. Only 13.3 percent of Coconino 

County is privately owned. American Indian reservations (Navajo, Hopi, Kaibab-Paiute, 

Havasupai, and Hualapai) cover 38.1 percent of the land area. Just over 40 percent of the county is 

under Federal ownership. The Kaibab NF shares common boundaries with mostly Federal and 

tribal managed lands. 

Less than 2 percent of the forest is contained in Yavapai County, but the majority of this county is

owned and managed by Federal and State agencies. The Forest Service maintains 38 percent, the 

250 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

BLM controls 10.5 percent, and Arizona State Trust Lands manages 25 percent of the county’s 

land area. The remaining 26 percent of Yavapai County is privately owned (Yavapai County 2003).

Approximately 0.5 percent of the forest lies in Mohave County. Most of this land is located within 

Kanab Creek Wilderness; the rest of the forest within the county is being recommended for 

wilderness. Due to the small number of Kaibab NF acres in Mohave County, there are no impacts 

from the forest plan revision in this area.

The lands programs for the Kaibab, Coconino, and Prescott NF s have the same general 

requirements and the same relevant laws, regulations, and policies that apply to management of 

Federal lands. The acquisition of inholdings and the exchange of isolated Federal parcels would 

result in a consolidation of land ownership within national forest managed lands and improve land 

management objectives and activities. The Arizona Strip General Management Plan of 2007 (BLM 

portion of the plan; BLM 2008) has very similar guiding laws, regulations, and policies as the 

Forest Service. The consolidation of Federal lands to improve management activities is also a goal 

in their management plan. 

The Arizona State Land Department has a significant amount of State Trust property adjacent to 

the forest and has a different mission for its management. It manages State Trust lands and 

resources to enhance value and optimize economic return for the trust beneficiaries in a manner

consistent with sound stewardship, conservation, and business management principles supporting 

socioeconomic goals for citizens here today and generations to come.

The Navajo Nation and Havasupai Reservation adjoin the Tusayan Ranger District of the forest.

The Navajo Nation was established in 1868, and is the largest reservation in the United States. It is 

located east of the district. The Havasupai Reservation is located northwest of the district. Both of 

these areas are open to tribal members only and are managed by the local governments of these 

two Native American nations with oversight by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The reservations are 

closed to land ownership by nontribal members and any development is overseen by the tribal 

government and BIA. 

The availability of private lands in and around the forest is very limited, with private land parcels 

being isolated and widely dispersed outside of the areas around Parks, Williams, Tusayan, and 

Ash Fork. The consolidation of land available for private ownership in or around these towns 

would improve access for roads and utilities to the parcels. Future growth and development of

adjacent non-Federal lands is expected to result in increased requests for special use 

authorizations, Educational Land Grant Act and Townsite Act application for schools, fire 

stations, wastewater facilities, transfer stations, and the like. As Federal land management 

agencies acquire isolated private inholdings within their legislated boundaries, the efficiency of 

managing these areas increases due to the presence of fewer right-of-way and other incumbencies 

across the greater landscape. 

Special Uses

More information on special uses can be found in the Special Uses Specialist Report (KNF 

2011c).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 251
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition) 

Special use permits authorize services that support the Forest Service mission and meet the needs 

of the public. Permits are a partnership between the Forest Service and private businesses and 

individuals to provide services and facilities. Special uses authorize occupancy and use of NFS

lands for appropriate, safe activities that meet demonstrated public needs when consistent with 

the desired conditions for the specific area. The Kaibab NF has issued over 300 special use 

permits for a variety of uses, including resorts, research, pipelines, storage yards, a golf course, 

airport, cell towers, wells, roads, power lines, and wildlife waters.

Permits may be short term, such as for recreation events or noncommercial group uses, or longer 

term such as resorts and electronic sites. National emphasis on energy development and 

transmission is expected to grow, as are communications site proposals. As the demand for 

alternative power sources continues to grow, many companies would likely look to Federal lands 

as a possible location for wind and solar farms. To determine the need to establish transmission 

line corridors to connect these new energy generating sources, the existing system was reviewed 

and evaluated in the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS.

The effects of major development projects such as for utilities and transportation systems would 

be addressed on a site specific basis and mitigated individually following the Forest Service 

policy regarding special uses. Mitigations are typically accomplished by consolidating new 

developments along existing routes and corridors, or by construction techniques that disturb less 

land and improve reclamation success. 

Description of Alternatives

Most of the direction for special uses comes from the Forest Service manuals and handbooks and,

therefore, applies to all alternatives. The existing law, regulation, and policy governing special 

uses can be found in the Forest Service Manual, FSM2700, and Forest Service Handbook, 

FSH2709.11, 2709.12, and 2709.14, which are independent from the forest plan and its 

alternatives. The special uses program is managed to be consistent with the plan components for 

other resource areas (e.g., heritage, wildlife, etc.).

Alternative A – Current Plan, Current Management 

(No Action)

The current forest plan contains redundant direction from one management area to another. Most

of the direction in the plan reiterates existing direction from the Forest Service manuals and 

handbooks. The goals for the program are to administer special uses to best meet public needs 

and to minimize the number of electronic sites and utility corridors that require the use of forest 

lands. The management direction for special uses is to provide timely evaluation, administration, 

and termination of special land use authorizations.

Elements Common to the Action Alternatives

Much of the redundant language has been eliminated between the management areas in the action 

alternatives. Additionally, the direction found in existing law, regulation, and policy is referenced 

in the action alternatives, but no longer repeated. All action alternatives would manage special 

uses consistent with the plan components for other resource areas (e.g., heritage, wildlife, etc.). 

252 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The action alternatives contain a guideline that all new communication sites should have a 

communication site management plan in place prior to the start of operations and must be 

consistent with the forest land management plan. This would set a specific timeframe for the 

forest to comply with Forest Service Handbook direction. Also in the action alternatives, the 

establishment of major utility corridor development is confined to the area identified and mapped 

in the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS, an addition to the forest plan.

Environmental Consequences for Special 

Uses 

Environmental Consequences Common to All 

Alternatives

Prior to authorization being granted for any special use, proposals are assessed using an 

interdisciplinary approach to address potential resource conflicts with the proposed project or 

service. The establishment of energy transmission corridors in the West-Wide Programmatic EIS 

has defined the width (3,500 feet) and location (center of the existing transmission line easement) 

for the forest. These corridors are open to both pipeline and transmission line development and 

would require project/site specific NEPA analysis. The management area for the West-wide 

Corridor makes it easier for planners, specialists, stakeholders, and the public to find the direction 

for this area. Additionally, the establishment of a management area allows for further site specific 

guidance for the area to be developed as needed.

Environmental Consequences for Special Uses

for Alternative A – Current Plan, Current 

Management (No Action)

Under the current plan, there is no direction for the development or implementation of 

communication site plans on new electronic sites. The lack of a timeframe for completing the site 

plan could result in incompatible uses being permitted in the same electronic site, such as the 

mixing of high-power tenants (FM radio station) and low-power tenants (cell phone site) which 

can result in interference with each other’s operations.

Environmental Consequences for Special Uses 

Common to Action Alternatives B, C, and D

The action alternatives contain a guideline that all new communication sites should have a site 

management plan in place prior to the start of operations. This site management plan must be 

consistent with the forest land management plan. This guideline would improve management 

efficiency, oversight, and compliance with the current policy. This additional requirement has no 

effect on the review, reissuance, or permitting of special use projects. 

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Special Uses

The geographic area of analysis for cumulative impacts to special uses is the planning area and 

lands adjacent to the forest boundary. The forest is located within three counties in Arizona, with 

the vast majority (97 percent) located in Coconino County. Coconino County is the largest county 

in Arizona and the second largest in the United States, but it is one of the most sparsely 

populated. Only 13.3 percent of the county is privately owned. Native American reservations 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 253
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(Navajo, Hopi, Kaibab-Paiute, Havasupai, and Hualapai) cover 38.1 percent of the land area. 

Federal and State agencies manage the rest of the county’s lands—the Forest Service (28.3 

percent), BLM (5 percent), State Land Department (9.5 percent), and National Park Service (6.8 

percent) (Coconino County 2003). Just over 40 percent of the county is under Federal ownership. 

A much smaller portion of the forest (less than 2 percent) is in Yavapai County. The majority of 

this county is also owned and managed by Federal and State agencies. The remaining 26 percent

of Yavapai County is privately owned property (Yavapai County 2003). Although this segment of 

the forest is small, the West-wide Energy Corridor and State Highway 89 run through it, and 

Highway 89 is used for access to private lands adjacent to the forest boundary. 

The lack of private land has resulted in the need to use public lands as the source or location for 

public works and utilities. With the exception of applications for transmission lines and 

distribution facilities that utilize the West-wide Energy Corridor locations, the Forest Service 

Manual requires that, the forest must consider whether the proposed use can reasonably be 

accommodated on lands of other ownership. Private lands may provide opportunities for requests 

such as wind and solar power, small distribution lines, etc., but not for other activities that would 

require large continuous land bases such as for hunting, tours, and access/utilities for inholdings.

The special use programs for the Kaibab, Coconino, and Prescott NF s have the same general 

requirements as they are guided by the same laws, regulations, and policies. The management of 

the special use programs are likely to vary between the forests due to differing concerns or needs 

of each areas’ resource management. The Arizona Strip General Management Plan of 2007 (BLM 

portion of the plan; BLM 2008) follows similar laws, regulations, and policies as the Forest 

Service.

Some restrictions to special use authorizations would be required to meet the desired conditions, 

standards, and guidelines for other resource areas addressed in the action alternatives in the forest 

plan. The addition of the West-wide Energy Corridor Programmatic EIS to the forest plan has 

identified the few locations for new major pipelines and transmission lines crossing the Kaibab

NF. The cumulative consequences of any of the proposed alternatives for the forest plan would 

not be significant as they would have little to no effect on the activities and opportunities for 

these types of uses across the greater landscape. Cumulative impacts to special uses could occur 

through changes in the designation and development of land resources and the need for access.

The presence of threatened, endangered, and sensitive species and historical/archaeological 

features and concerns may preclude the issuance of some authorizations and place restrictions on 

others.

Minerals and Mining Activities

Minerals management differs from managing renewable forest resources such as timber, wildlife, 

or recreational opportunities. First, management of mineral resources on the Kaibab NF is 

determined in part by the type of mineral ownership (Federal minerals, reserved minerals, 

outstanding minerals, or any combination thereof). Second, minerals are difficult to locate and 

inventory. Third, development of mineral resources depends greatly on local, national, and global 

markets. Finally, mineral resources are not renewable. More information on minerals and mining 

can be found in the Minerals and Mining Specialist Report (KNF 2012e).

Minerals of economic interest are classified as leasable, locatable, or salable. Coal, oil shale, 

phosphate, potash, sodium, geothermal resources, and all other minerals that may be acquired 

254 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

under the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, are referred to as leasable minerals. 

Common varieties of sand, stone, gravel, pumicite, and clay that may be acquired under the 

Materials Act of 1947 are considered salable minerals or mineral materials. Any minerals that are 

not salable or leasable, such as gold, silver, copper, tungsten, and uranium, are referred to as 

locatable minerals. These mineral deposits include most metallic mineral deposits and certain 

nonmetallic and industrial minerals. Locatable minerals are subject to the Mining Law.

Most of the direction for mining activities is found in existing law, regulation, and policy. As a 

result, the forest plan provides only minimal direction with regard to minerals. The legal 

framework that governs minerals (leasable, salable, and locatable) is the result of congressional 

legislation and court decisions made since the General Mining Law of May 10, 1872. The 

leasable minerals on NFS lands that are subject to the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 are under the 

jurisdiction of the BLM and Secretary of the Interior. An interdepartmental agreement exist that 

states that all applications to lease Forest Service-managed lands would be referred to the Forest 

Service for review, recommendations, or consent, and special stipulations to protect the surface 

and subsurface functions. The Secretary of the Interior has historically followed these 

recommendations in granting leases on NFS-managed lands. Locatable minerals, and the mining 

claims upon which they may be located, are restricted to Forest Service lands that are classified as 

“public domain lands open to mineral entry.” Locatable minerals on acquired lands may fall 

under the Mineral Leasing Act, but the leasing of these minerals is at the discretion of the forest. 

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition): Minerals and Mining

The vast majority of Kaibab NF lies within the Colorado Plateau physiographic province. The 

portion of the Colorado Plateau province that includes the planning area is characterized by 

predominantly sedimentary rock exposures; a regular, gently dipping surface; and plateaus over 

7,000 feet above mean sea level that have been incised in some places to depths over 5,000 feet 

by the tributaries of the Colorado River. The Colorado Plateau is known generally for unique 

geological features, including the widespread prevalence and color of exposed sedimentary units, 

the occurrence of isolated volcanic mountain complexes, and erosional features such as mesas, 

cliffs, escarpments, and incised stream canyons. While not within the planning area, the Grand 

Canyon dominates the geological setting and forms the partial geographic boundary for the 

Tusayan and North Kaibab Ranger Districts; the side tributary canyons to the Grand Canyon form 

the surface drainage network for the majority of the forest. The Williams Ranger District is 

dominated by surface features associated with the San Francisco Volcanic Fields, and the edge of 

the plateau—referred to as the Mogollon Rim—is the southern boundary of the forest.

Currently, there are no active mineral leases and no known coal, oil, or gas reserves on the forest. 

The geological formations of the area do not favor such deposits within this area of the Colorado 

Plateau. Locatable minerals on acquired lands may fall under the Mineral Leasing Act, but the 

leasing of these minerals is at the discretion of the forest and is subject to all standards and 

guidelines for other resources such as heritage, wildlife, etc. 

Salable minerals in the forest consist of sand and gravel deposits, building materials, and cinders. 

Sand and gravel deposits exist but are relatively isolated within the North Kaibab and Tusayan 

Ranger Districts and are primarily associated with the Moenkopi Formation and alluvial deposits. 

On the Williams District, gravel deposits of good quality have formed at the bottom of the 

southwestern slope of the Mogollon Rim. Building materials (primarily flagstone) are widespread 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 255
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

along this same section of the Rim and are associated with the Coconino Sandstone. Cinder 

deposits are limited to the Williams District, which is part of the San Francisco Volcanic Field. 

The primary economic mineral resource within the area consists of limited locatable mineral 

deposits, usually associated with breccia pipe formations. All other locatable deposits are 

associated entirely with stratabound deposits that are small and not commercially viable. The 

uranium deposits within the northern Arizona breccia pipes are of higher grade than 

approximately 85 percent of the world’s known uranium deposits (International Atomic Energy 

Agency 2009; World Nuclear Association 2009).

The area of the North Kaibab and Tusayan Ranger Districts which was designated as part of the 

Grand Canyon Game Preserve is closed to locatable mineral entry and is not available for leasing. 

The area of was designated as a game preserve in 1906 and was set aside from mineral entry as 

described in the General Mining Law of May 10, 1872. In 1985, a court decision determined that 

the area was also closed to leasable minerals activities as this was consistent with the intent of 

establishing the game preserve. 

The Northern Arizona Proposed Withdrawal is outside the scope of this plan. This withdrawal 

will affect the establishment of new mining claims on public domain lands within the Tusayan 

and North Kaibab Ranger Districts but will have no effect on the existing valid claims. The 

withdrawal has closed the districts to the establishment of new mining claims for the next 

20 years. The requirements for the new withdrawn area would be the same as other areas on the 

forest presently withdrawn from mineral entry. 

Environmental Consequences for 

Minerals and Mining Activities

Most of the direction that affects minerals activities is independent of the forest plan and comes 

from the Forest Service manuals and handbooks. The existing law, regulation, and policy governs 

minerals on the forest and can be found in the Forest Service Manual, FSM 2800 (Mining Claims 

FSM 2810, Mineral Leases FSM 2820, Mineral Materials FSM 2850) and Forest Service 

Handbook, FSH 2809.15 and under Title 36 CFR part 228, subpart A. The minerals program is 

managed to be consistent with the plan components for other resource areas (e.g., heritage, 

wildlife, etc.).

Environmental Consequences for Mineral 

and Mining Activities: Alternative A – Current 

Plan, Current Management (No Action)

The current goals for minerals management are to administer the mineral laws and regulations to 

minimize adverse surface resource impacts and support sound energy and mineral exploration and 

development. The current plan also provides for the timely analysis and processing of locatable 

and leasable mineral prospecting, exploration, leasing, and development proposals. Lands 

potentially valuable for uranium and/or oil and gas production are available for exploration and 

development. Depending on the management area, the surface has special use stipulations and 

surface occupancy restrictions that are imposed on oil and gas leases and locatable minerals

activities.

The removal of common variety minerals (building stone, gravel, cinders) would be permitted in 

existing sources not encumbered by mining claims. The development of new mineral material 

256 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

sources would be allowed in accordance with the management direction for other resource 

concerns such as heritage, wildlife, soil, and water resources. In areas that are visible from the 

foregrounds of Highways 64, 67, and 89-A, the current plan calls for phasing out common variety 

minerals pits and rehabilitating extraction sites.

The current forest plan contains redundant direction from one management area to another. Most 

of the direction in the plan reiterates the Forest Service manuals and handbooks, and this can 

sometimes result in direction being missed and/or out of date. Under the current plan, acquired 

lands are available for mining activities and mineral leases because locatable minerals on 

acquired lands are not addressed in the current forest plan.

Environmental Consequences for Mineral 

and Mining Activities: Alternative B –

Proposed Action, Preferred Alternative

The preferred alternative does not reiterate direction already contained in law, regulation, or

policy. Existing direction is incorporated by reference and the proposed plan is organized so that 

direction is not repeated in each management area where it does not differ from the general forest.

Additionally, because the preferred alternative does not reiterate existing law, regulation, and 

policy, the plan would not become outdated when there are external policy changes. 

The proposed plan includes a guideline that limits locatable mineral activities to 50 pounds of 

samples on acquired lands. This would have little to no effect on mineral opportunities. The 

mining of locatable minerals on acquired lands where the Forest Service holds the mineral rights 

is discretionary and is governed by the laws, regulations, and policies that address leasable 

minerals. This guideline does not apply to lands classified as public domain within the forest 

boundary. The acres of acquired lands within the forest boundary are generally small tracts and 

widely dispersed. 

The recommended wilderness areas in the preferred alternative would have no effect on 

establishing new mining claims for locatable minerals because they are all within the Grand 

Canyon Game Preserve and are not open to mineral entry. If established, these areas would be 

closed to new claims, but any valid existing claim would not be affected. 

For leasable and salable minerals, lands that are identified as potential wilderness in the plan 

would become closed to new mineral leases and new mineral materials development. As the 

existing salable materials pits within the recommended wilderness areas become depleted or are 

no longer needed, they would be closed. 

Environmental Consequences for Mineral 

and Mining Activities: Alternatives C and D 

There is no difference in the minerals program between action alternatives with the exception of 

the establishment of wilderness areas. Alternatives C and D are the same as the preferred 

alternative except the number of acres available for leases and mineral materials development 

would be reduced by about 38,000 acres, which would be recommended for wilderness 

designation and subsequently withdrawn.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 257
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Environmental Consequences 

for Mining and Minerals

The geographic area of analysis for cumulative impacts to minerals is the Kaibab NF and adjacent 

lands. The forest is located within three counties in Arizona: Coconino, Yavapai, and Mohave. 

The vast majority (97 percent) is located within Coconino County. Only 13.3 percent of Coconino 

County is privately owned. American Indian reservations (Navajo, Hopi, Kaibab-Paiute, 

Havasupai, and Hualapai) cover 38.1 percent of the land area. Just over 40 percent of the county 

is under Federal ownership. The Kaibab NF has common boundaries with Federal and tribal 

managed lands. 

Population growth and development are expected to increase the demand for minerals. Mineral 

materials to be used in urban and rural areas—such as Tusayan, Parks, Ash Fork or Williams—for 

construction, decoration, and road projects are in high demand and are expected to increase 

pressure to develop these resources in the future.

Less than 2 percent of the forest is in Yavapai County. The majority of this county is owned and 

managed by Federal and State agencies. The portion of the forest in Yavapai County is a major 

flagstone production area for northern Arizona. The proposed alternatives would have little to no 

effect on these quarries or mineral production for this area of the forest; therefore, there are no 

cumulative effects to minerals and mining in Yavapai County.

A much smaller area (approximately 0.5 percent) of the forest lies in Mohave County. Most of 

this area is located within Kanab Creek Wilderness; the remainder of the forest within the county 

is being recommended for wilderness. Because these areas are small and mostly already 

withdrawn, there would be little to no effect on mineral or mining activities for this area of the 

forest, therefore, there are no cumulative effects to minerals and mining in Mohave County.

Most of the Kaibab NF is located in Coconino County, which also includes portions of the 

Coconino and Prescott National Forests. These forests are guided by the same laws, regulations, 

and policies as the Kaibab NF. If any of the areas recommended as wilderness areas are 

designated as wilderness, they would become closed to new mineral leases and new mineral 

materials pits and any existing materials pits within the wilderness would be closed once they are 

depleted or no longer needed..

The Arizona Strip General Management Plan of 2007 (BLM portion of the plan; BLM 2008) has 

guiding laws, regulations, and policies very similar to the Forest Service and is a potential source 

for minerals. Grand Canyon National Park has been withdrawn for mineral entry and is closed to 

mineral leasing and mineral materials.

If the price of uranium continues to climb, it could be expected that the uranium mines on the 

Tusayan district and the Arizona Strip would be reopened for operation and new ones would be 

developed. As the mineral withdrawal EIS that encompasses the North Kaibab and Tusayan 

Ranger Districts and sections of the Arizona Strip adjacent to Grand Canyon National Park moves 

forward, the results of this study and consequent congressional action would have a greater effect 

on establishing new mining claims and minerals activities than any of the alternatives in the forest 

plan. 

The alternatives to the forest plan would not affect the availability of locatable minerals on public 

domain lands on the Kaibab NF nor would they affect lands adjacent to the forest. Alternatives B, 

258 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

C, and D, which recommend the addition of wilderness areas to the present land base, would 

reduce the number of acres available for salable mineral materials and the possibility of mineral 

leases in the future. The restrictions placed on acquired lands for locatable minerals would have 

no cumulative effect on the environment due to the small number of acres scattered across the 

forest.

Socioeconomic

For additional information see the Socioeconomic Resource Report (KNF 2013h) and figure 8.

Description of Affected Environment 

(Existing Condition) – Socioeconomic

The majority of the Kaibab NF lies within Coconino County; however, there are also small areas 

of the forest in Yavapai and Mohave Counties. Of the 1.6 million acres of the Kaibab NF, 25,622 

acres (1.6 percent) are within Yavapai County and 4,646 acres (0.3 percent) are within Mohave 

County (table 40). Due to the large area and population of these two counties and the small

percentage of those counties that contain Kaibab NF lands, they are not included in the 

socioeconomic effects analysis. The inclusion of these counties could skew and/or mask 

important consequences of Kaibab NF management. For example, the populations of Mohave and 

Yavapai Counties would be triple that of Coconino County and yet the number of acres of Kaibab 

NF land in those counties combined is only 2 percent of the Forest. Little to no economic activity 

is associated with the Kaibab NF acres within those two counties.

Table 40. Total area, population, and population density for Coconino, Mohave, and 

Yavapai Counties in 2000

County Total Area 

(sq. miles) Population Population Density (per sq. mile)

Coconino 18,661 116,320 6.23

Mohave 13,312 155,032 11.64

Yavapai 8,128 167,517 20.6

Source: University of Arizona 2005

Economic, political, demographic, resource, and other considerations have been used in a 

multitude of ways to define analysis areas. Analysis of natural resource-dependent economic 

activities is based on IMPLAN4 data provided by the Forest Service Planning Analysis Group and 

Inventory and Monitoring Institute in Fort Collins, Colorado. Impact analysis area delineation 

protocols developed by Management and Engineering Technologies, Inc. /Economic Insights 

provide a consistent and convenient approach to delineating analysis areas for IMPLAN 

4 IMPLAN (IMpact analysis for PLANing, Minnesota IMPLAN Group, Inc.) is a regional economic impact analysis 

system that uses county level, input-output data to determine the extent to which these activities (such as livestock 

grazing) contribute to the local economy. Input-output analysis is an economist’s tool that traces linkages among the 

structural parts of an economy and calculates the employment, income, and output effects resulting from a direct 

impact on the economy.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 259

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

analysis.

5 These protocols, as well as input from forest specialists were used to determine which 

counties to include in our analysis.

Based on labor, income, trade flows, commuting patterns, and expenditures, the analysis area for 

this project was identified as Coconino County, Arizona, and Kane and Garfield Counties in 

southern Utah. The two rural counties in southern Utah have traditional, historic, and current 

social and economic linkages to the North Kaibab Ranger District. A number of day-use 

recreation visits originate in these counties, and firms and individuals process timber materials

(including firewood) from the North Kaibab Ranger District (Eichman and Jaworski 2012, 

NKRD 2011).

The Grand Canyon and the Colorado River separate the North Kaibab Ranger District from the 

rest of the Kaibab NF. The communities near the North Kaibab Ranger District identify with and 

are influenced more by southern Utah than Arizona. The Grand Canyon represents a biophysical, 

cultural, and socioeconomic divide that is recognized in the analysis. The forest plan revision 

process addresses the socioeconomic impacts from forest management changes on Coconino 

County, Arizona, and Kane and Garfield County, Utah. Other than a handful of towns in each 

county, the analysis area is relatively remote and sparsely populated. Prominent cities and towns 

within these counties include Flagstaff; Williams, Tusayan/Grand Canyon, and Fredonia in 

Arizona, and Kanab, Panguitch, and Escalante in Utah).

Prior to estimating potential social and economic effects of alternative forest management 

actions, it is necessary to describe existing socioeconomic conditions to serve as a baseline.

Demographic patterns and trends are used to identify the current and future forest users, to 

understand how future forest users may be similar to or different from current users, and how 

growing residential populations may influence forest management. The forest also uses this 

information to note minority and low income group trends and vulnerabilities. Because 

management decisions may disproportionately affect some segments of a population more than 

others, the description and analysis of the social environment takes into consideration the 

relationship between segments of the population and any differential effects. Changes in 

population, employment, income levels, business/industry type and activity, and the forest’s 

contribution to the local economy are considered in the analysis.

Population and Demographics

The following section highlights population and demographic trends in the study area. Population 

is an important consideration in managing natural resources. In particular, population structure 

(size, composition, density, etc.) and population dynamics (how the structure changes over time) 

are essential to describing the consequences of forest management and planning on a social 

environment (Seesholtz et al. 2004).

5 This method uses Census Bureau’s LED OnTheMap accompanied by a set of criteria to address Forest Service needs 

to delineate labor based economic areas. The criteria guide analysts in the use of LED OnTheMap to delineate 

economic areas that are: (1) consistent with prior work by other Federal agencies and (2) customized to address 

unique issues and conditions. The criteria also address, in part, current exclusions in LED employment data.

260 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Population Growth

Population increases may lead to conflicts over land use, travel management, recreation activities, 

and values. These are conflicts that Forest Service managers attempt to balance when making 

management decisions. In 2010, the study area was home to 146,718 people. Table 41 displays 

population data for the study area communities and counties in Arizona and Utah in 1990, 2000, 

and 2010.

Table 41. Population change in the study area, Arizona and Utah, 1990 to 2010

Location 1990 2000 Percent Growth, 

1990-2000 2010 Percent Growth, 2000-2010

Coconino County 96,591 116,318 20.4 134,421 15.6

Fredonia 1,207 1,036 -14.2 1,314 26.8

Tusayan/Grand 

Canyon 1,570 2,022 28.8 2,562 26.7

Williams 2,461 2,842 15.5 3,023 6.4

Flagstaff 45,857 52,894 15.3 65,870 24.5

Kane County 5,169 6,046 17 7,125 17.8

Kanab 3,289 3,564 8.4 4,312 17.3

Garfield County 3,980 4,735 19 5,172 15.1

Escalante 838 818 -2.4 797 -2.6

Panguitch 1,434 1,623 13.2 1,520 -6.8

Study Area Total 105,740 127,101 20.2 146,718 15.4

Arizona 3,665,228 5,130,632 40.0 6,392,017 24.6

Utah 1,722,850 2,233,169 8.9 2,763,885 23.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000, and 2010

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 261
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 8. Kaibab National Forest socioeconomic assessment area

262 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Coconino County accounts for 91.6 percent of the total population within the socioeconomic 

affected environment. These data highlight the importance of separating the effects analysis into 

the North and South Zones as previously described. Aggregating Coconino County and the small 

Utah counties could mask substantial changes occurring in the North Zone of the study area.

The socioeconomic impact area population growth rate was significantly less than Arizona and 

Utah’s population growth rate over the last 10 years. The population in all three counties grew at 

similar rates in the first period, while Garfield County grew at a lower rate than Kane and 

Coconino Counties in the second period. The communities of Fredonia, Escalante, and Panguich 

experienced population declines at different times over the past 20 years.

Rapid population growth may signal expanding economic opportunities and/or desirable 

amenities. Much of Coconino, Garfield, and Kane Counties are occupied by Federal lands. NFS

and BLM lands provide natural amenities for area residents. Steady, long-term growth in an area’s 

population is generally an indication of a healthy, prosperous economy. Erratic growth, no 

growth, or long-term decline usually indicate a struggling economy. From table 41, we can see 

that these conditions apply to the communities of Fredonia, Escalante, and Panguitch. These 

conditions exist in the presence of the natural amenities provided by surrounding public lands.

Population Density

Population density can serve as an indicator of a number of socioeconomic factors of interest 

such as urbanization, ruralness, and availability of open space. More densely populated areas are 

generally more urban, diverse, and offer better access to infrastructure. In contrast, less densely 

populated areas provide more open space, which may offer natural amenity values to residents 

and visitors. Table 42 displays the number of people per square mile for each of the counties of 

interest.

Table 42. Population density (persons per square mile) for counties in assessment area, 

2000 and 2010

Location 2000 2010

Coconino County 6.2 7.2

Arizona 45.2 56.3

Garfield County 0.9 1.0

Kane County 1.5 1.7

Utah 27.2 33.6

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2012a, 2012b

Despite gains in population since 1990, all counties continue to have low population densities. 

The low population density in these rural counties coincides with a high level of public land 

ownership. Approximately 42 percent of the land area in Coconino County is publically owned 

(BLM, Forest Service, and State) and another 38 percent is tribal lands. Only 13.3 percent of 

Coconino County is private land (University of Arizona 2005). Eighty-eight percent of the land in 

Garfield and Kane Counties is managed by the Forest Service, BLM, and NPS. About 7.5 percent 

of all the land in these counties is private (State of Utah 2011).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 263
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Age and Gender

Table 43 lists the median age by county for the assessment area. As with other population 

characteristics, the median age varies substantially between counties. Coconino County is 

relatively young with the median age between the State and national median. In contrast, Kane 

and Garfield Counties exceed their State and national median ages. A high median age generally 

indicates that a relatively large number of retirees reside in the area. An area with a large 

percentage of retirees will earn more income from investments and transfer payments (e.g., 

dividends and Social Security), rather than salaries and wages.

Age data may be relevant for forest management decisions. A population’s age may affect 

community values and uses associated with forest lands. For example, older populations are more 

likely to desire easily accessible recreation opportunities. 

Table 43. Median age by county for the assessment area

Location Median Age

Coconino County 29.0

Arizona 35.0

Garfield County 39.4

Kane County 43.6

Utah 28.8

United States 36.8

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a

Table 44 displays the gender breakdown for the study area counties, State, and Nation. None of 

the counties markedly deviate from State and national conditions in terms of gender distribution.

Table 44. Gender distribution for the study area, counties, the State, and Nation

Location Females 

(percent of total population)

Males 

(percent of total population)

Coconino County 50.2 49.8

Arizona 49.9 50.1

Garfield County 48.2 51.8

Kane County 50.2 49.8

Utah 49.7 50.3

United States 50.7 49.3

Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2009a

264 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Educational Attainment

Educational attainment—the measure of people with at least a high school diploma or bachelor’s 

degree—is an important indicator of an area’s social and economic opportunities. 

Table 45 lists the percentage of the adult population with at least a high school diploma and/or

bachelor’s degree.

Table 45. Educational attainment, percent of persons age 25 and older

Location High School Graduate Bachelor’s Degree or Higher

Coconino County 86.1 30.1

Arizona 83.9 25.7

Garfield County 89.1 19.5

Kane County 88.0 17.8

Utah 90.4 28.7

United States 84.6 27.5

The vast majority of adult residents in the socioeconomic impact area are high school graduates.

Approximately a quarter of area residents have a bachelor’s degree or higher. The highest 

percentage of the adult population with a college degree resides in Coconino County (South 

Zone). The population of Garfield and Kane Counties is older (table 43) and possesses a lower 

level of education than that of Coconino County. Opportunities likely exist for working age adults 

with high levels of education in Coconino County that may not exist in rural Utah counties. A

highly educated population is a signal that an area provides economic and cultural opportunities, 

which attracts additional college educated adults to the area. This process leads to further 

economic development and job creation (Eichman and Jaworski 2012).

Environmental Justice

Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations (February 11, 1994) required every Federal agency to 

make achieving environmental justice part of its mission “by identifying and addressing, as 

appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of its 

programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations.” Section 

6-606 further indicates that all Federal agency responsibilities articulated in the executive order 

shall apply equally to American Indians.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, 

cultures, and incomes, with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of 

environmental laws, regulations, and policies. The goal of environmental justice is for Federal 

agency decision makers to identify impacts that are disproportionately high and adverse with 

respect to minority and low income populations and identify alternatives that would avoid or 

mitigate those impacts.

Environmental justice means that, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, all 

populations are provided the opportunity to comment before decisions are rendered on, are 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 265
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

allowed to share in the benefits of, are not excluded from, and are not affected in a 

disproportionately high and adverse manner by government programs and activities affecting 

human health or the environment. Environmental justice is achieved when everyone, regardless of 

race, culture, or income, enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health 

hazards, and has equal access to the decision making process in order to have a healthy 

environment in which to live, learn, and work (SWCA 2011).

Minority means a person who is a member of the following population groups: American Indian 

or Alaskan Native; Asian or Pacific Islander; Black, not of Hispanic origin; or Hispanic.

Minority population means any readily identifiable group of minority persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by, U.S. Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) programs or activities. Minority populations are identified where either: (a) 

the minority population of the affected area exceeds 50 percent; or, (b) the minority population 

percentage of the affected area is meaningfully greater than the minority population percentage in 

the general population or other appropriate unit of geographic analysis.

Low income population means any readily identifiable group of low income persons who live in 

geographic proximity to, and, if circumstances warrant, migrant farm workers and other 

geographically dispersed/transient persons who will be similarly affected by, USDA programs or 

activities. Low income populations may be identified using data collected, maintained, and 

analyzed by an agency or from analytical tools such as the annual statistical poverty thresholds 

from the Bureau of the Census’ Current Population Reports, Series P-60 on Income and Poverty.

Human health and/or environmental effects as used in this departmental regulation include

interrelated social and economic effects.

The emphasis of environmental justice is on health effects and/or the benefits of a healthy 

environment. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has interpreted health effects with a 

broad definition: “Such effects may include ecological, cultural, human health, economic, or 

social impacts on minority communities, low income communities or Indian Tribes ...when those 

impacts are interrelated to impacts on the natural or physical environment” (CEQ 1997).

Coconino County contains the highest proportion (13.5 percent) of Hispanic/Latino residents in 

the planning area. However, this is less than half the proportion of this ethnic group present in the 

State of Arizona (29.6 percent). Coconino County has a high concentration of American Indian 

residents (27.3 percent), due to the presence of five reservations in the county (table 46).6

The Kaibab NF recognizes that the area’s American Indian Tribes have cultural ties to and 

knowledge about the lands now managed by the Forest Service. Many Tribal members regularly 

visit the forest to gather traditional resources and to visit traditional cultural properties and sacred 

sites. Due to the level of use of the forest by tribal members and the unique interests of area 

tribes, the Kaibab NF has conducted extensive tribal consultation and scoping of tribal 

communities throughout the Forest Plan Revision process. This consultation process reflects a 

long-standing commitment by the forest to share the stewardship of public lands with area tribes. 

6 Coconino County contains all or part of the Navajo Indian Reservation, Hualapai Indian Reservation, Hopi Indian 

Reservation, Havasupai Indian Reservation, and Kaibab Paiute Indian Reservation.

266 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Kaibab NF has included discussions and updates about Plan Revision in regularly scheduled 

government-to-government consultation meetings with area tribes for the past five years. A 

detailed listing of tribal consultation meetings as well as a summary of tribal concerns related to 

Forest Plan Revision is found in the Heritage and Tribal Relations Specialist Report (Heritage and 

Tribal Relations Report (KNF 2012d).

Table 46. Race and ethnicity in socioeconomic assessment area (population percentage)

Location White Hispanic 

or Latino 

American 

Indian and 

Alaska Native 

Black or 

African 

American

Asian 

Native 

Hawaiian and 

Other Pacific 

Islander 

Other 

Two 

or 

More 

Coconino 

County 61.7 13.5 27.3 1.2 1.4 0.1 5.2 3.1

Arizona 73.0 29.6 4.6 4.1 2.8 0.2 11.9 3.4

Garfield 

County 94.1 4.5 1.6 0.4 1.2 0.2 1.6 0.9

Kane 

County 95.7 3.7 1.5 0.2 0.4 0.0 0.9 1.3

Utah 86.1 13.0 1.2 1.1 2.0 0.9 6.0 2.7

United 

States 72.4 16.3 0.9 12.6 4.8 0.2 6.2 2.9

Increases in prescribed burns and wildfires managed for resource objectives in all action 

alternatives (B, C, and D) create the potential for an environmental justice issue related to 

possible disproportionate effects of increased smoke because:

• Most of the smoke from fire use on the Coconino and Kaibab NF s would carry from the 

southwest to the northeast and to the Havasupai Reservation and western portions of the 

Navajo Reservation;

• Many people living in these areas are seniors with health conditions and sensitivity to 

smoke. The effects of limited communications (they cannot get on a Web site to check 

out where the Forest is burning, etc.), language barriers, or cultural differences make it 

difficult to get information to them and receive information in return about smoke 

impacts; and

• There is a general lack of smoke monitoring data on the reservations.

Therefore, those living on these reservations may be disproportionately impacted by smoke from 

the various agencies (especially from multiple fires on multiple jurisdictions). Table 47 shows the 

percentage of residents living in poverty. Coconino County has a significantly higher poverty rate 

than the other counties and the states of Arizona and Utah. The incidence of poverty in Coconino 

County is not evenly distributed among racial and ethnic groups. Approximately 50 percent of 

American Indian residents in Coconino County live in poverty. The high proportion of American 

Indian residents in the county, therefore, increases the poverty rate relative to other study area 

counties and the State (Eichman and Jaworski 2012).

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 267
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 47. Percentage of residents living in poverty

Location Poverty Rate 

(percentage of population)

Coconino County 17.4

Arizona 14.7

Garfield County 10.8

Kane County 10.6

Utah 10.4

United States 13.5

Based on the minority status and poverty data presented above, Coconino County appears most at 

risk for environmental justice issues within the planning area. The largest minority group in the 

county—American Indians—also experiences a very high poverty rate.

Income and Employment

One of the most important measures of overall economic and human well-being in our society is 

income. Median and per capita incomes are often indicators of the standard of living in an area. 

High income levels often signal greater job opportunities, highly skilled residents, greater 

economic resiliency, and well developed infrastructure. Table 48 provides data on per capita 

income in 2009.

Table 48. Per capita income, 2009

Location Per Capita Income

Arizona $25,203

Coconino County $22,238

Flagstaff $22,598

Williams $16,852

Fredonia $15,738

Utah $22,684

Garfield County $23,772

Escalante $20,496

Panguich $17,361

Kane County $24,515

Kanab $20,138

United States $27,041

Median Earnings

Per capita income offers an incomplete picture of the economic well-being of an area. Whereas 

per capita income considers all sources of income (including wage and salary payments, transfer 

268 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

payments, investment earnings, dividends, and rents), median earnings considers only wage and 

salary earnings. Table 49 presents data on median earnings for workers.

Table 49. Median earnings for workers, 2009

Location Median Earnings

Coconino County $23,391

Arizona $28,748

Garfield County $25,657

Kane County $22,405

Utah $25,329

United States $29,050

Non-labor Income

Table 50 displays the role of labor and non-labor income in total personal income for 2000 and 

2009. Non-labor income is any income derived from investments, dividends, rents, or transfer 

payments. In contrast, labor income is salary and wage disbursements from employment. During 

the past decade, the percentage of total income derived from non-labor sources increased in all 

considered areas.

Non-labor income is not directly tied to employment; therefore, it can be more resistant to 

economic downturns. However, as the most recent recession demonstrated, asset markets can be 

volatile, and non-labor income that depends on investment returns may be unstable.

An increase in non-labor income may reflect changing demographic characteristics. Older 

populations rely largely on non-labor income, including rents, dividends, and transfer payments 

(e.g., Social Security). High percentages of non-labor income likely indicate higher 

concentrations of retirees.

Table 50. Percentage of contribution of labor and non-labor income to total personal 

income, 2000 and 2009

Location

2000 2009

Labor Percent Nonlabor 

Percent

Labor

Percent

Nonlabor 

Percent

Coconino County 64 36 62 38

Arizona 68 32 62 38

Garfield County 65 35 60 40

Kane County 60 40 57 43

Utah 73 27 68 32

United States 69 31 64 36

Source: U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis 2011

Labor income is greater than non-labor income in all counties in the analysis area, accounting for 

more than half of total personal income. This is consistent with patterns in the Arizona, Utah, and 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 269
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the Nation. Across all geographies, the share of labor income has decreased as a percent of total 

personal income. As noted above, areas with a large percentage of retirees are likely to earn more 

income from investments and transfer payments (e.g., dividends and Social Security), rather than 

salaries and wages. Increases in non-labor income suggest older age groups are making up a 

larger portion of the population across the study area, thus non-labor income may be increasingly 

important.

Unemployment

The unemployment rate provides insight into the correspondence between residents’ skills and 

employment opportunities. The “natural” rate of unemployment is said to be around 5 percent.

This is the so-called “natural” rate because this is a level that allows for movement between jobs 

and industries, but does not signal broad economic distress. Recently, the national unemployment 

rate has hovered between 9 and 10 percent. Figure 9 provides the annual unemployment rates for 

the counties, states, and Nation from 2001 to 2010. Garfield County unemployment was 

consistently higher than the State, Nation, and other study area counties over the period 

examined.

(Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics 2011)

Figure 9. Annual unemployment rate, 2001 to 2010

Economic Diversity

Economic diversity generally promotes stability and offers greater employment opportunities.

Highly specialized economies (i.e., those that depend on very few industries for the bulk of 

employment and income) are prone to cyclical fluctuations and offer more limited job 

270 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

opportunities. Determining the degree of specialization in an economy is important for decision

makers, particularly when the dominant industry can be affected by changes in policy. For Forest 

Service decision makers, this is likely to be the case where the forest products industry or the 

tourism and recreation industries, for instance, are reliant on the local forest(s).

Figure 10 provides a breakdown of employment by industry in the study area. The government,

accommodation and food services, and retail trade sectors are the largest employment sectors in 

the local economy. These industries are consistent with a substantial government presence due to 

public land management, a large retiree population that consumes health and social services, and 

amenities that attract tourists who contribute to the accommodation and food services and retail 

trade sectors.77

Figure 10. Employment by industry in the planning area

The method applied here uses the ratio of the percent employment in each industry in the region 

of interest (study area) to an average percent of employment in that industry for a larger reference 

area (Arizona and Utah). For a given industry, when the percent employment in the analysis 

region is greater than in the reference area, local employment specialization exists in that industry 

(USDA Forest Service 1998). Using this criterion applied to 2009 data, the study area can be 

7 The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) is the standard used by Federal statistical agencies in 

classifying business establishments for the purpose of collecting, analyzing, and publishing statistical data related to 

the U.S. business economy.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 271

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

characterized as specialized with respect to several industries, particularly Accommodation and 

food services, arts-entertainment and recreation and government (MIG 2009). Figure 11 provides 

the employment specialization index for all industries in the study area.

Whereas figure 10 considers the study area in isolation, figure 11 compares industry 

concentration in the study area to the states of Arizona and Utah as a whole. The numbers on the 

x-axis of figure 11 show the degree of specialization in the local economy. A score of 1 indicates 

that the study area and the State are equally specialized in the sector. A score above 1 indicates 

that the study area is more specialized in the sector than the State. A score below 1 indicates that 

the study area is less specialized in the sector than the State. As the two figures demonstrate, 

these two methods of data analysis can suggest quite different results. Agriculture accounts for 

just 1.6 percent of employment in the study area—a relatively modest figure until it is put in the 

context of the State. A resident of the study area is more likely to be employed in the agriculture 

sector compared to residents of Arizona and Utah.

The relatively undiversified economy which presently exists leaves the communities within the 

planning area precariously dependent on the fairly unstable economic activities of tourism, 

agriculture, and government expenditures. A more diversified economy would act as a buffer 

against the economic fluctuations inherent in the basic industries now sustaining these 

communities.

272 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 11. Employment specialization in the study area

Payments to States and Counties

The Forest Service makes payments to states and counties that contain NFS lands. These 

payments fall into two categories: Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILT) and Secure Rural Schools 

and Community Self-Determination Act payments (SRSCS).

Federal agencies do not pay property taxes; therefore, PILT is distributed to counties to 

compensate for the local services that support activities on Federal lands. These services include 

law enforcement, road maintenance, and fire departments.

SRSCS payments are intended to improve public schools, maintain infrastructure, improve the 

health of watersheds and ecosystems, protect communities, and strengthen local economies.

Table 51 lists the PILT and SRSCS payments from the Kaibab NF. The very small amounts paid 

to Mohave and Yavapai Counties are a reflection of the miniscule percentage of those counties 

that contain Kaibab NF lands. No payments are made to the southern Utah counties since there 

are no Kaibab NF lands within those counties.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 273
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 51. Payments to states and counties from the Kaibab National Forest

Area SRSCS (FY10) PILT (FY10) Total FS Payments

Coconino County $1,881,601 $505,448 $2,387,049 

Mohave County $11,924 $2,873 $14,797 

Yavapai County $31,018 $8,281 $39,299 

Kaibab NF $1,924,543 $516,602 $2,441,145 

Source: USDA Forest Service 2011 and USDI 2010

Environmental Consequences for Socioeconomics

The previous section assessed and described past and current social and economic conditions of 

the affected environment. The following section will consider the potential consequences of 

alternative management scenarios on the socioeconomic environment. Sections 219.12(g) and (h) 

of the 1982 Rule Provisions direct the planning team to estimate and evaluate the significant 

physical, biological, economic, and social effects of implementing each alternative considered in 

detail according to NEPA procedures. There are two economic analyses required by the 1982 

Rule Provisions—economic impact analysis and financial efficiency analysis.

None of the alternatives, including the proposed plan (alternative B), produce actions or 

conditions that would result in differences in economic contributions or social impacts for 

resources other than timber. For example, alternatives B, C, and D would provide for continued 

availability of forage for domestic livestock and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent 

with the other desired conditions. With the exception of differences in proposed wilderness areas, 

all action alternatives are expected to have similar impacts on recreation including the same 

number of acres in each ROS class. The fundamental difference among alternatives concerns the 

number of acres mechanically thinned and the timber management prescription intensities applied 

and is, therefore, the focus of the socioeconomic effects analysis.

Economic Impact Analysis

Economic impact analysis estimates the employment and labor income consequences of forest

management actions. Economic impacts were modeled using IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0 

with 2009 data. Data on use levels under each alternative were collected from the Kaibab NF’s 

resource specialists. In most instances, the precise change is unknown. Therefore, the changes are 

based on the professional expertise of the resource specialists. The purpose of the economic 

impact analysis is to compare the relative effects of the alternatives and they should not be 

viewed as absolute values.

Effects to Socioeconomics Common to 

All Alternatives

Over the planning period (10 to 15 years), there are no identified differences between all action 

alternatives (B, C, and D) relative to nontimber resource areas (e.g., range, recreation, fire) that 

would produce differences in economic effects.

Table 52 below provides employment and labor income estimates for all resource areas except 

timber. For analytical purposes, it is assumed that these impacts occur only in Coconino County 

since direct expenditures on management for these resource areas occur only in Coconino County.

274 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 52. Employment and labor income by program area, all alternatives

Resource Program Area Employment

(jobs)

Labor Income

(thousand $)

Recreation: non-local only† 97 2,599

Wildlife and fish: non-local only† 13 380

Grazing 102 235

Minerals 12 521

Timber (see table 53)

Payments to states and counties 66 2,822

Forest Service expenditures* 341 13,476

Total 631 20,033

† Only non-locals are included as they are bringing “new money” into the economy.

* Includes Forest Service salary and non-salary expenditures (e.g., office equipment)

Table 53 provides information on how the forest contributions to employment and income from 

the different resource program areas (except timber) are distributed among the various industrial 

sectors within the impact area. Government is the most significant contributor to the impact area 

economy accounting for 40 percent of impact area jobs and almost 60 percent of labor income. 

The lowest paying sectors of the economy are agriculture, mining (cinder pits and flagstone 

quarry operations), and the entertainment/recreation/accommodation/food services sectors. The 

highest paying sectors of the economy are wholesale trade, education/health services, and 

government. These conclusions are based on the percent of area employment compared to the 

percent of area income.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 275
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 53. Kaibab National Forest contribution (without timber), employment, and income

by major industry

Major Industry Employment

Number of Jobs Percentage Labor IncomeThousand $ Percentage

Agriculture 97 15.4 60 .3

Mining 12 1.9 126 .6

Construction and utilities 17 2.7 637 3.3

Manufacturing 2 .3 93 .5

Wholesale trade 4 .6 171 .9

Transportation and warehousing 7 1.1 322 1.6

Retail trade 47 7.4 1,315 6.7

Finance, insurance, real estate 24 3.8 388 2.0

Professional, scientific, tech. services 35 5.5 969 4.9

Education, health, and social services 32 5.1 1,643 8.4

Entertainment and recreation services 28 4.4 594 3.0

Accommodation and food services 61 9.7 1,243 6.3

Other services 13 2.1 402 2.0

Government 252 40.0 11,657 59.4

Total

Forest Service Management 631 19,620

Timber-related Economic Effects

As previously described in the affected environment section, the North Kaibab Ranger District is 

separated from the rest of the Kaibab NF by the Grand Canyon and Colorado River. In the 

following analysis, estimated impacts on employment and income are presented for that part of 

Coconino County that lies south of the Grand Canyon/Colorado River and, for that part of 

Coconino County that lies north of the Grand Canyon/Colorado River combined with Kane and 

Garfield Counties in Utah. Hereafter, these two areas are referred to as the South Zone and the 

North Zone.

A significant level of uncertainty exists regarding the development of a sustainable timber 

harvesting and utilization industry. At present, a small logging sector exists within the South 

Zone, but there is almost nothing in terms of a wood utilization/processing sector. However, in 

May of 2012, the Forest Service selected the contractor for the largest stewardship contract in the 

agency’s history. The Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI) is a collaborative effort to restore 

ecological resilience and function across northern Arizona’s ponderosa pine forests, including the 

South Zone. The 4FRI effort should develop a wood products industry that will in turn strengthen 

local economies. The 4FRI contract is not applicable to the North Zone. The volume harvested in 

the North Zone has been small and the local processing facilities can easily handle it. However, 

implementation of the alternatives analyzed could change that situation. Because of the 

uncertainty involved, analytical scenarios are developed as a means to examine the impacts on 

employment and income resulting from differing rates of impact area utilization. In all cases, 

alternative A represents a continuation of the existing situation.

276 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 54 provides the estimated annual forest product volumes available by alternative. These 

volumes are used to estimate the economic impact and financial efficiency of timber-related 

activities on the Kaibab NF.

Table 54. Estimated annual forest product volumes by alternative

Forest Product

Alt. A 

Annual Volumes 

(CCF)

Alt. B 

Annual Volumes 

(CCF)

Alts. C and D 

Annual 

Volumes (CCF)

South Zone

Harvest – Softwood 9+" Sawtimber 12,730 51,665 19,577

Harvest – Softwood 5-9" Pulp 4,023 9,080 6,614

Poles 30 104 104

Posts 315 34 34

Firewood 4,551 15,837 15,837

North Zone

Harvest – Softwood 9+" Sawtimber 3,956 40,684 13,129

Harvest – Softwood 5-9" Pulp 6,362 4,272

Poles 69 3,502 3,502

Posts 3 30 30

Firewood 3,013 14,998 14,998

Source: Kaibab NF silviculture staff

South Zone

Table 55 presents the estimated impacts to employment and labor income by alternative for the 

South Zone for three different utilization/processing scenarios. Under these scenarios, 25 percent, 

50 percent, and 100 percent of the average annual volume harvested from the South Zone is 

assumed to be processed within the area.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 277
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 55. Timber contribution, employment, and income by alternative, South Zone

Scenario Alt. A Alt. B Alts. C and D

Employment (number of jobs)

25 percent processed within area 148 423 328

50 percent processed within area 192 733 435

100 percent processed within area 275 1,053 546

Income (thousand $)

25 percent processed within area 5,321 14,558 11,746

50 percent processed within area 6,827 26,553 15,944

100 percent processed within area 10,039 38,870 20,218

North Zone

Table 56 presents the estimated impacts to employment and labor income by alternative for the 

North Zone for two different utilization/processing scenarios. Under these scenarios, 50 percent, 

and 100 percent of the average annual volume harvested from the North Zone is assumed to be 

processed within the area.

Table 56. Timber contribution, employment, and income by alternative, North Zone

Scenario Alt. A Alt. B Alts. C & D

Employment (number of jobs)

50 percent processed within area 67 553 345

100 percent processed within area 79 632 361

Income (thousand $)

50 percent processed within area 2,543 21,297 13,571

100 percent processed within area 3,173 25,741 14,492

While estimated employment and income effects are nominally higher in the South Zone, the 

relative effects, given the size and nature of the population and economy, are significantly more 

important in the North Zone. In 2009, private nonfarm employment in Garfield County was 

estimated at 1,122 and 2,156 in Kane County. By contrast, private nonfarm employment in 

Coconino County was estimated at 44,916 in 2009.

Financial Efficiency Analysis

Financial efficiency is required by the 1982 Rule Provisions. Estimating present net value (PNV) 

is required by 219.12(g); however, the decision maker is not required by 219.12(j) to select the 

alternative that maximizes PNV. He or she only needs to identify each alternative’s PNV and 

compare them to the selected alternative. Appendix C provides additional information about the 

financial analysis, and describes calculation of allowable sale quantity (ASQ) and long-term 

sustained yield (LTSY).

278 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Efficiency analysis was conducted with QuickSilver8 Version 6. Data on program revenues were 

collected from the Final National Forest Statement of Receipts (ASR-13-1). Data on program 

costs were provided by the Kaibab NF budget staff (1982 rule, 219.12(e)).

Financial efficiency analysis compares forest expenditures and revenues for the expected life (10 

to 15 years) of a forest plan. Table 57 presents forest expenditures by program area and 

alternative. Figures for alternative A are based on average expenditures for fiscal years FY 2006 

to FY 2010. Costs are constant for all program areas except timber. Timber-related costs vary by 

alternative based on different number of acres being thinned, prescription intensity, and variable 

costs associated with harvest management activities (see spreadsheet Financial Efficiency 

Analysis 2_26_13 in the project record). The total timber and forest health costs for Alternative 

B (proposed plan) are higher than those for the other alternatives because Alternative B treats 

more acres than the other alternatives.

Costs incurred for fire suppression are not included in the expenditures data. These costs are 

significant but erratic. During the 5-year period, fire suppression expenditures ranged from 

$1.4 million in 2008 to $6.8 million in 2006. Fire suppression expenditures accounted for 10 to 

35 percent of the Kaibab NF’s total budget during this 5-year period. When combined with fire 

preparedness expenditures, wildfire costs consumed between 32 and 49 percent of the total 

budget. By addressing the number 1 priority need for change and moving toward desired 

conditions, there would be a fundamental shift from spending funds on fire suppression to 

hazardous fuels treatment and improving forest health.

Table 57. Kaibab National Forest program expenditures by alternative

Program Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Timber and forest health $1,884,454 $6,357,826 $5,148,895 $6,593,254

Range, watershed, and wildlife $1,752,170 $1,752,170 $1,752,170 $1,752,170

Recreation, Wilderness, and heritage $1,146,996 $1,146,996 $1,146,996 $1,146,996

Minerals $300,118 $300,118 $300,118 $300,118

Special uses $3,019,119 $3,019,119 $3,019,119 $3,019,119

Planning, inventory, and monitoring $848,483 $848,483 $848,483 $848,483

Fire preparedness $3,610,747 $3,610,747 $3,610,747 $3,610,747

Hazardous fuels treatment $1,372,564 $1,372,564 $1,372,564 $1,372,564

Administrative and cooperative work $2,398,744 $2,398,744 $2,398,744 $2,398,744

Total Expendatures $16,333,395 $20,806,767 $19,597,836 $21,042,195

Table 58 shows forest revenues by program area. These figures are based on average revenues 

over the past five fiscal years (FY 2006 to FY 2010) for all program areas except timber. Timber 

revenues for alternative A are based on the average revenue from annual cut and sold reports for 

FY 2006 to FY 2010 multiplied by the average annual number of acres currently being 

mechanically thinned. For alternatives B, C, and D, the revenues change as a function of different 

8 Quick-Silver is a program for economic analysis of long-term, on-the-ground resource 

management projects. It provides a consistent benefit/cost framework to determine if one 

management action costs less or has a better payoff than others.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 279

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

number of acres being thinned, prescription intensity (volume produced), and revenue per CCF9

harvested (see spreadsheet Financial Efficiency Analysis 2_26_13 in the project record). The 

total timber and forest health revenues for Alternative B (proposed plan) are higher than those for 

the other alternatives because Alternative B produces a higher revenue/acre and treats more acres 

than the other alternatives.

Table 58. Kaibab National Forest program revenues by alternative

Program Area Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Timber and forest health $169,033 $1,025,439 $478,983 $103,785

Range, watershed, and wildlife $64,125 $64,125 $64,125 $64,125

Recreation, wilderness, and heritage $76,031 $76,031 $76,031 $76,031

Minerals $122,908 $122,908 $122,908 $122,908

Special uses $125,662 $125,662 $125,662 $125,662

Planning, inventory, and monitoring $0 $0 $0 $0

Fire preparedness $0 $0 $0 $0

Hazardous fuels treatment $0 $0 $0 $0

Administrative and cooperative work $80,585 $80,585 $80,585 $80,585

Total Revenue $638,343 $1,494,750 $948,294 $573,096

Table 59 shows present net value (PNV) by program area and alternative. PNV is the difference 

between program revenues (benefits) and program expenditures (costs) over a 10-year period, 

using a 4 percent discount rate. All alternatives result in a negative PNV. Alternative A is the least

negative, while alternative D has the highest negative PNV. Alternative B has a higher negative 

PNV than Alternative C because Alternative B treats fifty-five percent more acres than 

Alternative C.

9 CCF equals hundred cubic feet.

280 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan

 
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 59. Kaibab National Forest present net value (PNV) by alternative and program

Alt. A Alt. B Alt. C Alt. D

Timber and forest health -$13,913,604 -$43,250,433 -$37,877,169 -$52,635,406

Range, watershed, and wildlife -$13,691,557 -$13,691,557 -$13,691,557 -$13,691,557

Recreation, wilderness, and heritage -$8,686,484 -$8,686,484 -$8,686,484 -$8,686,484

Minerals -$1,437,334 -$1,437,334 -$1,437,334 -$1,437,334

Special uses -$23,468,528 -$23,468,528 -$23,468,528 -$23,468,528

Planning, inventory, and monitoring -$6,881,957 -$6,881,957 -$6,881,957 -$6,881,957

Fire preparedness -$29,286,396 -$29,286,396 -$29,286,396 -$29,286,396

Hazardous fuels treatment -$11,132,722 -$11,132,722 -$11,132,722 -$11,132,722

Administrative and cooperative work -$18,802,343 -$18,802,343 -$18,802,343 -$18,802,343

Total PNV -$127,300,925 -$156,637,754 -$151,264,490 -$166,022,727

This analysis is financial, not economic. This means that only quantifiable dollar expenditure and 

revenue information are included. Not included in the financial analysis are the benefits 

associated with things such as improvements in the herbaceous understory and wildlife habitat.

Also not included are benefits produced and paid for by the 4FRI contractor (South Zone) such as 

road decommissioning, stream/riparian restoration, and fencing projects to protect aspen. Finally, 

the expected long-term, multi-million dollar reduction in annual fire suppression costs are not 

included. Economic considerations would include the system’s capacity to produce nonmarket 

values and ecosystem services valued by society. While it is universally recognized that the forest

is to manage for a broad spectrum of ecological, economic, and societal goals, the ability to 

incorporate ecosystem service values remains elusive.

Social Consequences

At the time the forest reserves were established, the land around what is now the Kaibab NF had 

already been settled. The communities consisted of Mormon settlers, Spanish explorers, 

American Indians, cattlemen, and loggers. This history continues to influence the culture today as 

western rural lifestyles are an important part of local communities.

Due to the small percentage of private land in the area, the Kaibab NF has long been viewed as a 

community commons. Long-term uses include grazing, timber harvesting, hunting, primitive 

camping, cutting firewood, and collecting forest products such as medicinal plants. The 

ecological and social systems within the socioeconomic impact area are tightly linked, and their 

dependency on one another is increasingly apparent.

A number of social values have been identified with Southwestern Region forests, including:

(1) preservation of open space; (2) protection of forest-related amenity values; (3) economic 

opportunities from both commodity and noncommodity sources; (4) accessible and varied 

outdoor recreation opportunities; and (5) traditional tribal uses (USDA Forest Service 2008a). 

The proposed forest plan contains direction that would favorably address these social values.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 281
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternatives B, C, and D would provide for continued availability of forage for domestic 

livestock and opportunities for ranching lifestyles consistent with the other desired conditions. All 

action alternatives are expected to have similar impacts on recreation including the same number 

of acres in each recreation opportunity spectrum class.

With the exception of the number of acres mechanically thinned and the timber management 

prescription intensities applied, the only difference between the action alternatives that could 

produce social consequences is the number of acres proposed for wilderness. There are currently 

109,280 acres of existing wilderness. Table 60 displays the number of acres of recommended 

wilderness by alternative.

Table 60. Kaibab National Forest recommended wilderness acres by alternative

Alternatives Alt. A Alt. B Alts. C and D

Wilderness acres (approximate) none 6,238 acres 44,126 acres

The Kaibab NF conducted a potential wilderness area (PWA) evaluation (KNF 2013f) as part of 

the forest planning process in accordance with Forest Service Handbook (FSH 1909.12, Chapter 

70) and Southwestern Region direction. The PWA evaluation found that there are an additional 48 

existing wilderness areas within 100 air miles of the forest boundary, including 24 existing 

wilderness areas within BLM-administered lands, 23 existing wilderness areas on adjacent 

national forests (Tonto, Prescott, and Coconino National Forests), and one on NPS-administered 

lands. These existing wilderness areas total approximately 1.55 million acres.

Alternatives C and D would be expected to appeal to those members of society who value 

wilderness status over non-wilderness for the PWAs. Alternative B would be expected to be 

preferable to those whose value systems reflect a continuation of non-wilderness status.

Increases in prescribed burns and wildfires managed for resource objectives in all action 

alternatives (B, C, and D) create the potential for an environmental justice issue related to 

possible disproportionate effects of increased smoke, as most of the smoke would carry from the 

southwest to the northeast and western portions of the Navajo Reservation.

Alternative A, no action alternative: Fire managers are currently burning about 8,500 acres per 

year with prescribed fire, and managing wildfires to achieve resource objectives on around

11,700 acres per year. This equates to just over 20,000 acres per year that receive low to moderate 

fire entry.

Alternatives B, C, and D include the following objectives: Burn 13,000 to 55,000 acres in 

ponderosa pine, and 1,000 to 13,000 acres in frequent fire mixed conifer annually, using a 

combination of prescribed fire and naturally ignited wildfires (a total of 14,000 to 68,000 acres 

per year).

Prescribed burns are conducted in coordination with the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, so as to occur when conditions are appropriate to minimize impacts to smoke-sensitive

receptors downwind. When feasible, management ignitions from wildfires are also conducted 

when ventilation is favorable for good dispersal. Wind speed, wind direction, mixing layer height, 

atmospheric temperature profile upward in the atmosphere, and atmospheric stability all impact 

where and how well smoke would disperse.

282 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

During windows of opportunity when fire weather and fire effects are favorable, fire managers on 

the Kaibab NF strive to treat as many acres with wildland fire as possible each year yet still 

remain within legal, climatological, logistical, and social limits. Impacts of smoke from wildfires 

and prescribed burns on the forest, as well as on other Federal and State lands, are cumulative.

Therefore, wildland fire activities on other agency lands may further limit the ability to use 

wildland fire on the forest.

Monitors are available in the Southwestern Region that could be placed in areas of concern 

during periods of fire activity to measure particulate matter emissions to ensure National Ambient 

Air Quality Standards are not exceeded.

Short-term Uses and Long-term 

Productivity

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires consideration of “the relationship 

between short-term uses of man’s environment and the maintenance and enhancement of longterm productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared by Congress, this includes using all practicable 

means and measures 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).

The proposed plan was developed to promote ecological integrity and guide management on the 

Kaibab NF so that it is ecologically sustainable and contributes to social and economic 

sustainability. The biggest risk to long-term productivity on the forest are the effects associated 

with uncharacteristic, stand-replacing fire and resulting soil losses (discussed in the Watersheds 

and Soils section of this chapter), wood production (discussed in the Socioeconomics section of 

this chapter), and understory or grassland productivity. There are differences in alternatives that 

would result in more or less modification of stand structure, which correlates to the amount of 

stand-replacing fire and understory productivity in ponderosa pine and dry mixed conifer 

systems.

Irreversible and Irretrievable 

Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.

Decisions made in this forest plan would not result in any actual irreversible or irretrievable 

commitment of resources. The implementation of the desired conditions, standards, and 

guidelines in the plan would limit the extent and duration of any adverse environmental impacts. 

For a detailed discussion of types of consequences expected from potential future activities 

implemented under the plan and alternatives, see the specific topic areas in this chapter. 

The proposed plan provides a programmatic framework that guides site specific actions but does 

not authorize, fund, or carry out any project or activity. Because the land management plan does 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 283
Chapter 3. Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

not authorize or mandate any site specific project or activity (including ground-disturbing 

actions), none of the alternatives cause an irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources. 

284 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Preparers (Interdisciplinary Team Members)

Ariel Leonard, Forest Planner, Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) Leader

Relevant Experience: Planner for the Forest Service for 10 years. Served as IDT team 

leader for the forest plan (2008 to present), the Warm Fire Post-fire Assessment, interim 

IDT leader for travel management, and a variety of project-level NEPA teams. Other 

related experience includes serving on the Regional NEPA Training Cadre (1900-1), 

member of the National NEPA Handbook Revision Team, acting forest NEPA 

coordinator (1 year), 3 years as the Kaibab NF environmental management coordinator 

(EMS), and 9 years field experience as a biological technician. 

Degrees Held: Master’s degree in Forestry (policy and silviculture emphasis), Northern 

Arizona University; B.A., Biology, Antioch College. 

Gary B. Snider, Assistant Forest Planner, Socioeconomic Lead

Relevant Experience: Ecological economist with over 30 years of experience in 

agricultural, regional, forest, rangeland, water resource, and restoration economics. 

Served on interdisciplinary teams preparing EISs for three forest plans in Colorado, 

Oregon, and Arizona. Areas of interest include ecological-economic implications of fire 

hazard reduction treatments under various contracting mechanisms, especially 

stewardship contracting and devising a methodology for evaluating the ecologicaleconomic success of forest and watershed restoration projects.

Degrees Held: Ph.D., Forest Science, Northern Arizona University (ecological economic 

approach to analyzing ecological restoration activities (investments in natural capital) and 

other public lands policies); M.S., Agricultural Economics, University of Arizona

(Thesis: Fiscal Impacts of Forest-Rangeland Policies on Local Communities: An 

empirical study of the Flagstaff, Arizona Trade Area); B.S., Agriculture, University of 

Arizona.

Bruce J. Higgins, Planning Assistance Contractor, Vegetation Specialist/former IDT Leader

Relevant Experience: Forest planner, Kaibab NF (1994 to 2007); consultant on forest 

plan revision 2007 to 2013. Experience in leading interdisciplinary teams, technical 

writing, siliviculture, modeling and GIS analysis. Received a national award with other 

forest personnel for developing and implementing a management approach to the 

“Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United 

States.”

Degree Held: B.S., Forest Management (Recreation emphasis), Oregon State University.

Holly P. Kleindienst, Deputy Fire Staff Officer

Relevant Experience: Wildland firefighter for the U.S. Forest Service since 1986, with 

experience on hand crews, engines, and helitack. Fifteen years in wildfire and prescribed 

fire management on the Kaibab NF. Current fire qualifications include Fire Behavior 

Analyst, Long Term Fire Behavior Analyst, Division Supervisor, and Type 2 Burn Boss.

Degrees Held: M.A., French Literature, Purdue University; B.S., Botany, Miami 

University; B.A., French, University of Northern Colorado.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 285
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Valerie Stein Foster, Wildlife Biologist

Relevant Experience: Biologist with 18 years’ experience in the conservation field. Relevant 

experience includes research and management of threatened and endangered birds, small 

mammals, invertebrates, herpetofauna, and plants. With the Kaibab NF wildlife program and 

plan revision team since 2008. Also co-preparer for the DEIS for the revised Coconino 

National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan.

Degrees Held: M.S., Botany (Ecological emphasis on plant-animal interactions), University 

of Hawaii at Manoa (Thesis: Habitat Use by the Endangered Hawaiian Honeycreeper 

(Pseudonestor xanthophrys): Effects of Physiognomy and Floristics); B.A., Biology 

(ecological emphasis) State University of New York at Oswego.

Chirre L. Keckler, Wildlife Biologist

Relevant Experience: Twenty-five years as a wildlife biologist for the Forest Service, with the 

last 15 years as forest biologist on three different national forests. Served as a member on 

interdisciplinary teams for EAs on range, timber sales, special use permits, recreational 

projects, and wildlife projects and on EIS documents for gas field development, forest plan 

amendments, and Four-Forest Restoration Initiative.

Degree Held: B.S., Wildlife Management, Northwestern State University.

Marcos A. Roybal, Natural Resource Planner

Relevant Experience: Over 5 years’ experience in natural resource management and 

conservation-related fields, with an emphasis on community forestry, water resources,

and planning.

Degrees Held: Masters of Water Resources and Masters of Community and Regional 

Planning, University of New Mexico; B.S., Natural Resource Management, Colorado 

State University.

John Brown, Special Uses, Lands, and Minerals

Relevant Experience: Over 22 years in managing recreation, lands, minerals and special 

uses programs for the Forest Service, with 14 years of experience in the Southwestern

Region. 

Degrees Held: M.S., Forestry, Multi-resource Management, Northern Arizona 

University; B.S., Recreation/ Resource Management, Emphasis in Natural Sciences 

(Geology, Biology), Northern Arizona University. A.A., Geology, Glendale Community 

College.

Jared M. Scott, GIS Specialist

Relevant Experience: Five years of GIS experience in natural resource management. 

Researched disturbance ecology of subalpine forests in Rocky Mountain National Park, 

and the taxonomic and parasitic effects of dwarf mistletoe infecting bristlecone pine in 

Arizona. 

Degrees Held: M.S., Forestry, Northern Arizona University; B.A., Geography, University 

of Colorado, Boulder.

286 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Dustin Burger, Range and Invasive Species Specialist

Relevant Experience: Eight years of rangeland management with direct oversight of 

livestock grazing permits, invasive species management, and involvement in vegetation 

management projects.

Degree Held: B.S., Rangeland Ecology and Watershed Management, University of 

Wyoming.

Christopher “Kit” MacDonald, Soil and Watershed Specialist

Relevant Experience: Seventeen years in natural resources management including soils 

classification and mapping, soil nutrient management, erosion and sedimentation control, 

wetland delineation and functional assessment, vegetation management, and burned area 

emergency stabilization.

Degrees Held: M.S., Forest Science; B.S., Business Administration.

Mike Hannemann, Range, Watershed, and Invasive Species Specialist

Relevant Experience: Over 28 years of range, watershed, and invasive species management 

with the Forest Service, with over 25 years’ experience in northern Arizona.

Degrees Held: Masters in Forestry, Northern Arizona University; B.S., Wildlife Biology, 

Colorado State University.

Cat Woods, Recreation Specialist

Relevant Experience: Over 20 years’ experience specializing in recreation and CDA 

management and planning. Worked on two other forest plan revisions addressing 

recreation, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, and other special areas on the Allegheny 

National Forest and Tongass National Forest.

Michael Lyndon, Assistant Forest Archaeologist/Forest Tribal Liaison

Relevant Experience: Ten years in cultural resource management for the Forest 

Service. Five years in tribal relations as the forest lead contact on tribal issues and 

consultation.

Degrees Held: Masters in Anthropology, Northern Arizona University; B.A., 

Anthropology, Northern Arizona University.

Barbara Goodrich Phillips, Zone Botanist, Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NF s

Relevant Experience: Forty-five years’ experience as botanist working on rare plants and 

noxious/invasive plants throughout Arizona including 15 years at Museum of Northern 

Arizona, Flagstaff, and 21 years with the Forest Service as zone botanist on the 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott NF s. 

Degrees Held: Ph.D. in Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Minor in Geosciences, 1976, 

University of Arizona; M.S. in Botany, University of Arizona, 1973; B.S. in Botany, 

1967, Cornell University. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 287
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Julie Rowe, Recreation and Wilderness Program Manager

Relevant Experience: Twenty-one years’ experience in recreation management and 

interpretation/environmental education. Special emphasis on outfitter/guide management 

and recreation capacity analysis. Served as IDT lead/NEPA coordinator for recreation 

special uses programs on four forests. IDT member for the Coconino Forest Plan 

Revision and Four Forests Restoration Initiative. 

Degree Held: B.A. in Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Santa Cruz. 

Consultation and Coordination

Federal, State, and Local Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Grand Canyon National Park

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Coconino, Prescott, and Apache-Sitgreaves National Forests

Rocky Mountain Research Station

State and Private Forestry, Forest Health Group

Coconino County Board of Supervisors

City of Williams

Tusayan Town Council 

Fredonia Town Council

Kana County Commissioners

Tribes

Havasupai Tribe

Hopi Tribe

Hualapai Tribe

Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians

Navajo Nation

Yavapai-Prescott Tribe

Zuni Tribe

Others

Museum of Northern Arizona

Grand Canyon Wildlands Council

Sierra Club-Grand Canyon Chapter

Center for Biological Diversity

Coconino Trail Riders

288 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Chapter 4. Consultation and Coordination

Friends of Anderson Mesa

Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation Biology (Northern Arizona University)

The Nature Conservancy

Grand Canyon Trust

Carol Chambers (NAU Forestry)

Erika Nowak (NAU Biology)

Recreation Aviation Foundation

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 289

Literature Cited

Abella, S.R. and W.W. Covington. 2004. Monitoring an Arizona ponderosa pine restoration: 

Sampling efficiency and multivariate analysis of understory vegetation. Restoration 

Ecology 12(3): 359−367.

Achtemeier, G.L., B. Jackson, and J.D. Brenner. 2001. Problem and Nuisance Smoke. Smoke 

Management Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, 

NFES 1279. Boise, ID.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). 2003. Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan for the State of Arizona. Phoenix, AZ. Available at 

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/air/haze/download/2sip.pdf.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2011a. Draft Arizona Statewide Pronghorn 

Management Plan. Revision Date: December 2011. Arizona Game and Fish Department, 

Phoenix, Arizona. 101 pp. 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2011b. Wildlife Compatible Fencing. Arizona 

Game and Fish Department, 5000 W. Carefree Highway Phoenix, AZ 85086. 34 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD). 2012. Arizona’s State Wildlife Action Plan: 

2011−2022. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 233 pp. Available at 

http://www.azgfd.gov/w_c/swap.shtml.

Bailey, R.G., P.E. Avers, T. King, and W.H. McNab (eds.). 1994. Ecoregions and subregions of 

the United States (map). Washington, DC: U.S. Geological Survey. Scale 1: 7,500,000; 

color. Accompanied by a supplementary table of map unit descriptions compiled and 

edited by W. H. McNab and R. G. Bailey. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service.

Baker, M.B. and P.F. Ffolliott, 2003. Role of Snow Hydrology in Watershed Management. 

Journal of the Arizona Academy of Science 35: 42−47.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, H.G. Hidalgo, C. Bonfils, B.D. Santer, T. Das, G. Bala, A.W. Wood, T. 

Nozawa, A.A. Mirin, D.R. Cayan, and M.D. Dettinger. 2008. Human-induced changes in 

the hydrology of the Western United States. Science 319(5866) 1080–1083.

Beck, G.K. 1999. Biennial thistles. In: R.L. Sheley and J.K. Petroff (eds.) Biology and 

management of noxious rangeland weeds. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis. pp. 

145−161.

Beschta, R.L., C.A. Frissell, R. Gresswell, R. Hauer, J.R. Karr, G.W. Minshall, D.A. Perry, and 

J.J. Rhodes. 1995. Wildfire and salvage logging: recommendations for ecologically sound 

post-fire salvage logging and other post-fire treatments on Federal lands in the West. 

Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University. 14 pp.

Brown, J.K., E.D. Reinhardt, and K.A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: managing benefits 

and fire hazard in the recovering forest. USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station, General Technical Report RMRS-GTR-105. 16 pp.

Brown, H.E., M.B. Baker, Jr., J.J. Rogers, W.P. Clary, J.L. Kovner, F.R. Larson, C.C. Avery, and 

R.E. Campbell. 1974. Opportunities for increasing water yield and other multiple use 

values on ponderosa pine forest lands. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-129. 

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range and Experiment Station, Fort Collins, CO. 36 pp.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 291
Literature Cited

Chambers, C.L. and E.L. Kalies. 2011. Bird Communities in Wildfire-burned Ponderosa Pine 

Landscapes 14 years Post Fire, Final Report prepared for Kaibab National Forest, School 

of Forestry, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ.

Coconino County. 2003. Coconino County Comprehensive Plan. September 23.

Collins, B.J., C.C. Rhoades, M.A. Battaglia and R.M. Hubbard. 2011. Effects of Salvage Logging 

on Fire Risks After Bark Beetle Outbreaks in Colorado Lodgepole Pine Forests. Fire 

Management Today 72(3): 18−22.

Cordell, H.K., C.J. Betz, J.M. Bowker, M. English, B.K. Donald, S.H. Mou, J.C. Bergstrom, R.J. 

Teasley, M.A. Tarrant, and J. Loomis. 1999. Outdoor Recreation in American Life: A 

National Assessment of Demand and Supply Trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore 

Publishing.

Cordell, H. K., C.J. Betz, G.T. Green, S. Mou, V.R. Leeworthy, P.C. Wiley, J.J. Barry, and D. 

Hellerstein. 2004. Outdoor recreation for the 21st Century America: A Report to the 

Nation: The National Survey on Recreation and the Environment. State College, PA: 

Venture Publishing, Inc. 

Core, J.E. and J.L. Peterson. 2001. Public Health and Exposure to Smoke. Smoke Management 

Guide for Prescribed and Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279.

Boise, ID.

Corman, T. and C Wise-Gervais (eds). 2005. Arizona Breeding Bird Atlas. (Rudy-crowned kinglet 

pages 420–421). Albuquerque, NM: University of New Mexico Press. ISBN 0-8263-

3379-6. 636 pp.

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). 1997. Environmental Justice: Guidance Under the 

National Environmental Policy Act. Washington, DC: Executive Office of the President.

Covington, W.S. 2003. The evolutionary and historical context. Pages 26 to 47 in P. Friederici, 

editor, Ecological Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. Ecological 

Restoration Institute at Northern Arizona University, Island Press. 

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: changes 

since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 58:39–47.

Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and 

Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Technical Report 

FWS-OBS-79/31. Washington, DC. 

Cryer, D.H. and J.E. Murray. 1992. Aspen regeneration and soils. Rangelands 14:223–226.

Dickson, B.G., B.R. Noon, C.H. Flather, S. Jentsch, and W.M. Block. 2009. Quantifying the 

multi-scale response of avifauna to prescribed fire experiments in the southwest United 

States. Ecological Applications 19(3): 608–621.

Dickson, B.G., A.D. Olsson, S.E. Sesnie, and M.A. Williamson. 2011. Development of state-ofthe-art tools and functionality for the Kaibab National Forest Monitoring Plan. Final 

Report to the Kaibab National Forest. Lab of Landscape Ecology and Conservation 

Biology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, AZ. 54 pp.

292 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Literature Cited

Dunning, D. 1928. A tree classification for the selection forests of the Sierra Nevada. Journal of 

Agricultural Research 36(9): 755–771.

Eichman, H. and D. Jaworski 2012. Socioeconomic Resource Report, TEAMS Enterprise Unit, 30 

pp.

Elson, T.E. 1972. Williams Municipal Watershed Hydrologic Survey and Analysis for the USDA, 

Forest Service. 172 pp.

Fairweather M.L., J. McMillin, T. Rogers, D. Conklin, and B. Fitzgibbon. 2006. Field guide to

insects and diseases of Arizona and New Mexico Forests. USDA Forest Service, 

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque NM. 269 pp.

Fairweather, M.L., B.W. Geils, and M. Manthei. 2008. Aspen decline on the Coconino National 

Forest. Pp. 53-62 In: McWilliams, M.G. comp. 2008. Proceedings of the 55th Western 

International Forest Disease Work Conference; 2007 October 15-19; Sedona, AZ. Salem, 

OR, Oregon Department of Forestry.

Ffolliott, P. F. and D.G. Neary. 2003. Impacts of a historical wildfire on hydrologic processes: A 

case study in Arizona. Proceedings of the American Water Resources Association 

International Congress on Watershed Management for Water Supply Systems, New York, 

NY, June 29–July 2, 2003.

Fitch, M. and P. Truman, R. 2007. Specialist Report for Air Resources: Kaibab National Forest. 

Williams, AZ.

Fleishman, D. 2005. Monitoring of Best Management Practices—Pack Rat Salvage Sale. Report 

submitted to Larry Sears, District Ranger, Mogollon Rim Ranger District. 12 pp.

Fleishman, D. and P. Jagow. 1996. Best Management Practices Monitoring U-Bar and Merritt 

Forest Products Sale. Report submitted to Steve Calish, District Ranger, Blue Ridge 

Ranger District. Coconino National Forest. 16 pp.

Foxx, T.S. 1996. Vegetation succession after the La Mesa Fire at Bandelier National Monument. 

USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-GTR 286:47−69.

Friederici, P. 2005. Restoration of Ponderosa Pine Forests to Presettlement Conditions. Ecological 

Research Institute: Working Papers in Southwestern Pine Forest Restoration, Number 9. 

Flagstaff, AZ.

Fulé, P. Z. 2008. Does it make sense to restore wildland fire in changing climate? Restoration 

Ecology 16: 526–531.

Fulé, P. Z., W.W. Covington, H.B. Smith, J.D. Springer, T.A. Heinlein, K.D. Huisinga, and M.M. 

Moore. 2002. Comparing ecological restoration alternatives: Grand Canyon, Arizona. 

Forest Ecology Management 170(1-3):19–41.

Fulé, P.Z., J.E. Crouse, A.E. Cocke, M.M. Moore, and W.W. Covington. 2003. Changes in canopy 

fuels and potential fire behavior 1880-2040: Grand Canyon, Arizona. Ecological 

Modeling 175:231−248.

Ganey, J.L. 1999. Snag density and composition of snag populations on two national forests in 

northern Arizona. Forest Ecology and Management 117: 169–178.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 293
Literature Cited

Ganey, J.L. and S.C. Vijota. 2010. Coarse woody debris assay in northern Arizona mixed conifer 

and ponderosa pine forests. Research Paper RMRS-RP-80WWW. Fort Collins, CO: 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 19 pp.

Graham, R. 2012. Personal communication email with Mary Lata: 6/07/2012. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8. 

Guido, Z. 2008. Southwest Climate Change Network. Fire. Institute of the Environment, Climate 

Assessment of the Southwest. Accessed March 22, 2011. URL:

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/land/fire

Guinan, J.A., P.A. Gowaty, and E.K. Eltzroth. 2008. Western Bluebird (Sialia mexicana), The 

Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online at 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/510 doi:10.2173/bna.510

Haines, J. and M. Lyndon. 2010. Schultz Fire Technical Specialist’s Report- Burned Area 

Emergency Rehabilitation. Manuscript on file, Coconino National Forest, Peaks Ranger 

District.

Higgins, B.J. 2008. A Comparative Analysis of Forest Recovery on the Summit, Willis, BridgerKnoll, and Hockderffer Fires in Ponderosa Pine Forest. Kaibab National Forest, Williams, 

AZ.

Hurteau, M.D., G.W. Koch, and B.A. Hungate. 2008. Carbon protection and fire risk reduction: 

toward a full accounting of forest carbon offsets. Frontiers in Ecology and the 

Environment 6(9):493–498, doi:10.1890/0707187.

Ice, G., D. Neary, and P. Adams. 2004. Effects of wildfire on soils and watershed processes. 

Journal of Forestry 102(6): 16−20.

Inkley, D.B., M.G. Anderson, A.R. Blaustein, V.R. Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffith, J. Price, and 

T.L. Root. 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Wildlife Society 

Technical Review 04-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, MD, USA. 26 pp. 

International Atomic Energy Agency. 2009. World Distribution of Uranium Deposits with 

Uranium Deposit Classification. IAEA-TECDOC-1629.

IPCC. 2007: Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. 

Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. 

Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University 

Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Accessed March 28, 2011. 

URL: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

Johnson, C.G., Jr. 1998. Vegetation response after wildfires in national forests of northeastern 

Oregon. USDA Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region, Portland, OR.

Joyce, L., J. Aber, S. McNulty, V. Dale, A. Hansen, L. Irland, R. Neilson, and K. Skog. 2001. 

Potential consequences of climate variability and change for the forests of the United 

States. Chapter 17, pp. 489–522. In: Climate change impacts on the United States: The 

potential consequences of climate variability and change. National Assessment Synthesis 

Team (ed.). A Report for the U.S. Global Change Research Program. Cambridge 

University Press. New York, NY.

294 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Literature Cited

Karl, T.R., J.M. Melillo, and T.C. Peterson (eds). 2009. Global Climate Change in the United 

States. Cambridge University Press. Available at: 

http://downloads.globalchange.gov/usimpacts/pdfs/climate-impacts-report.pdf. 

Keen, F.P. 1943. Ponderosa pine tree classes redefined. Journal of Forestry 41(4): 249–253.

Ketterer, M.E., K.M. Hafer, C.L. Link, D. Kolwaite, J. Wilson, and J.W. Mietelski. 2004. 

Resolving global versus local/regional PU sources in the environment using sector ICP –

MS. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry. Vol. 19:241–245.

Koo, B., C.H. Chien, G. Tonnesen, R. Morris, J. Johnson, T. Sakulyanontvittaya, P. 

Piyachaturawat, and G. Yarwood. 2010. Natural emissions for regional modeling of 

background ozone and particulate matter and impacts on emissions control strategies. 

Atmospheric Environment 44: 2372−2382.

Korb, J.E. and J.D.Springer. 2003. Understory Vegetation. Pages 233–250 in Ecological 

Restoration of Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Forests. P. Friederici (ed.), Island Press, 

Covelo, CA. 561 pp.

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman. 1999. Arizona Partners in Flight Bird 

Conservation Plan. Version 1.0. Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program Technical 

Report 142. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ.

Lenart, M. (ed.). 2007. Global warming in the Southwest: projections, observations and impacts. 

Climate Assessment for the Southwest. Tucson, AZ, USA: Institute for the Study of 

Planet Earth, University of Arizona. 88 pp. 

Lindenmayer, D.B. and R.F. Noss. 2006. Salvage logging, ecosystem processes, and biodiversity 

conservation. Conservation Biology 20(4): 949−958.

Loomis, J.B. 2000. Economic values of wilderness recreation and passive use: what we think we 

know at the beginning of the 21st Century. USDA Forest Service Proceedings, RMRS-P15-Vol-2. Available at http://www.wilderness.net/library/documents/Loomis_2-3.pdf.

MacDonald, L.H. and D.B.R. Coe. 2008. Road sediment production and delivery: processes and 

management. In Proceedings of the First World Landslide Forum, United Nations 

University, Tokyo, Japan. International Consortium on Landslides, Japan, pp. 385–388.

Maschinski, T., E. Kolb, E. Smith, and B. Phillips. 1997. Potential impacts of timber harvesting 

on a rare understory plant, Clematis hirsutissima var. arizonica. Biological Conservation

80(1): 49–61.

McCall, T. 2011. Email from Tom McCall, Arizona Game and Fish Department Game Specialist, 

Region 2 to Chirre Keckler, Forest Biologist for Kaibab National Forest, with attachment 

on Game Species population trends. Received on 5/16/2011.

McIver, J.D. and L. Starr. 2001. A literature review on the environmental effects of postfire 

logging. Western Journal of Applied Forestry 16: 159–168.

McNab, W.H. and P.E. Avers (eds). 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States: section 

descriptions. WO-WSA-5. USDA Forest Service, Washington, DC. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/land/pubs/ecoregions/

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 295
Literature Cited

Megahan, W.F. 1974. Erosion over time on severely disturbed granitic soils: a model. USDA 

Forest Service Research Paper INT-156, Ogden, UT. 14 pp.

Millar, C.I., N.L. Stephenson, and S.L. Stephens. 2007. Climate change and forests of the future: 

Managing in the face of uncertainty. Ecological Applications 17(8): 2145–2151.

Miller, R. and C. Benedict. 1994. Arizona Game and Fish Department Snag Recruitment and 

Longevity Model. Paper presented at the joint meeting of the Arizona and New Mexico 

Chapters of the Wildlife Society, February 4-5, 1994.

Minnesota IMPLAN Group (MIG). 2009. IMPLAN Professional Version 3.0.

Moghaddas, E. E. Y., Stephens, S. L. 2008. Mechanized fuel treatment effects on soil compaction 

in Sierra Nevada mixed conifer stands. Forest Ecology and Management 255 (2008) 

3098–3106.

Morin, N.R. (convening editor). 1997. Flora of North America. Volume 3. Oxford University 

Press, Oxford, NY.

Neary, D.G., K.C. Ryan, and L.F. DeBano. (eds). 2005. Wildland fire in ecosystems: effects of 

fire on soils and water. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol.4. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 250 pp.

North Kaibab Ranger District (NKRD). 2011. Personal communication, District Timber Specialist 

and District Silviculturist, January 2011.

O‘Brien, R.A. 2002. Arizona’s Forest Resources, 1999. USDA Forest Service RMRS-RB-2, 

Ogden, UT.

Ottmar, R.D. 2001. Smoke Source Characteristics. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and 

Wildland Fire 2001 Edition. NWCG. PMS 420-2, NFES 1279. Boise, ID.

Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott, and T.M. Rice. 2009a. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring 

Protocol Volume I: Rapid Assessment. Gen. Tech. Report WO-82a. 35 pp.

Page-Dumroese, D.S., A.M. Abbott, and T.M. Rice. 2009b. Forest Soil Disturbance Monitoring 

Protocol Volume II: Supplementary Methods, Statistics, and Data Collection. Gen. Tech. 

Report WO-82b. 70 pp.

Page-Dumroese, D. S., M. Jurgensen, and T. Terry. 2010. Maintaining Soil Productivity during 

Forest or Biomass-to-Energy Thinning Harvests in the Western United States. Western 

Journal of Applied Forestry 25(1) 2010: 5–11.

Peregrine Fund. 2010. California Condor Restoration, Final Report to the Kaibab National Forest. 

7 pp.

Peterson, D.L.; J.K. Agee, G.H. Aplet, D.P. Dykstra, R.T. Graham, J.F. Lehmkuhl, D.S. Pilliod, 

D.F. Potts, R.F. Powers, and J.D. Stuart. 2009. Effects of timber harvest following 

wildfire in western North America. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-776. Portland, OR: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. 51 pp.

Phillips, B.G. and D. Crisp. 2001. Dalmatian Toadflax, an Invasive Exotic Noxious Weed, 

Threatens Flagstaff Pennyroyal Community Following Prescribed Fire. USDA Forest 

Service, Flagstaff, AZ.

296 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Literature Cited

Phillips, B.G. and D. Crisp. 2010. Actea arizonica Monitoring Site Information Form – Bill 

Williams Mountain Population. Level 1. 

Phillips, B.G., H. Green, S. Dudley, and R. Galeano-Popp. 1992. Prescribed fire research on 

Flagstaff pennyroyal (Hedeom diffusum Greene). In R. Sivinski and K. Lightfott, eds. 

Proceedings of the Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plant Conference, pp. 162–169. 

New Mexico Forestry and Resources Conservation Division, Energy, Minerals and 

Natural Resources Department, Santa Fe, NM.

Pinkham, R. and B. Davis. 2002. North Central Arizona Water Demand Study. A report submitted 

to the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council. Rocky Mountain Institute.178 pp. 

Reid, C., C. Nicholas, and E. Woodard. 2008. Warm Fire Site Stabilization 2008. KNF Report

2008-07-16A. Manuscript on file, Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Reynolds, R.T. and S.M. Joy. 2006. Demography of northern goshawks in Northern Arizona, 

1991-1996. Studies in Avian Biology 31:63−74.

Rothermel, R.C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the Northern Rocky 

Mountains. USDA Forest Service Intermountain Research Station Research Paper INT438. Ogden, UT.

Schussman, H., C. Enquist, and M. List. 2006. Historic fire return intervals for Arizona and New 

Mexico: A regional perspective for Southwestern land managers. The Nature 

Conservancy.

Scott, J. and E.D. Reinhardt. 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of surface 

and crown fire behavior. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station 

Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO.

Seesholtz, D., D. Wickwar, and J. Russell. 2004. Social Economic Profile Technical Guide. 

USDA, Forest Service, Inventory Monitoring Institute.

Smith, J.B., R. Richels, and B. Miller. 2001. Potential consequences of climate variability and 

change for the Western United States. In: National Assessment Synthesis Team, U.S. 

Global Change Research Program, compilers. Climate change impacts on the United 

States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Global Change Research Program; 2000. pp. 291−245.

Southwest Condor Review Team. 2007. A Review of the Second Five Years of the California 

Condor Reintroduction Program in the Southwest. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/CA_Condor/2nd_5Y

R-07_Final.pdf

Sprigg, W.A., T. Hinkley, et al. 2000. Preparing for a Changing Climate: The Potential 

Consequences of Climate Variability and Change: Southwest. A Report of the Southwest 

Regional Assessment Group. University of Arizona. The Institute for the Study of Planet 

Earth. Tucson, AZ, U.S. Global Change Research Program.

Springer, J.D., M.T. Stoddard, D.C. Laughlin, D.L. Crisp, and B.G. Phillips. (In press). Ecology 

and Effects of+ Ecological Restoration Treatments on Rusby’s Milkvetch (Astragalus 

rusbyi), a Rare Endemic of Northern Arizona Ponderosa Pine Forests. In S.E. Meyers, 

tech ed. Southwestern rare and endangered plants: Proceedings of the fifth conference; 

March 16-20, 2009; Salt Lake City, Utah. Proceedings RMRS-P-XX (accepted). U.S. 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 297
Literature Cited

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station, Fort 

Collins, CO.

Stacier, C.A. and M.J. Guzy. 2002. Grace’s Warbler (Dendroica graciae), The Birds of North 

America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the 

Birds of North America Online at http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/677

(accessed) doi:10.2173/bna.677.

State of New Mexico. 2005. Potential effects of climate change on New Mexico. Agency 

Technical Work Group. Available online: 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/cc/Potential_Effects_Climate_Change_NM.pdf

State of Utah. 2011. Utah land ownership stats: By agency, by county. Available at 

http://gis.utah.gov/utah-gis-portal/utah-land-ownership-stats-by-agency-by-county (Last 

accessed 5/9/2011).

Swank, W.T. and D. A. Crossley (eds). 1988. Forest Ecology at Coweeta. New York, NY: 

Springer Verlag.

Swanson, D.L., J.L. Ingold, and G.E. Wallace. 2008. Ruby-crowned Kinglet (Regulus calendula), 

The Birds of North America Online (A. Poole, Ed.). Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; 

Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online at 

http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna/species/119 doi:10.2173/bna.119.

SWCA Environmental Consultants. 2011. Socioeconomic study for the northern Arizona 

proposed withdrawal environmental impact statement. For USDI, BLM Arizona Strip 

district. 58 pp.

Swetnam, T. and J.L. Bentacourt. 1997. Mesoscale disturbance and ecological response to 

decadal climatic variability in the American Southwest. Journal of Climate 11: 

3128−3147. 

Swetnam, T.W. C.D. Allen, and J.L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the past 

to manage for the future. Ecological Applications 9:1189–1206.

Thomsen, B.W. 1969. Surface Water Supply for the City of Williams, Arizona. M.S. Thesis 

submitted to the Committee on Hydrology and Water Resources. University of Arizona. 

55 pp.

Thomson, W.G. 1940. A growth rate classification of Southwestern ponderosa pine. Journal of 

Forestry 38(7): 547–553.

Tong, D.Q. and D.L. Mauzerall. 2008. Summertime State-Level Source-Receptor Relationships 

between Nitrogen Oxides Emissions and Surface Ozone Concentrations over the 

Continental United States. Environmental Science and Technology 42: 7976−7984.

U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. 2011. Local Area Personal Income, Table CA05. Retrieved 

May 10, 2011 from http://www.bea.gov/regional/reis.

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2011. Local Area Unemployment. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from 

http://www.bls.gov/lau.

U.S. Census Bureau. 1990. American FactFinder. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov.

298 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Literature Cited

U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. American FactFinder. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau. 2009a. American Community Survey, Five-Year Estimates. Retrieved June 

30, 2011 from http://factfinder.census.gov

U.S. Census Bureau. 2010. American FactFinder2. Retrieved May 10, 2011 from 

http://factfinder2.census.gov.

U.S. Census Bureau 2012a. Arizona 2010 Census of Population and Housing. CPH 1-4.

U.S. Census Bureau 2012b. Utah 2010 Census of Population and Housing. CPH 1-46.

University of Arizona. 2005. Socioeconomic Assessment of the Kaibab National Forest. Arizona 

National Forests Socioeconomic Assessment Team, School of Natural Resources, Tucson, 

AZ. 145 p.

USDA Forest Service. 1974. National Forest Landscape Management. Vol. 2, ch. 1 (The Visual 

Management System). U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 462. Washington, DC: 

U.S. Government Printing Office. 47 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 1982. ROS users guide. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/cdt/carrying_capacity/rosguide_1982.pdf

USDA Forest Service. 1989. General Ecosystem Survey. Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern 

Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1995. Landscape aesthetics: A handbook for scenery management. 

Agriculture Handbook Number 701.

USDA Forest Service. 1998. Economic and Social Conditions of Communities: Economic and 

Social Characteristics of Interior Columbia Basin Communities and an Estimation of 

Effects on Communities from the Alternatives of the Eastside and Upper Columbia River 

Basin DEIS. Portland, OR: Pacific Northwest Research Station.

USDA Forest Service. 2000, 2005, and 2010. National Visitor Use Monitoring Results, Kaibab 

National Forest. Report. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/

USDA Forest Service. 2005. Final environmental impact statement for integrated treatment of 

noxious or invasive weeds: Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott national forests within 

Coconino, Gila, Mohave, and Yavapai counties. Albuquerque, NM. 

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Region 3 Sensitive Species List. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_021328.pdf (animals) and 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsbdev3_021246.pdf (plants)

USDA Forest Service. 2008a. Economic and Social Sustainability Assessment. Flagstaff, AZ: 

Coconino National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2008b. Ecological sustainability: developing a framework for ecological 

sustainability on National Forest Lands and National Grasslands in the Southwestern 

Region, 2006. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Version 5.1.1. Albuquerque, 

NM. 119 pp.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 299
Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Southwestern Region climate change trends and forest planning: a 

guide for addressing climate change in Forest plan Revisions for Southwestern National 

Forest and National Grasslands.

USDA, Forest Service. 2011. Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act

Payments. Retrieved July 6, 2011 from http://www.fs.usda.gov/pts.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land 

Management Plan, as Amended. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest. 

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2004a. Environmental Assessment for 

Amendment of the Kaibab National Forest Management Plan – Recreation and Scenery 

Management.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2004b. Kaibab National Forest Recreation 

Opportunity Spectrum and Scenery Management System Guidebook.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2008a. Kaibab National Forest Ecological 

Sustainability Report. Version 1.01, December 19, 2008. Available at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050014.pdf

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2008b. Vegetation and Fire Ecological 

Need for Change. Unpublished report to the USDA Forest Service Southwestern 

Regional Office. Version 1.01, December 31, 2009. On file at the Kaibab National Forest 

Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ. Available at 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050178.pdf

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest, 2008c. Social and Economic Sustainability 

Report. Unpublished report to the USDA Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office. 

On file at the Kaibab.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2008d. Species Diversity Report. Version 

1.2.5. Unpublished report to the USDA Forest Service Southwestern Regional Office. On 

file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, Williams, AZ.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2009. Kaibab National Forest 

Comprehensive Evaluation Report. Unpublished report to the USDA Forest Service 

Southwestern Regional Office. On file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Williams, AZ. Available at 

http://prdp2fs.ess.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fsm91_050073.pdf.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2010a. Management indicator species of 

the Kaibab National Forest: An evaluation of population and habitat trends. Prepared by 

Foster, V. S., Nobel, B., Bratland, K., Joos, R. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5114494.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2010b. Kaibab National Forest Supplement 

to the Comprehensive Evaluation Report. Unpublished report to the USDA Forest Service 

Southwestern Regional Office. On file at the Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office, 

Williams, AZ. 

http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5154724.pdf. 

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2011a. Transportation Specialist Report for 

the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

300 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2011b. Forest Lands Specialist Report for 

the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2011c. Special Uses Specialist Report for 

the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2012a. Kaibab National Forest Air Quality 

Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2012b. Recreation Resource Report for the 

Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2012c. Scenery Resource Report for the 

Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2012d. Heritage and Tribal Relations 

Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2012e. Minerals and Mining Specialist 

Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013a Kaibab National Forest Vegetation, 

Fuels, and Fire Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: 

Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013b. Kaibab National Forest Nonnative 

Invasive Species Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: 

Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013c. Kaibab National Forest Wildlife 

Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013d. Kaibab National Forest Botany 

Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National 

Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013e. Kaibab National Forest Soils, 

Watershed, and Water Resources Specialist Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. 

Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013f. Potential Wilderness Evaluation 

Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013g. Livestock Grazing Specialist 

Report for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest (KNF). 2013h. Socioeconomic Specialist Report 

for the Forest Plan Revision FEIS. Williams, AZ: Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service (USDA), U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), 

U.S. Department of Interior Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Department of 

Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), and Northern Arizona 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 301
Literature Cited

University. 1997. Paradine Plains cactus conservation assessment and strategy on the 

North Kaibab Ranger District, Kaibab National Forest and Arizona Strip District, Bureau 

of Land Management. 

USDI. 2010. Payments in Lieu of Taxes. Retrieved June 2, 2011 from http://www.doi.gov/pilt.

USDI Bureau of Land Management (BLM). 2008. Approved resource management plan for the 

Arizona Strip. St. George, UT: Arizona Strip Field Office. 

http://www.blm.gov/az/st/en/info/nepa/environmental_library/arizona_resource_manage

ment/strip_ROD.html. 

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Recovery plan for the Mexican spotted owl

(Strix occidentalis lucida). Albuquerque, NM: Southwestern Region.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1996. California Condor Recovery Plan, Third 

Revision. Portland, OR. 62 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2011. Draft Land-Based Wind Energy Guidelines 

Recommendations on measures to avoid, minimize, and compensate for effects to fish, 

wildlife, and their habitats. 87 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012a. Recovery Plan for the Mexican Spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis lucida), First Revision. USFWS, Albuquerque, New Mexico USA. 414 

pp. Available at 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/MSO/2012MSO_Rec

overy_Plan_First_Revision_Final.pdf.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2012b. A Review of the Third Five Years of the 

California Condor Reintroduction Program in the Southwest (2007-2011). Prepared by 

SCRT. May 2012. 

99p.http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/Documents/SpeciesDocs/CA_Condor/THI

RD%205YR%20Review%20Final%20.pdf (accessed on 05/29/2012)

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 1995. General management plan for Grand Canyon National 

Park. Denver, CO: Denver Service Center. http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/gmp.htm

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2006. Grand Canyon National Park North Rim development 

plan. http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/nrdevplan06.htm

USDI National Park Service (NPS). 2008. Grand Canyon National Park South Rim Visitor 

Transportation Plan. http://www.nps.gov/grca/parkmgmt/trans.htm . 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2010. Air Quality Index Charts for Coconino 

County. http://www.epa.gov/air/data/reports.html

Vankat, J. 2004. Were large areas (>1 sq. mile) of high-severity crown fires part of reference 

conditions in Grand Canyon National Park? Unpublished paper on file at the Kaibab 

National Forest, Williams, AZ.

Ward, D.E. and C.C. Hardy. 1991. Smoke emissions from wildland fires. Environmental 

International 17:117−134.

302 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Literature Cited

West, J.M., S.H. Julias, P. Kareiva, C. Enquist, J.J. Lawler, B. Petersen, A.E. Johnson, and M.R. 

Shaw. 2009. U.S. Natural Resources and Climate Change: Concepts and Approaches for 

Management Adaptation. Environmental Management DOI 10.1007/s00267-009-9345-1.

Westerling, A.L., H.G. Hildalgo, and T.W. Swetnam. 2006. Warming and earlier spring increase 

western U.S. Forest wildfire activity. Science 313: 940–943.

Wightman, C.S. and S.S. Germaine. 2006. Forest stand characteristics altered by restoration affect 

Western Bluebird habitat quality. Restoration Ecology 14:653–661.

World Nuclear Association. 2009. http://www.world-nuclear.org/. 

Yavapai County. 2003. The Yavapai County General Plan. April 7, 2003.

Zouhar, K. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System. Fort Collins, CO: USDA 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 303

Glossary

Adaptive management: A system of management practices based on clearly identified intended 

outcomes and monitoring to determine if management actions are meeting those outcomes; and, if 

not, to facilitate management changes that will best ensure that those outcomes are met or 

reevaluated. Adaptive management stems from the recognition that knowledge about natural 

systems is sometimes uncertain.

Age class is defined as trees that originated within a relatively distinct range of years. Typically 

the range of years is considered to fall within 20 percent of the average natural maturity (e.g., if 

100 years is required to reach maturity, then there would be five 20-year age classes).

Basal area: Cross-sectional area at breast height (4.5 feet above the ground) of trees measured in 

square feet. Basal area is a way to measure how much of a site is occupied by trees. The crosssectional area is determined by calculating the tree’s radius from its diameter (diameter/2 = 

radius) and using the formula for the area of a circle (π x radius2 = cross-sectional area). Basal 

area per acre is the summation of the cross-sectional area of all trees in an acre or in a smaller plot 

used to estimate basal area per acre. Diameter at root collar (defined below) is used to calculate 

the cross-sectional area of multistemmed trees such as juniper and oak.

Browse is either: (1) the part of shrubs, half shrubs, woody vines, and trees available for animal 

consumption; or (2) to search for or consume browse. Interagency Technical Reference 1734-4 

Sampling Vegetation Attributes. 1999 (ITR 1734-4)

Clump refers to a tight cluster of two to five trees of similar age and size originating from a 

common rooting zone that typically lean away from each other when mature. A clump is 

relatively isolated from other clumps or trees within a group of trees, but a stand-alone clump of 

trees can function as a tree group. 

Coarse woody debris: Woody material on the ground greater than 3 inches in diameter, 

including logs.

Collaboration describes people working together to share knowledge and resources to describe 

and achieve desired conditions for National Forest System lands and for associated social, 

ecological, and economic systems in a plan area. Collaboration applies throughout land 

management, encompasses a wide range of external and internal relationships, and entails formal 

and informal processes.

Connectivity is the arrangement of habitats that allows organisms and ecological processes to 

move across the landscape; patches of similar habitats are either close together or linked by 

corridors of appropriate vegetation; the opposite of fragmentation.

Corridor: A linear strip of land identified for the present or future location of transportation or 

utility rights-of-way within its boundaries.

Critical area is an area which should be treated with special consideration because of inherent 

site factors, size, location, condition, values, or significant potential conflicts among uses. 

Cumulative effects describe the impact on the environment that results from the incremental 

effect of the proposed action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future 

actions in the resource area, regardless of who undertakes such actions. Cumulative effects can 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 305
Glossary

result from individually minor but collectively significant actions that take place over a period of 

time.

Deciview (dv): A measure of visual air quality. Similar to the decibel scale for sound, the 

deciview scale is linear with respect to perceived visual changes. A one dv change is 

approximately a 10 percent change in the extinction coefficient, which is a small but usually 

perceptible scenic change.

Declining refers to the senescent (aging) period in the lifespan of plants that (for trees) includes 

the presence of large dead and/or dying limbs, snag tops, large, old lightning scars and other 

characteristics that indicate the later life stages of vegetation.

Designated Areas are areas or features identified and managed to maintain their unique special 

character or purpose. Some categories of designated areas may be designated only by statute and 

some categories may be established administratively in the land management planning process or 

by other administrative processes of the Federal executive branch. Examples of statutorily 

designated areas are national heritage areas, national recreation areas, national scenic trails, wild 

and scenic rivers, wilderness areas, and wilderness study areas. Examples of administratively 

designated areas are experimental forests, research natural areas, scenic byways, botanical areas, 

and significant caves.

Diameter at breast height (d.b.h.) is the diameter of a tree typically measured at 4.5 feet above 

ground level.

Diameter at root collar (d.r.c.) is the diameter typically measured at the root collar or at the 

natural ground line, whichever is higher, outside the bark. For a multistemmed tree, d.r.c. is 

calculated from the diameter measurements of all qualifying stems (greater than equal to 

1.5 inches diameter and at least 1 foot in length).

Dispersed recreation: Outdoor recreation in which visitors are spread over relatively large areas.

Where facilities or developments are provided, they are more for access and protection of the 

environment than for the comfort or convenience of the visitors.

Disturbance is any relatively discrete event in time that disrupts ecosystem, watershed, 

community, or species population structure and/or function and changes resources, substrate 

availability, or the physical environment.

Disturbance regime is a description of the characteristic types of disturbance on a given 

landscape; the frequency, severity, and size distribution of these characteristic disturbance types; 

and their interactions.

Diversity: The distribution and abundance of different plant and animal communities and species 

within the area covered by a land and resource management plan.

Ecosystem services are benefits people obtain from ecosystems, including: (1) provisioning 

services such as clean air and fresh water, energy, fuel, forage, fiber, and minerals; (2) regulating 

services such as long term storage of carbon; climate regulation; water filtration, purification, and 

storage; soil stabilization; flood control; and disease regulation; (3) supporting services such as 

pollination, seed dispersal, soil formation, and nutrient cycling; and (4) cultural services such as 

306 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Glossary

educational, aesthetic, spiritual and cultural heritage values, recreational experiences, and tourism 

opportunities.

Endemic: A population that has unique genetic characteristics and likely exists in a very limited 

geographic area.

Environmental justice is the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless 

of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and 

enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.

Even-aged forests are composed of one or two distinct age classes of trees.

Even-aged silvicultural practices are the application of a combination of actions that results in 

the creation of stands in which trees of essentially the same age grow together. Managed evenaged forests are characterized by a distribution of stands of varying ages (and, therefore, tree 

sizes) throughout the Forest area. The difference in age between trees forming the main canopy 

level of a stand usually does not exceed 20 percent of the age of the stand at harvest rotation age. 

Regeneration in a particular stand is obtained during a short period at or near the time that a stand 

has reached the desired age or size for regeneration and is harvested. Clearcut, shelterwood, or 

seed tree cutting methods produce even-aged stands.

Federally Recognized Indian Tribe: An Indian or Alaska Native Tribe, band, nation, pueblo, 

village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian Tribe 

under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994, 25 U.S.C. 479a.

Fire regime refers to the patterns of fire that occur over a long period of time across a landscape 

vegetation community and its immediate effects on the ecosystem in which it occurs. Five fire 

regimes are classified based on frequency (average number of years between fires) and severity 

(amount of replacement of the dominant overstory vegetation) of the fire: 

• Fire regime I – 0- to 35-year frequency and low (surface fires most common, isolated 

torching can occur) to mixed severity (less than 75 percent of dominant overstory 

vegetation replaced); 

• Fire regime II – 0- to 35-year frequency and high severity (greater than 75 percent of 

dominant overstory vegetation replaced);

• Fire regime III – 35 to 100+ year frequency and mixed severity;

• Fire regime IV – 35 to 100+ year frequency and high severity;

• Fire regime V – 200+ year frequency and high or mixed severity 

Fire suppression: The work of extinguishing a fire or confining fire spread.

Forage is (1) browse and herbage which is available and can provide food for animals or be 

harvested for feeding; or (2) to search for or consume forage. ITR 1734-4 

Foraging areas surround the post-fledgling family areas where goshawks hunt for prey. They are 

approximately 5,400 acres in size. 

Forested land is land at least 10 percent occupied by forest trees of any size or formerly having 

had such tree cover and not currently developed for non-forest use. Lands developed for nonFEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 307
Glossary

forest use include areas for crops, improved pasture, residential, or administrative areas, improved 

roads of any width, and adjoining road clearing and power line clearing of any width.

Gap refers to the space occurring in a forested area as a result of individual or group tree 

mortality from small disturbance events or from local site factors such as soil properties that 

influence vegetation growth patterns.

Goals are concise statements that describe desired conditions to be achieved sometime in the 

future. They are normally expressed in broad, general terms, and are timeless in that they have no 

specific date by which they are to be completed. Goal statements form the principal basis from 

which objectives are developed.

Goods and services: The various outputs, including onsite uses, produced from forest and 

rangeland resources.

Group refers to a cluster of two or more trees with interlocking or nearly interlocking crowns at 

maturity surrounded by an opening. Size of tree groups is typically variable depending on forest 

community and site conditions and can range from fractions of an acre (a two-tree group) to many 

acres. Trees within groups are typically nonuniformly spaced, some of which may be tightly 

clumped.

Herbage is the aboveground material of any herbaceous plant. ITR 1734-4 1999

Hydrologic function: The behavioral characteristics of a watershed described in terms of ability 

to sustain favorable conditions of waterflow. Favorable conditions of waterflow are defined in 

terms of water quality, quantity, and timing.

Hydrologic unit code (HUC): The United States is divided and subdivided into successively 

smaller hydrologic units which are identified by unique hydrologic unit codes (HUCs). The 

number of digits in a HUC indicate its relative size; HUCs with more digits are smaller than 

HUCs with fewer digits.

Interspaces: Open space between tree groups intended to be managed for grass-forb-shrub 

vegetation over the long term.

Invasive species are species that are not native to the ecosystem being described. For all 

ecosystems, the desired condition is that invasive species are rarely present or are present at levels 

that do not negatively influence ecosystem function.

Inventory is the survey of an area or entity for determination of such data as contents, condition, 

or value, for specific purposes such as planning, evaluation, or management. An inventory 

activity may include an information needs assessment; planning and scheduling; data collection, 

classification, mapping, data entry, storage and maintenance; product development; evaluation; 

and reporting phases. 

Key area: A relatively small portion of a range selected because of its location, use, or grazing 

value as a monitoring point for grazing use. It is assumed that key areas, if properly selected, will 

reflect the overall acceptability of current grazing management over the range. 

308 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Glossary

Key ecological attributes are attributes for which alteration beyond some critical range/threshold 

will lead to loss of the resource in a short period of time. Examples include changes in structure, 

composition, pattern, and process.

Litter is dead, unattached organic material on the soil surface that protects the soil surface from 

raindrop splash, sheet, and rill erosion and is at least 1⁄2-inch thick. Litter is composed of leaves, 

needles, cones, and woody vegetative debris, including twigs, branches, and trunks.

Long-term sustained-yield timber capacity (LTSY) is the highest uniform wood yield from 

lands being managed for timber production that may be sustained under a specified management 

intensity consistent with multiple-use objectives.

Maintain: In reference to an ecological condition: to keep in existence or continuance of the 

desired ecological condition in terms of its desired composition, structure, and processes. 

Depending upon the circumstance, ecological conditions may be maintained by active or passive 

management, or both.

Management area: Land area identified within the planning area that has the same set of 

applicable plan components. A management area does not have to be spatially contiguous.

Management concern: Issue, problem, or a condition the Forest Service identifies in the 

planning process which constrains the range of management practices.

Management direction: Statement of multiple use and other goals and objectives, the associated 

management prescriptions, and standards and guidelines for attaining them.

Management intensity: A management practice or combination of management practices and 

associated costs designed to obtain different levels of goods and services.

Management practice: Specific activity, measure, course of action, or treatment.

Management prescription: Management practices and intensity selected and scheduled for 

application on a specific area to attain multiple use and other goals and objectives.

Monitoring: Collection and analysis of repeated observations or measurements to evaluate 

changes in condition and progress toward meeting a resource or management objective. A 

monitoring activity may include an information needs assessment; planning and scheduling; data 

collection, classification, mapping, data entry, storage and maintenance; product development; 

evaluation; and reporting phases.

Mosaic: Patterns of patches, corridors, and matrix (forest or non-forest) that form a landscape in 

its entirety.

Multiple use: The management of all the various renewable surface resources of National Forest 

System lands so that they are utilized in the combination that best meets the needs of the 

American people; making the most judicious use of the land for some or all of these resources or 

related services over areas large enough to provide sufficient latitude for periodic adjustments in 

use to conform to changing needs and conditions; that some lands will be used for less than all of 

the resources; and harmonious and coordinated management of the various resources, each with 

the other, without impairment of the productivity of the land, with consideration being given to 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 309
Glossary

the relative values of the various resources, and not necessarily the combination of uses that will 

give the greatest dollar return or the greatest unit output.

Native species: An organism that was historically or is present in a particular ecosystem as a 

result of natural migratory or evolutionary processes and not as a result of an accidental or 

deliberate introduction into that ecosystem. An organism’s presence and evolution (adaptation) in 

an area are determined by climate, soil, and other biotic and abiotic factors.

Natural variability references past conditions and processes that provide important context and 

guidance relevant to the environments and habitats in which native species evolved. Disturbancedriven spatial and temporal variability is vital to ecological systems. Biologically appropriate 

disturbances provide for heterogeneous conditions and subsequent diversity, whereas 

“uncharacteristic disturbance” such as high-intensity fire can have the effect of reducing diversity, 

increasing homogeneity, and resulting in states that may be permanently altered. 

Nest areas (goshawk) are the areas immediately around a nest that northern goshawks use for 

courtship and breeding activities. Nest areas are approximately 30 acres in size and contain 

multiple groups of large, old trees with interlocking crowns.

Noxious weed is a legal term applied to plants or plant parts regulated by Federal and State laws. 

Arizona Administrative Codes R3-4-244, R3-4-245 (Arizona Department of Agriculture 1999) 

regulate certain invasive species in the state: “A noxious weed is defined as any species of plant 

that is detrimental or destructive and difficult to control or eradicate and includes plant organisms 

found injurious to any domesticated, cultivated, native or wild plant.” The director of Arizona’s 

noxious weed program uses five biological criteria to describe noxious weeds: (1) exotic, (2) 

invasive, (3) competitive, (4) persistent, and (5) aggressive.

Nutrient cycling is the circulation or exchange of elements such as nitrogen and carbon between 

non-living and living portions of the environment.

Objectives are concise, time-specific statements of measurable planned results that respond to 

pre-established goals. Objectives form the basis for further planning to define the precise steps to 

be taken and the resources to be used in achieving identified goals.

Old growth in southwestern forested ecosystems is different than the traditional definition based 

on northwestern infrequent fire forests. Due to large differences among Southwest forest types 

and natural disturbances, old growth forests vary extensively in tree size, age classes, presence 

and abundance of structural elements, stability, and presence of understory. Old growth refers to 

specific habitat components that occur in forests and woodlands—old trees, dead trees (snags), 

downed wood (coarse woody debris), and structure diversity. These important habitat features 

may occur in small areas, with only a few components, or over larger areas as stands or forests 

where old growth is concentrated. In the Southwest, old growth is considered “transitional,” given

that the location of old growth shifts on the landscape over time as a result of succession and 

disturbance (tree growth and mortality). Some species, notably certain plants, require “old forest” 

communities that may or may not have old growth components but have escaped significant 

disturbance for lengths of time necessary to provide the suitable stability and environment.

Openings are spatial breaks between groups or patches of trees containing grass, forb, shrub, 

and/or tree seedlings but are largely devoid of big trees with a total tree cover of less than 

10 percent.

310 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Glossary

Patches are areas larger than tree groups in which the vegetation composition and structure are 

relatively homogeneous. Patches comprise the mid-scale, thus they range in size from 100 to 

1,000 acres. Patches and stands are generally synonymous terms, although stands may be much 

smaller than 100 acres. 

Plan or land and resource management plan refers to a document or set of documents that 

provide management direction for an administrative unit of the National Forest System developed 

under the requirements of a planning rule.

Planning area is the area of the National Forest System covered by a regional guide or forest 

plan.

Planning horizon: The overall time period considered in the planning process that spans all 

activities covered in the analysis or plan and all future conditions and effects of proposed actions 

which would influence the planning decisions.

Planning period: One decade. The time interval within the planning horizon used to show 

incremental changes in yields, costs, effects, and benefits.

Potential natural vegetation (PNVT) types comprise the “climax” vegetation that will occupy a 

site without disturbance or climatic change. PNV is an expression of environmental factors such 

as topography, soils, and climate across an area.

Post-fledging family areas (goshawk) surround the nest areas. They represent an area of 

concentrated use by the goshawk family until the time the young no longer depend on adults for 

food. Post-fledgling family areas are approximately 420 acres in size.

Prescribed fire: A wildland fire originating from a planned ignition to meet specific objectives 

identified in a written, approved, prescribed fire plan for which NEPA requirements have been 

met prior to ignition.

Project: An organized effort to achieve an outcome on National Forest System lands identified 

by location, tasks, outputs, effects, times, and responsibilities for execution.

Public issue: A subject or question of widespread public interest relating to management of 

National Forest System lands.

Range condition is a subjective expression of the status or health of the vegetation and soil 

relative to their combined potential to produce a sound and stable biotic community. (USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Record of Decision for Amendment of Forest Plans,

Arizona and New Mexico). It is evaluated relative to desired conditions. 

Range readiness is the condition when grazing would not permanently damage perennial plants 

which is determined when plants that would likely be grazed exhibit at least one of the following 

characteristics: seed heads or flowers, multiple leaves or branches, and/or a root system that does 

not allow them to be easily pulled from the ground. These characteristics provide evidence of 

plant vigor, reproductive ability, and recovery.

Ranges of values presented in desired conditions account for natural or desired variation 

in the composition and structure within a community or resource area. Desired conditions 

may have a wide range due to spatial variability in soils, elevation, aspect, or social 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 311
Glossary

values. Where desired conditions specify a range, the full spectrum of values within that 

range is desirable, although the desired distribution may vary depending on the resource. 

It may also be desirable to manage for desired conditions at the upper or lower end of a 

range in a particular area, such as lower vegetation density in the wildland-urban 

interface to achieve the desired fire behavior within proximity of private property and 

human occupancy; higher densities may be desired in other areas to meet habitat 

requirements for specific species. 

Recreation opportunity spectrum: A framework for defining the types of outdoor recreation 

opportunities the public might desire, and identifying that portion of the spectrum a given 

national forest area might be able to provide. The broad classes are: 

Primitive (P): Characterized by essentially unmodified natural environment. Interaction 

between users is very low and evidence of other users is minimal. Essentially free from 

evidence of human-induced restrictions and controls. Motorized use within the area is 

generally not permitted. Very high probability of experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, 

tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

Semiprimitive Nonmotorized (SPNM): Characterized by a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment. Interaction between users is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may 

be present, but they are subtle. Motorized use is generally not permitted. High probability of 

experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

Semiprimitive Motorized (SPM): Characterized by a predominantly natural or natural 

appearing environment. Concentration of users is low, but there is often evidence of other 

users. The area is managed in such a way that minimum onsite controls and restrictions may 

be present, but they are subtle. Motorized use is generally permitted. Moderate probability of 

experiencing solitude, closeness to nature, tranquility, self-reliance, and risk.

Roaded Natural (RN): Characterized by a predominantly natural appearing environment 

with moderate evidence of the sights and sounds of other humans. Such evidence usually 

harmonizes with the natural environment. Interaction between users may be low to moderate,

but with evidence of other users prevalent. Resource modification and utilization practices are 

evident but harmonize with the natural environment. Conventional motorized use is provided 

for in construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunity to affiliate with other users 

in developed sites, but with some chance for privacy.

Roaded Modified (RM): Characterized by substantially modified natural environment 

except for campsite. Roads and management activities may be strongly dominant. There is 

moderate evidence of other users on roads. Conventional motorized use is provided for in 

construction standards and design of facilities. Opportunity to get away from others, but with 

easy access.

Rural (R): Characterized by substantially modified natural environment. Resource 

modification and utilization practices are to enhance specific recreation activities and to 

maintain vegetative cover and soil. Sights and sounds of humans are readily evident, and the 

interaction between users is often moderate to high. A considerable number of facilities are 

designed for use by a large number of people. Facilities are often provided for special 

activities. Moderate densities are provided far away from developed sites. Facilities for 

intensified motorized use and parking are available. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with 

other users is important, as is convenience of facilities.

312 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Glossary

Urban (U): Characterized by a substantially urbanized environment, although the 

background may have natural appearing elements. Resource modification and utilization 

practices are to enhance specific recreation activities. Vegetative cover is often exotic and 

manicured. Sights and sounds of humans onsite are predominant. Large numbers of users can 

be expected, both onsite and in nearby areas. Facilities for highly intensified motor use and 

parking are available with forms of mass transit often available to carry people throughout the 

site. Opportunity to observe and affiliate with other users is very important, as is convenience 

of facilities.

Recreation setting: The social, managerial, and physical attributes of a place that, when 

combined, provide a distinct set of recreation opportunities. The Forest Service uses the 

recreation opportunity spectrum to define recreation settings and categorize them into six distinct 

classes: primitive, semiprimitive nonmotorized, semiprimitive motorized, roaded natural, rural, 

and urban.

Reference conditions: Environmental conditions that infer ecological sustainability. When 

available, reference conditions are represented by the characteristic range of variation (not the 

total range of variation) prior to European settlement and under the current climatic period. For 

many ecosystems, the range of variation also reflects human-caused disturbance and effects prior 

to settlement. It may also be necessary to refine reference conditions according to contemporary 

factors (e.g., invasive species) or projected conditions (e.g., climate change). Reference 

conditions are most useful as an inference of sustainability when they have been quantified by 

amount, condition, spatial distribution, and temporal variation.

Research natural areas are specially designated areas that represent some of the finest examples 

of natural ecosystems for the purposes of scientific study and education, and for maintaining

biological diversity.

Resilience is the ability of a social or ecological system to absorb disturbances while retaining the 

same basic structure and ways of functioning, the capacity for self-organization, and the capacity 

to adapt to stress and change.

Responsible official is the Forest Service employee who has the authority to select and/or carry 

out a specific planning action.

Restoration is the process of assisting the recovery of an ecosystem that has been degraded,

damaged, or destroyed. Ecological restoration focuses on establishing the composition, structure, 

pattern, and ecological processes necessary to facilitate terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem 

sustainability, resilience, and health under current and future conditions.

Risk: A combination of the likelihood that a negative outcome will occur and the severity of the 

subsequent negative consequences.

Satisfactory range condition is the status or health of the vegetation and soil relative to their 

combined potential to produce a sound and stable biotic community as evaluated relative to 

desired conditions; deemed meeting or moving toward those desired conditions. (Adapted from 

USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, “Record of Decision for Amendment of Forest 

Plans, Arizona and New Mexico.”) 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 313
Glossary

Satisfactory watershed condition is a state where ground cover conditions are effectively 

maintaining land productivity.

Scale: Desired conditions are described at multiple scales where appropriate. Descriptions at 

various scales are sometimes necessary to provide adequate detail and guidance for the design of 

future projects and activities that will help achieve the desired conditions over time. The three 

scales used in this plan are: 

Fine scale is an area 10 acres or less in size at which the distribution of 

individual trees (single, grouped, or aggregates of groups) is described. Finescale desired conditions provide the view that can be observed standing in one 

location on the ground. Fine-scale desired conditions typically contain greater 

variability, which is desirable for providing heterogeneity at smaller spatial 

scales.

Mid-scale desired conditions are composed of assemblages of fine-scale units 

and have descriptions that would be averaged across areas of 100- to 1,000-acre 

units. 

Landscape scale is an assemblage of 10 or more mid-scale units, typically totaling more 

than 10,000 acres, composed of variable elevations, slopes, aspects, soils, plant 

associations, and disturbance processes. Landscape scale desired conditions provide the 

big picture overview with resolution that would, for example, be observable from an 

airplane or from a zoomed out Google Earth view. The landscape scale is also appropriate 

scale for describing less common components that would not necessarily occur on every 

mid-scale unit within the landscape.

Scenic integrity objectives in the context of the plan are equivalent to “goals” or “desired 

conditions.” Scenic integrity describes the state of naturalness or a measure of the degree to 

which a landscape is visually perceived to be “complete.” The highest scenic integrity ratings are 

given to those landscapes that have little or no deviation from the landscape character valued by 

constituents for its aesthetic quality. Scenic integrity is the state of naturalness or, conversely, the 

state of disturbance created by human activities or alteration. Scenic integrity is measured in five 

levels: 

Very high (unaltered): A scenic integrity level that generally provides for ecological change 

only.

High (appears unaltered): Human activities are not visually evident. In high scenic integrity 

areas, activities may only repeat attributes of form, line, color, and texture found in the 

existing landscape character.

Moderate (slightly altered): Landscapes where the valued landscape character “appears 

slightly altered.” Noticeable deviations should remain visually subordinate to the landscape 

character being viewed.

Low (moderately altered): Human activities should remain visually subordinate to the 

attributes of the existing landscape character. Activities may repeat form, line, color, or 

texture common to these landscape characters, but changes in quality of size, number, 

intensity, direction, pattern, and so on, should remain visually subordinate to these landscape 

characters.

314 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Glossary

Very Low (heavily altered): Human activities of vegetative and landform alterations may 

dominate the original natural landscape character but should appear as natural occurrences 

when viewed at background distances.

Snags are standing dead or partially dead trees (snag topped), often missing many or all limbs. 

They provide essential wildlife habitat for many species and are important for forest ecosystem 

function.

Soil condition rating: A qualitative rating developed within the Southwestern Region of the 

Forest Service that provides an overall picture of soil condition vital in sustaining ecosystems. It 

is based on three soil functions: the ability of soil to resist erosion, infiltrate water, and recycle 

nutrients. There are four soil condition ratings: 

Satisfactory – soil function is being sustained and soil is functioning properly and normally.

Impaired – the ability of the soil to function properly and normally has been reduced or there 

exists an increased vulnerability to degradation.

Unsatisfactory – degradation of vital soil functions result in the inability of the soil to 

maintain resource values, sustain outputs or recover from impacts.

Inherently unstable – these soils are eroding faster than they are renewing themselves.

Soil disturbance: When the soil no longer functions because of the loss of surface organic 

material (affecting nutrient cycling), compaction (affecting regulation and partitioning of water 

and air flow), and severe burn (affecting nutrient cycling and biology), then soil disturbance has 

occurred.

Standards: Technical design constraints that must be followed when an action is being taken to 

make progress toward desired conditions. Standards differ from guidelines in that standards do 

not allow for any deviation without a plan amendment.

State J: A state in the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool (VDDT) that is characterized by 

an open, multistory forest structure with medium to large trees (10- to 20-inch diameter class) and 

10 to 30 percent canopy cover.

State K: A state in the Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool (VDDT) that is characterized by 

an open, multistory forest structure with very large trees (20+ inch diameter class) and 10 to 

30 percent canopy cover.

Strongly interactive species is a species whose absence leads to significant changes in some 

feature of its ecosystem(s). Such changes include structural or compositional modifications, 

alterations in the import or export of nutrients, loss of resilience to disturbance, and decreases in 

native species diversity. The type of interactions these species have with their surrounding 

environment is paramount to the persistence of certain ecosystem features through time. 

Examples of strong interactions include mutualisms (e.g., pollinators such as butterflies, spore 

and seed dispersers such as birds), consumers (e.g., large predators such as mountain lions), and 

ecosystem engineers (e.g., prairie dogs, beavers).

Suitability is the appropriateness of applying certain resource management practices to a 

particular area of land, as determined by an analysis of the economic and environmental 

consequences and the alternative uses foregone. A unit of land may be suitable for a variety of 

individual or combined management practices.

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 315
Glossary

Sustainability: The capability to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising 

the ability to meet the needs of future generations. “Ecological sustainability” refers to the 

capability of ecosystems to maintain ecological integrity; “economic sustainability” refers to the 

capability of society to produce and consume or otherwise benefit from goods and services 

including contributions to jobs and market and nonmarket benefits; and “social sustainability” 

refers to the capability of society to support the network of relationships, traditions, culture, and 

activities that connect people to the land and to one another, and support vibrant communities.

Thinning methods

Single tree selection is used in uneven-aged silvicultural systems in which scattered 

individual trees of multiple size and/or age classes are removed throughout the stand to 

achieve desired structural characteristics.

Group selection is a method of regenerating uneven-aged stands in which trees are 

removed, and new age classes are established, in small groups. Small openings provide 

micro-environments suitable for tolerant regeneration and the larger openings provide 

conditions suitable for more intolerant regeneration. In the group selection system, the 

management unit or stand in which regeneration, growth, and yield are regulated consists 

of a landscape containing an aggregation of groups.

Sanitation cutting is the removal of dead, dying, or damaged trees to prevent or interrupt 

the spread of insects or disease.

Salvage cutting is the removal of trees that have been killed or damaged by wildland 

fire, severe wind, insects or disease, or other natural disturbances.

Even-aged regeneration is a cutting method by which a new stand with a single age 

class is created.

Matrix thinning is the thinning of the “matrix” of trees outside of a regeneration area. 

The matrix is generally thinned from below to some specified density in order to increase 

stand vigor and resiliency.

All-size free thinning is the removal of trees to control stand spacing and favor desired 

trees, using a combination of thinning criteria without regard to crown position.

Thinning from below is the removal of trees from lower canopy positions while 

retaining the largest and most vigorous trees with the best-developed crowns.

Timber production is the purposeful growing, tending, harvesting, and regeneration of regulated 

crops of trees to be cut into logs, bolts, or other round sections for industrial or consumer use. For 

purposes of this document, the term timber production does not include production of firewood.

Total maximum daily load (TMDL): A written analysis that determines the maximum amount 

of a pollutant that surface water can assimilate (the “load”) and still attain water quality standards 

during all conditions. The TMDL allocates the loading capacity of the surface water to point 

sources and nonpoint sources identified in the watershed, accounting for natural background 

levels and seasonal variation, with an allocation set aside as a margin of safety.

316 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Glossary

Traditional cultural property: A type of historic property under the National Historic 

Preservation Act defined as “eligible for inclusion in the National Register because of its 

association with cultural practices or beliefs of a living community that (a) are rooted in that 

community’s history, and (b) are important in maintaining the continuing cultural identity of the 

community.”

Uneven-aged forests: Forests composed of three or more distinct age classes of trees, either 

intimately mixed or in small groups.

Uneven-aged management is the application of a combination of actions needed to 

simultaneously maintain continuous high forest cover, recurring regeneration of desirable species, 

and the orderly growth and development of trees through a range of diameter or age classes to 

provide a sustained yield of forest products. Cutting is usually regulated by specifying the number 

or proportion of trees of particular sizes to retain within each area, thereby maintaining a planned 

distribution of size classes. Cutting methods that develop and maintain uneven-aged stands are 

single-tree selection and group selection.

Unsatisfactory range condition is the status or health of the vegetation and soil relative to their 

combined potential to produce a sound and stable biotic community as evaluated relative to 

desired conditions deemed not meeting or not moving toward those desired conditions (adapted 

from USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, “Record of Decision for Amendment of Forest 

Plans, Arizona and New Mexico”).

Unsatisfactory watershed condition is a state where effective ground cover conditions are such 

that impairment of land productivity is occurring. 

Vegetation state refers to a combination of the dominant plan canopy cover class and 

(for forest and woodland) size class and density class within a potential natural vegetation 

type.

Vegetation Structure includes both the vertical and horizontal dimensions. Horizontal 

structure may refer to patterns of trees or groups of trees and openings, as well as tree 

size and tree density. Vertical structure may refer to the layers, appearance, and 

composition of vegetation between the forest floor and the top of the canopy. 

Viable population: A population of a species that continues to persist over the long term with 

sufficient distribution to be resilient and adaptable to stressors and likely future environments.

Watershed: A region or land area drained by a single stream, river, or drainage network; a 

drainage basin.

Watershed condition: The state of a watershed based on physical and biogeochemical 

characteristics and processes.

Wetlands: Areas inundated by surface or ground water with a frequency sufficient to support, 

and under normal circumstances, do or would support, a prevalence of vegetation or aquatic life 

that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil condition for growth and reproduction. 

Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas such as sloughs, potholes, 

wet meadows, river overflows, mud flats, and natural ponds.

Wide ranging species: Species that have large area requirements, using expansive landscapes for 

breeding, foraging, and movement that are typically beyond the boundaries of any one land 

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 317
Glossary

management jurisdiction. Examples include large birds of prey, migratory birds, and nomadic 

mammals subject to seasonal movements (e.g., winter and summer range for deer, elk, and 

pronghorn).

Wilderness: Any area of land designated by Congress as part of the National Wilderness 

Preservation System, as that established in the Wilderness Act of 1964 (16 U.S.C. 1131-1136).

Wildfire: Unplanned ignition of a wildland fire, such as fire caused by lightning, unauthorized or 

accidental human-caused fires, or an escaped prescribed fire.

Wildland fire: General term describing any non-structure fire that occurs in the wildland. This 

includes both prescribed fires and wildfires.

Wildland-urban interface: Areas of resident populations at imminent risk from wildfire, and 

human developments having special significance. These areas may include critical 

communications sites, municipal watersheds, high voltage transmission lines, observatories, 

church camps, scout camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, 

would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not only the sites themselves, 

but also the continuous slopes and fuels that lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance 

involved.

Witch’s broom: Disease or deformity in a woody plant (typically a tree) that results in a dense 

mass of shoots resembling a broom or bird’s nest.

318 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Acronyms

4FRI Four Forest Restoration Initiative

ADEQ Arizona Department of Environmental Quality

ADOT Arizona Department of Transportation

AGFD Arizona Game and Fish Department

AMS analysis of the management situation

AOI annual operating instructions

ASQ allowable sale quantity

AUM animal unit month

BA basal area

BLM Bureau of Land Management

BMP best management practice

CCF hundred cubic feet

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CER Comprehensive Evaluation Report

CHU critical habitat unit

CWPP community wildfire protection plan

d.b.h. diameter at breast height

DC desired conditions

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

d.r.c. diameter at root collar

EIS environmental impact statement

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESA Endangered Species Act

FACTS Forest Service Activity Tracking System 

FEIS final environmental impact statement

FIA Forest Inventory and Analysis

FSH Forest Service Handbook

FSM Forest Service Manual

FVS Forest Vegetation Simulator

GIS geographic information system

GMU game management unit

HUC hydrologic unit code

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 319
INRMP Integrated Natural Resource Management Plan (Camp Navajo)

IPM integrated pest management

IRA inventoried roadless area

KNF Kaibab National Forest

LMA land management area

LMP land management plan

LTSY long-term sustained yield

MIS management indicator species

MOU memorandum of understanding

MVUM motor vehicle use map

NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

NFMA National Forest Management Act

NFS National Forest System

NKRD North Kaibab Ranger District

NNL National Natural Landmark

NPS National Park Service

OHV off-highway vehicle

PILT payments in lieu of taxes

PJ pinyon-juniper

PNVT potential natural vegetation type

PWA potential wilderness area

RNA research natural area

ROD record of decision

ROS recreation opportunity spectrum

SIO scenic integrity objective

SMS Scenery Management System

SPNM semi-primitive non-motorized

SRSCS Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act

SWAP State Wildlife Action Plan

SWCP soil and watershed conservation practices 

TCP traditional cultural property

TES terrestrial ecosystem survey

TEU terrestrial ecosystem unit

320 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
TECS threatened, endangered, candidate, and sensitive species

TRD Tusayan Ranger District

USDA United States Department of Agriculture

USDI United States Department of the Interior

USFS United States Forest Service

USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service

VDDT Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool

VMS Visual Management System

VQO visual quality objectives

VSS vegetative structural stage

WRD Williams Ranger District

WUI wildland-urban interface

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 321

Index

Adaptive Management.iii, 5, 14, 19, 39, 94, 101, 118, 

125, 130, 131, 147, 149, 180, 198, 218, 226, 242, 

243, 244, 246, 305

monitoring and ......................7, 12, 92, 95, 99, 132

Allowable Sale Quantity (ASQ).....iii, 5, 21, 278, 319

Alternatives

analyzed in detail.............................................v, 11

development ................................................v, 7, 11

Aspen.3, iii, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 23, 29, 30, 31, 

32, 33, 34, 36, 38, 40, 44, 49, 50, 51, 53, 56, 58, 

63, 64, 65, 68, 75, 76, 77, 82, 83, 85, 86, 87, 94, 

95, 97, 100, 101, 106, 108, 112, 113, 114, 115, 

118, 135, 136, 140, 141, 142, 148, 151, 164, 170, 

174, 175, 180, 192, 215, 217, 221, 224, 225, 230, 

232, 233, 242, 243, 244, 281, 292, 293

Assumptions..............................................25, 42, 214

Best Available Science, Use of.....iii, 52, 67, 100, 115

Best Management Practices..100, 147, 153, 171, 172, 

173, 174, 175, 176, 180, 185, 190, 191, 192, 194, 

195, 226, 227, 248

Bison (Buffalo)..........8, 135, 147, 153, 176, 194, 231

California Condor.....9, 69, 73, 82, 88, 91, 92, 93, 96, 

103, 131, 133, 134, 296, 297, 302

Canopy Cover... 28, 31, 34, 35, 37, 41, 43, 44, 45, 48, 

53, 55, 57, 90, 105, 120, 121, 135, 168, 169, 170, 

186, 191, 194, 205, 246, 315, 317

Capability

livestock grazing ...............................................241

wilderness........ 14, 15, 19, 228, 231, 232, 233, 237

Climate Change .. 8, 12, 25, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 51, 

56, 62, 63, 64, 65, 94, 95, 99, 100, 111, 113, 115, 

116, 131, 132, 148, 149, 151, 153, 155, 170, 174, 

175, 177, 189, 190, 193, 199, 244, 293, 294, 295, 

296, 297, 298, 300, 303, 313

Collaboration ...................................6, 7, 89, 131, 219

public involvement............................................5, 7

tribal ..............................................................7, 266

Comments (public, tribal, agency).... iii, 1, 2, 7, 8, 11, 

15, 19, 201, 265

Conservation Agreements......................135, 150, 157

Consultation (with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service)95, 

157

Eagles

bald..... 67, 69, 74, 75, 82, 86, 97, 98, 99, 101, 104, 

107, 109, 112, 114, 115, 116

golden............ 68, 82, 86, 88, 95, 99, 100, 109, 114

Economic Impact Analysis....................................274

Employment, Forest-Related .... vii, viii, 22, 271, 274, 

275, 276, 277, 278

Environmental Justice.......v, 265, 266, 267, 268, 282, 

292, 307

Financial Efficiency Analysis................278, 279, 280

Fire Ecology ............................................................27

Forest Monitoring Plan......................51, 95, 110, 149

Forest Use

traditional .......................iii, 6, 12, 13, 23, 241, 281

Four Forest Restoration Initiative (4FRI).64, 93, 132, 

248, 276, 281, 319

Interspace.... 28, 35, 37, 39, 43, 44, 45, 50, 52, 53, 55, 

57, 64, 107, 111, 113, 116, 117, 121, 126, 132, 

135, 151, 176, 180, 195, 205, 229, 245, 308, 310, 

316, 317

Issues.....................................................................v, 7

Laws, Federal

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act........99, 109

Clean Air Act ............................200, 201, 204, 205

Educational Land Grant Act..............................251

Endangered Species Act................10, 67, 157, 319

General Mining Law .............................9, 255, 256

Homestead Act..................................................183

Materials Act.....................................................255

Mineral Leasing Act..........................................255

Multiple-Use Sustained Yield Act ........................6

National Environmental Policy Act .1, 9, 283, 292, 

320

National Forest Management Act..............4, 6, 320

National Highway Safety Act............................174

National Historic Preservation Act............239, 317

National Trails System Act ...............................215

Renewable Resource Planning Act .....................16

Secure Rural Schools and Community SelfDetermination Act.........................273, 300, 320

Townsite Act .....................................................251

Wilderness Act..................................228, 236, 318

Livestock Grazing Effects ......v, 8, 19, 27, 35, 64, 71, 

101, 108, 109, 123, 129, 152, 172, 178, 185, 196, 

197, 226, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 274, 301

mitigation of. v, 101, 108, 109, 129, 147, 151, 152, 

198, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 301

Long-Term Sustained Yield (LTSY).... iii, 5, 21, 278, 

309, 320

Management Areasiii, 5, 15, 21, 23, 25, 40, 148, 150, 

153, 155, 156, 157, 158, 165, 166, 167, 176, 177, 

194, 195, 197, 204, 215, 217, 231, 236, 238, 240, 

248, 250, 252, 253, 256, 257, 309, 320

Management Indicator Species (MIS)......v, 116, 118, 

119, 124, 126, 127, 128

former plan...........................................vi, 117, 118

revised plan ...............120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 128

Methodology..............................................25, 41, 213

Mexican Spotted Owl vi, 2, 12, 38, 49, 64, 69, 72, 73, 

83, 86, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 104, 105, 106, 111, 113, 

114, 116, 118, 119, 131, 302

Mitigation Measures.92, 99, 101, 108, 110, 112, 114, 

134, 147, 149, 152, 160, 171, 175, 194, 214, 215, 

222, 223, 224, 225, 227, 239, 243, 252

Motor Vehicle Use Map ....................9, 102, 211, 320

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 323
Motorized Use .. 9, 101, 102, 152, 166, 171, 208, 209, 

210, 211, 214, 216, 219, 224, 227, 229, 230, 231, 

236, 237, 246, 247, 248, 249, 312, 313, 320

off-highway vehicles (OHVs) ..101, 102, 211, 213, 

219, 244, 320

Needs for Change .......................................... iii, 4, 12

North Kaibab Wildlife Habitat Complex... iii, viii, 15, 

17, 40, 41, 155, 165, 177, 195, 196, 204, 217

Northern Goshawk......12, 37, 68, 70, 74, 81, 86, 113, 

116, 118, 119, 285, 297, 310

Old Growth 8, 14, 15, 38, 51, 105, 106, 109, 125, 310

Pediocactus

Fickeisen Plains 136, 138, 139, 143, 147, 149, 153, 

156, 157

Paradine Plains.135, 138, 143, 147, 149, 150, 151, 

157, 302

Plan Decisions...........................................................5

Potential Natural Vegetation Type (PNVT) vi, viii, 5, 

26, 27, 29, 30, 32, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 64, 65, 66, 

68, 71, 73, 74, 90, 99, 104, 109, 120, 121, 122, 

123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 134, 135, 136, 151, 

155, 156, 169, 170, 176, 178, 179, 192, 311, 317, 

320

Present Net Value (PNV)...........vii, 21, 278, 280, 281

Proposed Action ..........................v, 1, 5, 11, 233, 257

Purpose and Need ..............................................v, 1, 4

Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS)...... vii, 209, 

210, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 221, 223, 224, 225, 

230, 231, 232, 274, 282, 299, 300, 313, 320

Research Natural Areas ...............6, 21, 157, 306, 320

Resilience ... 12, 26, 34, 35, 56, 60, 62, 63, 64, 65, 89, 

130, 131, 132, 151, 171, 174, 175, 177, 193, 194, 

199, 268, 276, 313, 315, 316

Restoration

effects on soil ....................153, 171, 173, 176, 195

effects on water yield ........................................191

forest. 132, 174, 177, 178, 190, 191, 193, 195, 196, 

197, 198, 199, 241

of aspen .................................12, 38, 49, 51, 53, 56

of California condors...................................92, 296

of fire-adapted ecosystems6, 10, 13, 20, 35, 64, 95, 

120, 148, 175, 199, 243

of forest structure .4, 13, 15, 16, 37, 40, 41, 52, 62, 

124, 165, 177, 195, 197, 203, 205

of grasslandsiii, 12, 38, 44, 50, 51, 54, 56, 58, 119, 

128, 129, 151, 196, 197, 210

of habitat elements ............111, 121, 130, 154, 157

of historic fire regimes ..iii, 4, 8, 12, 33, 34, 35, 42, 

49, 51, 60, 65, 111, 117, 125, 148, 156, 176, 

195, 217

of natural waters...........iii, 6, 13, 21, 154, 193, 200

project design ............................................107, 153

Riparian Areas.. 15, 23, 26, 27, 31, 33, 40, 62, 68, 70, 

71, 74, 79, 85, 87, 88, 89, 90, 98, 107, 108, 118, 

132, 136, 143, 147, 155, 175, 182, 183, 185, 186, 

191, 192, 193, 199, 244, 245, 248, 281

Road Density ...........................................................20

Roadless Areas ............11, 12, 19, 102, 226, 231, 320

Safety... 23, 40, 52, 102, 204, 211, 216, 217, 247, 316

Scenery Management .....39, 126, 209, 210, 214, 215, 

221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 236, 300, 320

Soil and Watershed Conservation Practices .147, 153, 

171, 173, 174, 175, 176, 180, 190, 191, 192, 194, 

195, 198

Species Viability

analysis....................................................v, 65, 139

plants............................vi, 139, 140, 146, 148, 153

wildlife ................................68, 76, 80, 87, 99, 112

Suitability

livestock grazing ...............................................241

timber ... 15, 16, 21, 38, 39, 40, 41, 50, 55, 59, 102, 

163, 176, 181, 195, 196, 198, 214, 217, 225, 

237

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species...2, 8, 

10, 91, 95, 100, 101, 103, 107, 109, 134, 146, 149, 

150, 152, 254, 286, 320

Traditional Cultural Properties...8, 13, 194, 239, 240, 

241, 266, 320

Travel Management Rule (TMR)9, 20, 171, 191, 211, 

247, 261, 285

Tree Encroachment..................................................44

Tree Retention

presettlement 16, 39, 40, 41, 42, 53, 54, 56, 57, 58, 

100, 111, 113, 114, 115, 126, 127, 128, 129, 

156, 157, 165, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 195, 

196, 197, 207, 220, 225, 245

proposed action .............................14, 39, 111, 293

Uncharacteristic Disturbances

all action alternatives effects on153, 167, 175, 226, 

241

alternative A effects on .......48, 125, 173, 193, 245

alternative B effects on.52, 57, 164, 177, 195, 206, 

217

alternative C and D effects on .....55, 155, 156, 245

alternative C effects on......................155, 156, 177

alternative D effects on 178

climate change effects on ......................35, 99, 148

current risk of........................................28, 35, 168

effects of....................................20, 38, 40, 51, 283

high-severity fire ......12, 24, 28, 31, 34, 48, 72, 93, 

130, 132, 148, 170, 173, 177, 179, 198, 245

insects and disease.......................................34, 134

invasive species.................................................136

reducing the risk of......................................4, 8, 12

response to...........................14, 33, 36, 50, 52, 148

Utility Corridors .....96, 103, 104, 218, 224, 247, 252, 

253

Vegetation Development Dynamics Tool (VDDT) 41, 

42, 43, 44, 45, 73, 74, 96, 97, 98, 111, 112, 114, 

115, 126, 205, 207, 315, 321

Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) ............37, 43, 321

Wild and Scenic Rivers .6, 11, 21, 229, 234, 287, 306

324 FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan
Wilderness

existing ..... 14, 21, 38, 40, 49, 62, 74, 97, 132, 152, 

154, 156, 161, 162, 164, 182, 201, 202, 203, 

209, 224, 226, 228, 229, 230, 231, 233, 234, 

236, 238, 251, 258

potential. iii, vii, viii, 5, 6, 8, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 

19, 40, 41, 154, 156, 164, 165, 213, 214, 216, 

217, 218, 222, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 

230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 237, 238, 257, 

274, 282, 320

FEIS for the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan 325