United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest

Service

Southwestern

Region

Draft Environmental

Impact Statement for

Kachina Village Forest

Health Project

Mormon Lake Ranger District,

Coconino National Forest
Printed on recycled paper • July 2002

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs

and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age, disability,

political beliefs, sexual orientation, and marital or family status. (Not all prohibited

bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative means

for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should

contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TTY).

To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room

326-W, Whitten Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-

9410 or call (202) 720-5964 (voice or TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and

employer.
Flagstaff, AZ 86004

2323 E. Greenlaw Lane

Coconino National Forest
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project i

Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement

Coconino County, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Cooperating Agencies: none

Responsible Official: Jim Golden, Forest Supervisor

2323 E. Greenlaw Lane

Flagstaff, AZ 86004

For Information Contact: Tammy Randall-Parker

Acting District Ranger

4373 S. Lake Mary Road

Flagstaff, AZ 86001

(928) 774-1147

Abstract: This Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) describes the effects of implementing five

alternatives for improving forest health and reducing wildfire potential on National Forest System land in the

Coconino National Forest. The project is adjacent to the community of Flagstaff in northern Arizona. The

preferred alterative (Alternative A) would reduce fuels and lower wildfire potential by thinning trees and

broadcast burning, and reduce fire risk through improvements in recreation and road management. Thinning

would occur on nearly 4,800 acres and broadcast burning would occur on 6,300 acres. Management activities

will improve forest health, wildlife habitat, soil and watershed conditions in the area. Alternatives C and D place

diameter limits on the size of trees to be thinned. Alternative E treats most of the project area without the use

of mechanical equipment and treats the areas immediately adjacent to homes with a more intensive treatment.

All alternatives treat the same acres, however, the alternatives vary by diameter limit and intensity of treatments

and use of mechanized equipment. The major issues identified during scoping focused on the effects to old

growth, wildfire potential, effects on soil, water quality, and wildlife habitat.

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

Environmental Impact Statement. This will enable the Forest Service to analyze and respond to the comments

at one time and to use information acquired in the preparation of the Final Environmental Impact Statement,

thus avoiding undue delay in the decision-making process. Reviewers have an obligation to structure their

participation in the National Environmental Policy Act process so that it is meaningful and alerts the agency to

the reviewer’s position and contentions. Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U.S. 519, 553

(1978). Environmental objections that could have been raised at the draft stage may be waived if not raised

until after completion of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. City of Angoon v. Hodel (9th Circuit, l986)

and Wisconsin Heritages, Inc. v. Harris, 490 F. Supp. 1334, 1338 (E.D. Wis. 1980). Comments on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement should be specific and should address the adequacy of the statement and the

merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3).

Send Comments to: Debbie Kill

Peaks Ranger District

5075 N. Highway 89

Flagstaff, AZ 86004

(928) 526-0866

Date Comments Must Be Received:
ii Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project iii

The Kachina Village Project Area is located south of

Flagstaff and continues south of the communities of

Kachina Village and Forest Highlands. Interstate

Highway 17 and U.S. Highway 89A border the

project area on the east and west, respectively. The

southern boundary is approximately one half mile

south of James Canyon. Kelly Canyon, Pumphouse

Wash, James Canyon, and Mexican Pocket are

prominent features and locations within the project

boundary. The entire project encompasses 10,417

acres: 2,377 acres of private land, 326 acres of state

land, and 7,714 acres of Forest Service land.

The Proposed Action proposes to thin approximately

4,800 acres; broadcast burn and maintenance burn

the entire project area, except for canyons and steep

slope, 6,229 acres; reduce road density; construct

several new trails; designate dispersed camping

areas and close high fire risk areas to camping.

Thinning from below results in the removal of

smaller, unhealthy trees first, then progresses until

the desired tree numbers are reached.

One clarification to the Proposed Action was to

change the description of “old tree” or “yellow

barked” trees to the new language that reads “Retain

all existing mature ponderosa pine trees or ‘yellowbarked’ trees.” The second clarification, due to a

computer error, was to add 50 acres of thinning in

unit 335/04 (29 acres) adjacent to private land and

in unit 3236/07 (20 acres).

A Notice of Intent to prepare an Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) was published in the Federal

Register on March 9, 2001 (PRD 31). Public

meetings were held in February, March, and April of

2001 to provide project area information, develop

the desired future condition, and discuss local

concerns and interests that should be addressed in

the Kachina Village Forest Health Project analysis.

Over 50 people attended the meetings. In June

2001, a letter providing information and seeking

public comment was mailed to approximately 100

individuals and groups. This included Federal and

state agencies, Native American groups, municipal

offices, businesses, interest groups, and individuals.

A total of twelve responses to this initial mailing

were received (PRD 93 –Proposed Action Mailing

List). Announcements regarding the project were

printed in the Arizona Daily Sun on March 30, 2001

(PRD 53). Various field trips were held and meetings

occurred with members of other agencies.

Significant issues are as follows:

Issue 1: Cutting trees greater than 16-inch

diameter would affect future old-growth in

the area, resulting in fewer acres being able

to qualify as old-growth forest structure in

the future.

Issue 2: All project objectives could be met

with an 18-inch diameter limit and request

that a quantitative analysis be provided.

Issue 3: The Proposed Action does not

reduce fuels sufficient to protect the

immediate wildland-urban interface. An

“intensive treatment zone” around private

land is requested for evaluation.

Issue 4: Thinning north of Kelly Canyon as

described in the Proposed Action goes

beyond what is needed to reduce fire risk. A

lighter treatment of 60 to 120 basal area and

a 9-inch thinning limit (where a temporary

road is needed) is requested for evaluation.

Issue 5: Temporary roads lead to increased

soil compaction, transport of exotic weeds,

and have long-lasting impacts on forest

structure, therefore, we request that no new

temporary roads be created even if only for

the duration of the project.

Issue 6: Mechanized equipment and

excessive thinning will increase soil

compaction and cause disturbance to

wildlife in areas south of Kelly Canyon. The

area south of Kelly Canyon should only be

treated with hand thinning and was

requested for evaluation.

Alternatives include the Proposed Action (Alternative

A), No-Action (Alternative B) and three other action

alternatives. The action alternatives are differentiated

by changes in intensity of thinning prescriptions1 , the

size of the trees to be thinned, and the use of

temporary roads. Some items are common to all

action alternatives. These include slash treatment

and broadcast burning; thinning in Mexican spotted

owl Protected Activity Centers; thinning in a wildlife

movement corridor; changing some areas to day-use

recreation only; adjusting dispersed camping to

designated sites in some areas; identifying and

constructing trails and trailheads; maintaining some

roads and closing others; restoring riparian habitat at

a seep; and retaining all existing mature (old or

“yellow-barked”) trees.

Summary

1 In all action alternatives, thinning from below results in the removal of smaller, unhealthy trees first, then progresses until the desired tree

numbers are reached.
iv Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

The action alternatives are differentiated as follows:

Alternative A - Proposed Action cutting

some trees over 16-inch diameter at breast

height (DBH) under specific criteria only.

Alternative B - No Action.

Alternative C - Proposed Action cutting no

trees over 16-inch DBH.

Alternative D - Proposed Action cutting

some trees over 16-inch DBH under

specific criteria only and cutting no trees

over 18-inch DBH.

Alternative E - Proposed Action with

modifications based on issues of roads and

concerns for wildlife habitat posed by the

Southwest Forest Alliance.

The action alternatives are differentiated primarily

by a limit on the size of tree to be thinned, the

intensity of the treatments proposed in thinning

units, and the miles of temporary road.

The number of acres where high intensity crown fire

is reduced is 4,266 in Alternatives A, C and D and

2,328 in Alternative E. Reducing the risk of high

intensity crown fire is important to retaining

important human and resource values such as

nearby subdivisions, the Oak Creek Watershed,

threatened species habitat, recreation opportunities,

and scenery. Alternative B does not change

expected fire behavior.

Diameter limits affect the ability to create and

maintain grassy openings. Alternatives A and D are

expected to achieve 5.5 percent of the project area in

grassy openings, while Alternative C is expected to

result in 3 percent, and Alternative E is expected to

result in 1 percent. Alternative B maintains .5

percent of the area in openings. Openings add to

biodiversity and are important to grass dependent

wildlife species.

All action alternatives continue to provide portions

of the project area in dense forest conditions, thus

maintaining habitat for species that require dense

forest.

The ability of the forest to withstand insect and

disease such as bark beetle and mistletoe is

improved on 4,266 acres in Alternatives A, C and D

and 2,328 acres in Alternative E. Alternative B

maintains most of project area in moderate to high

risk of damage from insects and disease.

Alternatives A, C, and D improve the Vegetative

Structural Stage (VSS) distribution and Alternative E

improves VSS distribution to a lesser degree. Under

Alternatives A, C, and D, in 50 years, VSS 5 (trees

18 inches and greater) would be 27.5 percent of the

project area and VSS 6 (old-growth trees) would be

4.5 percent. This nearly meets the VSS 5 and 6

guidelines in the Forest Plan. Alternative E results

in 10 percent VSS 5 and 3 percent VSS 6.

Alternative B results in 6 percent VSS 5 and 3

percent VSS 6. All alternatives retain existing

mature ponderosa pine trees or old “yellow-barked”

trees.

The miles of temporary roads are 5.75 miles in

Alternatives A, C, and D and 2.5 miles in Alternative

E. Alternative B has no effect from temporary roads.

All action alternatives intend to rehabilitate 17.65

miles of existing roadway by closing, scarifying, and

revegetating. Alternative B conducts road

management according to current guidelines and

schedules. Under Alternative E, only 2,330 acres

will be mechanically treated or a little over half of

the other action alternatives. However, provided

that mitigation measures are followed, there will be

only minor impacts to on-site soil quality for areas

where equipment is used.

All alternatives change some areas to day-use

recreation, adjust dispersed camping to designated

sites, identify and construct trails and trailheads,

and design and maintain an appropriate open road

system. Where these actions occur, there would be

improved wildlife habitat and watershed conditions

and a decrease in the risk of human-caused

wildfires.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project v

Contents

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

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

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

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

A Vision for the Future. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Proposed Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Decisions to Be Made . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Project Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Purpose and Need . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Relationship to Forest Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Project Area Existing Conditions, Desired Conditions and Needs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Public Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issue 1: 16-Inch Diameter Limit Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issue 2: 18-Inch Diameter Limit Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issue 3: “Intensive Zone” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issue 4: Lighter Thinning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issue 5: Road Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Issue 6: Mechanized Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Other Concerns Raised by the Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Applicable Laws and Executive Orders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Chapter 2 • Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

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

Alternative A Development Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Wildland-Urban Interface Areas—Background Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Development of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Items Common to All Action Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Administrative and Strategic Direction for the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Reducing Fire Potential – Improving Forest Ecosystem Health –

 Fuels and Vegetation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Reducing Fire Risk – Balancing Human Influences, Fire Occurrence, Wildlife

 Habitat, and Watershed Health Through Management of Recreational

 Uses and Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Forest Plan Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Project-Specific Mitigation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Soil and Watershed Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Wildlife and Sensitive Species Habitat Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Yellow Pines and Other Mature Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Gambel Oak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Snags and Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Recreation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Visual Management – Coordination with Layout and Design

 of stands prior to marking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Routine Implementation Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Project-Specific Effectiveness Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Implementation of NEPA Decisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Findings and Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Bird (April NOI response – April 19, 2001) – Alternative Suggested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
vi Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Bird - (July 23, 2001) – Alternative Suggested . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Nowicki – Suggested Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Alternatives Considered in Detail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Proposed Action (Alternative A) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Administrative and Strategic Direction for the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Actions to meet objectives for Reducing Fire Potential – Improving Forest

 Ecosystem Health – Fuels and Vegetation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

No Action (Alternative B) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Description of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Summary of Significant Issues which developed Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Purpose and Need Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Specific Outputs and Differences Between the Proposed Action and Alternative B . . 33

Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Description of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary of Significant Issues Which Developed Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Specific Outputs and Differences Between the Proposed Action

 (Alternative A) and Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Alternative D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Description of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Administrative and Strategic Direction for the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Summary of Significant Issues which developed Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Specific Outputs and Differences between the Proposed Action (Alternative A)

 and Alternative D related to Issue 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Description of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Administrative and Strategic Direction for the Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Reducing Fire Potential – Improving Forest Ecosystem Health – Fuels and

 Vegetation Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Summary of Significant Issues that developed Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Purpose and Need Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Specific Outputs and Differences between the Proposed Action

 (Alternative A) and Alternative E Related to Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Comparison of Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 1: 16-inch Diameter Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 2: 18-inch Diameter Limit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 3: “Intensive Zone” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 4: Lighter Thinning Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 5: Road Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 6: Mechanized Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Assumptions for This Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Analyzing Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

Aesthetics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Affected Environment Landscape Character and Scenic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Direct Effects of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Direct Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Direct Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Direct Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Direct Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project vii

Indirect Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Indirect Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Indirect Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Indirect Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Affected Environment or General Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Direct Effects of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Direct Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Direct Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Direct Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Indirect Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Indirect Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Indirect Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Indirect Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Fire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Direct Effects of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Direct Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Direct Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Direct Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Direct Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Indirect Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Indirect Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Indirect Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Indirect Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Direct Effects of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Direct Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Direct Effects of Alternatives C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Direct Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Indirect Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Indirect Effects of Alternatives C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Indirect Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
viii Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Soil and Water Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Direct Effects of Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Direct Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Direct Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Direct Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Direct Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Indirect Effects of Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Indirect Effects of Alternative C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Indirect Effects of Alternative D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Indirect Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives A, C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Recreation Setting and Opportunity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

Direct Effects of Alternatives A, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Direct Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Indirect Effects of Alternatives A, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives A, C, D, and E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Wildlife Habitat - General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Coconino Forest Plan Direction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Vegetative Structural Stages and Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Forest Fragmentation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Effects of Snag and Log Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Old-growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Direct Effects of Alternatives A, C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Direct Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Indirect Effects of Alternatives A, C, and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Indirect Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Indirect Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives A, C and D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Threatened) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

Mexican Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis lucida (Threatened) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Navajo Mountain Mexican Vole, Microtus mexicanus Navaho (Sensitive) . . . . . . . . . 100

American Peregrine Falcon, Falco peregrinus anatum (Sensitive) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101

Northern Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

Sensitive Native Plant Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Invasive and Noxious Weeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project ix

Management Indicator Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Habitat Capability Modeling Description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Summary of Direct Effects for All Species for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E . . . . . . 112

Indirect Effects for All MIS Species for Alternatives A, B, C, D,

 and E (Habitat Quality Index). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Cumulative Effects for All MIS Species for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . 117

Neotropical Migratory Birds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Direct Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Indirect Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Affected Environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Direct Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Indirect Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Cumulative Effects of Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Economics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Direct and Indirect Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

Cumulative Effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

Environmental Justice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4 • List of Preparers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5 • List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons

to Whom Copies of the DEIS are Sent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

6 • Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Scoping Comment Summary Final November 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Preliminary Issues Raised by Public . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Non-Issues Comments and Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Significant and Non-Significant Issues Final December 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Rationale for Non-Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Significant Issues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155

Non-Significant Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Alternative Document including Alternatives Suggested by the Public Final

December 6, 2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Alternatives To Be Studied in Detail in the EIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Appendix B • Research Proposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Evaluating Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Effects On Mule Deer—A Research

 and Monitoring Proposal - Emphasizing the Kachina Village Forest Health

 Restoration Project - Mormon Lake Ranger District, Coconino National Forest . . . . . . . . 171

Evaluating Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Effects on Forest Bongbirds - A Monitoring

 Proposal - Emphasizing the Kachina Village Forest Health Restoration Project -

 Mormon Lake Ranger District, Coconino National Forest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179
x Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix C • Maps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Appendix E • Key Standards and Guidelines, Coconino

National Forest Land Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Appendix F • Landscape Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203

Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

List of Tables

1. Comparison of Action Alternatives Based on Key Differences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

2. Comparison of Cost Per Thousand Cubic Feet (CCF), Number of Trees Removed Greater

than 16-inches dbh, and Estimated Value for All Action Alternatives.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3. Economic Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

4. Miles of Temporary Roads, Road Maintenance, and Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5. Comparison of Alternatives Based on Improving Conditions Stated in the Purpose and Need.. . . 45

6. Projects Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

7. Slash Generated for Alternative A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

8. Slash Generated for Alternative E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

9. Fuels Management Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164

10. The Present Age Class Distribution and Density, by Number of Acres and

Percent of Project Area, for Ponderosa Pine (Pinus ponderosa). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

11. Growth for Seven Selected Stands. (Growth was modeled by Forest Vegetation

Simulator (FVS) for a period of 49 years based on five alternative treatment regimes.) . . . . . . . . 68

12. Composite Stand Hazard Rating Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

13. Total Acres within the Oak Creek 5th Code, Fry and Pumphouse 6th Code, and the

Percent of the Analysis Area within the watersheds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

14. Summary of the Water Quality Status of Stream Courses Affected by the Kachina

Village Project Area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

15. Thinning Treatment Acres for Alternative A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

16. Comparison of the Miles or Equivalent Acres of Temporary Road, Road

Maintenance, and Rehabilitated Roads for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

17. Thinning treatment acres for Alternative E1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

18. Percent Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) Immediately Following Treatment

for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

19. Percent Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) at Year 20 for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

20. Percent Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) at Year 50 for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

21. Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species Potentially Affected by Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

22. Existing VSS Class Percentages of Total Project Area Acreage, Anticipated Post-treatment

VSS for All Action Alternatives, and General Desired VSS Condition outside the PFA.. . . . . . . . 104

23. Existing VSS Class Percentages of Total Project Area Acreage, Anticipated Post-treatment

VSS for All Action Alternatives, and General Desired VSS Condition within the PFA. . . . . . . . . 104

24. Canopy Cover Distribution Outside of the Northern Goshawk PFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

25. Canopy Cover Distribution Within the Northern Goshawk PFA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project xi

26. Sites within the Northern Goshawk PFA Showing Future Conditions in 20 Years and 50

Years Post-treatment for All Action Alternatives compared to Alternative B, No Action,

Kachina Village Forest Health Project, Coconino National Forest, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

27. Listing of Priority Migratory Bird Species, by Habitat Type, (Latta et al. 1999) That Are

or Have the Potential to be Found within the Kachina Village Forest Health Project Area. . . . . . 118

28. Special Factors for Mixed Conifer Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

29. Special Factors for Ponderosa Pine and Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak Priority

Species (Latta et al. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

30. Special Factors for High Elevation Grassland Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . 119

31. Special Factors for High Elevation Riparian Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999). . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

32. Comparison of Cost Per Thousand Cubic Feet (CCF), Number of Trees Removed

Greater than 16 inches dbh, and Estimated Value for All Action Alternatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

33. Estimated Present Net Value of Each Project and Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

List of Figures

1. The Kachina Village Forest Health Project Area, Coconino National Forest, Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2. Fuels Treatment Alternatives A, C, D and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

3. Thinning Treatments Common to All Action Alternatives A, C, D and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4. Management of Recreational Uses Alternatives A, C, D, and E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5. Open Forest Roads. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

6. Visual simulation of a basal area of 40 feet2, representing very good conditions for the

abundance of understory vegetation (grasses, forbs and wildflowers), excellent conditions

for the suppression of wildfire, and a very low potential for crown fire. Alternatives A, C, and

D will result in 30 percent of the project area in a basal area of 40 to 50 feet2. Alternative E

manages for this condition within the intensive zone. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

7. Visual simulation of a basal area of 60 feet2, representing good conditions for the abundance

of understory vegetation, good conditions for suppression of wildfire, and low to moderate

potential for crown fire. All action alternatives will result in some areas (approximately

10 percent) managed in this condition. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

8. Visual simulation of a basal area of 80 feet2, representing poor conditions for understory

development, good conditions for suppression of wildfire, and moderate to high potential

for crown fire. Alternative E within areas thinned emphasizes this condition in areas north

of Kelly Canyon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

9. Visual simulation of a basal area of 100 feet2, representing the absence of understory

vegetation, poor wildlife cover values, moderate to poor conditions for the suppression

of wildfire, and high potential for crown fire. All action alternatives will result in 10 percent

of the treated area in this basal area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

10. A visual simulation of a basal area of 120 feet2, representing the absence of understory

vegetation, moderate to good wildlife cover values, moderate to poor conditions for the

suppression of wildfire, and high potential for crown fire. Alternatives A, C, and D will

manage for this stand density within Mexican spotted owl (MSO) areas. Alternative E will

manage for this condition on 46 percent of the area. The 9-inch thinning limit will manage

for basal areas of approximately 100-200 feet2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

11. A visual simulation of a basal area of 200 feet2, representing the absence of understory

vegetation, good to excellent wildlife cover values, high potential for wildfire, and extreme

potential for crown fire. All action alternatives maintain dense stand conditions within the

canyons. Alternatives A, C, and D maintain small patches of this condition south of Kelly

Canyon for wildlife cover. Alternative E, in areas with a 9-inch thinning limit, would result

in this condition on some sites. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

12. Overview of Treatment Intensities for Alternatives A, C, and D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

13. Overview of Treatment Intensities for Alternative E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
xii Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

14. Existing conditions just south of Kachina Village with Interstate 17 in the lower,

left-hand corner. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

15. Alternative A, following thinning as proposed for fire potential reduction and forest

health improvement north of Kelly Canyon and the lower 89A corridor (variable thinning

40-120 BA with creation of openings 10 percent).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

16. Alternative E, following thinning as proposed for intensive zone adjacent to private land

(variable thinning 40-50 BA) and fire potential reduction and forest health improvement

north of Kelly Canyon and the lower 89A corridor (variable thinning 60-120 BA). , . . . . . . . . . . 39

17. Existing condition, location 345/01, immediately south of Kachina Village. Interstate

17 is shown in the bottom of the picture. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

18. Alternative E, location 345/01 following thinning as proposed for intensive zone adjacent

to private land (variable thinning 40-50 BA). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

19. Alternative A, location 345/01 following thinning as proposed for improving old-tree

longevity and Gambel oak habitat (variable thinning around old trees and Gambel oak

with 10 percent openings created). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

20. Existing conditions in the Mexican Pocket area, site 345/17. Pumphouse Canyon is

visible as the gray area on the right side and Highway 89 is visible as the straight white

line on the left-hand side (left photo). The picture on the left displays a high oblique; the

picture on the right is a low oblique. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

21. Alternative A, following thinning as proposed for fire potential reduction, forest health

improvement and wildlife cover management, south of Kelly Canyon (variable thinning

40-100 BA with 25 percent cover patches maintained with the creation of openings 10

percent). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

22. Alternative E, following thinning as proposed for reducing disturbance to soils and

wildlife, south of Kelly Canyon, including the Mexican Pocket area (9-inch thinning limit;

treatments completed with hand thinning methods only. No use of heavy equipment). . . . . . . . . 41

23. Canopy Closure Immediately Following Treatment for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

24. Canopy Closure at Year 20 for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

25. Canopy Closure at Year 50 for Each Alternative. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

26. Old-Growth Allocations within the Project Area Alternatives A, B, C, D and E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

27. Old-Growth Allocations Within and Adjacent to the Project Area Alternatives

A, B, C, D and E. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

28. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Abert Squirrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

29. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

30. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Hairy Woodpecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

31. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Northern Goshawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

32. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Mule Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

33. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Pygmy Nuthatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116

34. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 1

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Introduction

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental

Impact Statement (EIS) on the potential effects of

management actions on national forest lands within

the Kachina Village Forest Health Project area

(Figure 1). Management actions will include the use

of broadcast burning, thinning from below, and

access and recreation management to address

declining and poor forest health and high fire hazard

conditions. Thinning from below results in the

removal of smaller, unhealthy trees first, then

progresses until the desired tree numbers are

reached.

The project area is located south of Flagstaff, Arizona

on the Mormon Lake and Peaks Ranger Districts of

the Coconino National Forest. The project area is

adjacent to the communities of Kachina Village and

Forest Highlands and includes Pumphouse, Kelly,

and James Canyons. The project area includes both

private and state land, in addition to national forest

land. The Forest Service will only make decisions for

Forest Service lands.

This EIS discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts and any irreversible or

irretrievable commitment of resources that would

result from the Proposed Action and alternatives.

The project is in compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and other relevant

Federal and state laws and regulations. This EIS is

prepared according to the format established by

Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations

implementing NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). In addition to explaining the purpose and need for the

Proposed Action, Chapter 1 discusses how the

Kachina Village Forest Health Project relates to the

Coconino National Forest Plan (Forest Plan). Chapter 1 also identifies the significant issues driving the

EIS analysis. Chapter 2 describes and compares the

Proposed Action, alternatives to the Proposed Action,

and a no-action alternative. Chapter 2 also summarizes the environmental consequences by issue.

Chapter 3 describes the natural and human environments potentially affected by the Proposed Action

and the alternatives. Chapter 3 also discloses the

potential effects that are anticipated. Chapter 4

contains the list of preparers, Chapter 5 contains the

EIS distribution list, and Chapter 6 contains the

literature cited. Appendices provide additional

information on specific aspects of the proposed

project. This EIS incorporates documented analyses

by summarization and reference, where appropriate.

The interdisciplinary team used a systematic approach for analyzing the proposed project and its

alternatives, estimating the environmental effects,

and preparing this EIS. The planning process

complies with NEPA and the CEQ regulations.

Planning was coordinated with the appropriate

Federal, state, and local agencies, and local, Federally-recognized tribes.

The Draft EIS is available online at http://

www.fs.fed.us/r3/Coconino/nepa.shtml. Copies

can be obtained from the Peaks Ranger District,

5075 N. Highway 89, Flagstaff, AZ 86001 or by

calling (928) 527-8280. The comment period is 45

days and will begin when the notice of availability is

published by the Environmental Protection Agency

in the Federal Register.

Additional documentation, including more detailed

analyses of project-area resources, may be found in

the project planning record located at the Peaks

Ranger District office. These records are available

for public review.

Background

The following background information is from the

Forest Service publication “Protecting People and

Sustaining Resources in Fire-Adapted Ecosystems: A

Cohesive Strategy,” October 2000.

The 2000 fire season was undoubtedly one of

the most challenging on record. As of early

October, more than 6.8 million acres of public

and private lands burned—more than twice

the 10-year national average. The magnitude

of these fires is the result of two primary

factors: a severe drought, accompanied by a

series of storms that produced thousands of

lightning strikes followed by windy conditions;

and the long-term effects of almost a century of

aggressively suppressing all wildfires that has

led to an unnatural buildup of brush and small

trees in forests and rangelands.

On August 8, 2000, President Clinton asked

Secretaries Babbitt and Glickman to prepare a

report that recommends how best to respond to

this year’s severe fires, reduce the impacts of

those fires on rural communities, and insure

sufficient firefighting resources in the future.

On September 8, 2000, President Clinton

accepted their report Managing Impacts of

Wildfires on Communities and the

Environment.

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action
2 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Operating principles directed by the Chief of

the Forest Service in implementing this report

include: firefighting readiness, prevention

through education, rehabilitation, hazardous

fuel reduction, restoration, collaborative

stewardship, monitoring, jobs, and applied

research and technology.

The hazardous fuel reduction portion of this strategy

called for: “Assign highest priority for hazardous

fuels reduction to communities at risk, readily

accessible municipal watersheds, threatened and

endangered species habitat, and other important

local features, where conditions favor uncharacteristically intense fires.” The Kachina Village Forest

Health project is proposed in response to the fuels

reduction element of the Cohesive Strategy.

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership

The Grand Canyon Forests Foundation (a nonprofit

organization) and the Coconino National Forest have

established a cooperative agreement to work together to demonstrate new forest management

approaches in improving and restoring the ecosystem health of the ponderosa pine forest ecosystem

where urbanized areas interface with national forest

lands (Flagstaff Wildland-Urban Interface). This

cooperative effort seeks to involve the greater

Flagstaff community extensively to develop a community-based solution to local forest health

problems. This cooperative project is called the

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership.

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project Area is the

second 10,000-acre area the Partnership has

studied in detail. This area is located south of

Flagstaff and directly adjacent to the communities of

Kachina Village and Forest Highlands. The project

was selected for five primary reasons:

• The threat of catastrophic fire to all the

above mentioned communities and habitat

that is important to wildlife, including the

Federally threatened Mexican spotted owl;

• The density of the pine forest (concern for

catastrophic wildfire, loss of plant species,

and concern for loss of old-growth habitats

for wildlife);

• The high recreation use and concerns for

high fire risk;

• Declining forest health and loss of understory community; and

• The impact of a large wildfire on the Oak

Creek Watershed.

This EIS is for the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project area. Research and monitoring of the

various treatments will be used to guide future

projects.

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project analysis

follows current Forest Plan direction. There is

another planning effort called the Flagstaff Lake

Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA). The FLEA process

will result in a Forest Plan amendment to update,

change, or create new management direction for

lands around Flagstaff. The wildland-urban interface will require many different treatments and

management scenarios to lessen fire risk and fire

potential and to provide for wildlife and human

habitats.

Coconino National Forest personnel conducted

resource inventories in 2000 and 2001. Detailed

data documentation for each activity is located in

files maintained by resource specialists at the Peaks

and Mormon Lake Ranger District offices. Summaries of the data collected and all documentation of

alternative development are located in the project

record file maintained at the Peaks District office.

A Vision for the Future

The Partnership’s vision is consistent with the

Coconino National Forest Plan and generally follows

management recommendations outlined in “A Vision

for our Community - Flagstaff 2020” and the “Flagstaff Area Open Spaces and Greenways Plan.”

“In the near future, the wildland-urban

interface will be a mosaic of open, park-like

forests containing scattered timber stands with

higher densities, interspersed with natural

parks which approximate—although do not

duplicate—conditions present before EuroAmerican settlement. Forests and woodlands

will be dominated by open growing clumps of

large and/or old trees in a matrix of native

bunchgrasses, wildflowers, and shrubs. Parks

(meadows) will be dominated by native

grasses and wildflowers. Periodic lowintensity fires will maintain open habitats,

cycle nutrients, and keep wildland fuel levels

low, reducing the hazard of catastrophic crown

fires. The presence of introduced species will

be greatly diminished and native wildlife

species will occupy their original niches within

the ecosystem, moving freely through
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 3

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

established wildlife corridors. A broad

spectrum of uses—based upon science and

adaptive ecosystem management principles—

will be enjoyed by northern Arizona residents

and visitors. Although the majority of the

landscape will be restored to more natural

conditions, some will be retained in basically

its current condition to address specific, welldefined management goals.”

Proposed Action

A “proposed action” is defined early in the projectlevel planning process. A proposed action serves as

a starting point for the interdisciplinary team (IDT)

and gives the public and other agencies specific

information on which to focus comments. The

Proposed Action proposes thinning, prescribed

burning, road and recreation management activities

to improve declining forest health and reduce

wildfire potential. Several thinning prescriptions are

proposed to create a mosaic of resulting stand

densities. The Coconino National Forest proposes

the following actions:

• Thin approximately 4,800 acres;

• Broadcast burning and maintenance

burning the entire project area, except for

canyons and steep slopes, 6,229 acres;

• Reduce road density;

• Construct several new trails; and

• Designate dispersed camping areas and

close high fire risk areas to camping.

The Proposed Action is described in detail in Chapter 2, “Actions Common to All Alternatives” and

“Proposed Action (Alternative A).” Using comments

received on the Proposed Action (see discussion of

Significant Issues later in this chapter) and information from preliminary analysis, the interdisciplinary

team then develops alternatives to the Proposed

Action. These are discussed in detail in Chapter 2.

Based on public comment received to the Proposed

Action, two slight modifications were made to the

Proposed Action. The first is a clarification in

language. There was concern about the description

in the Proposed Action regarding “old trees” or

“yellow-barked” trees and the age of these trees as

described as 150 years or older. We have deleted

from the Proposed Action language the descriptive

words “150 years or older.” The new language

reads, “Retain all existing mature ponderosa pine

trees or ‘yellow-barked’ trees.”

The second modification of the Proposed Action is

the addition of approximately 50 acres of treatment.

This includes loction/site 335/04 (29 acres) adjacent to private land. The exclusion of this stand

from the “Proposed Action” was a Geographic

Information System (GIS) error. In addition, location/site 336/07 will be thinned by hand in selected

areas (approximately 20 acres) to reduce ladder fuels

immediately adjacent to private lands.

Decisions to Be Made

Based on the environmental analysis in this EIS, the

Coconino National Forest Supervisor will decide

whether and how to improve forest health conditions

and reduce fuel loading in the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project area in accordance with Forest

Plan goals, objectives, and desired future conditions.

This decision could include:

• The location, design, and scheduling of the

activities, temporary road construction and

reconstruction, silvicultural practices,

prescribed burning and recreation management;

• The estimated timber volume, if any, to

make available from the project area at

this time (and the number and size of the

timber sales/goods for services contracts);

• Access management measures; and

• Mitigation measures and monitoring

requirements.

Project Area

The Kachina Village Project Area is located south of

Flagstaff and continues south of the communities of

Kachina Village and Forest Highlands (See Figure 1).

Interstate Highway 17 (I-17) and U.S. Highway 89A

(89A) border the project area on the east and west,

respectively. The southern boundary is approximately one half mile south of James Canyon. Kelly

Canyon, Pumphouse Wash, James Canyon, and

Mexican Pocket are prominent features and locations within the project boundary. The boundary

encompasses an area that has the potential to be

affected by a wildfire within one to two burning

periods following ignition during high and/or

extreme burning conditions.

The entire project encompasses 10,417 acres: 2,377

acres of private land, 326 acres of State Trust Land

(State), and 7,714 acres of Forest Service land. The
4 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Forest Plan includes portions of the following

Management Areas: MA3, MA4, MA6, MA9, MA12,

MA15, and MA17. The project occurs predominately

on MA3 lands that is ponderosa pine on slopes less

Figure 1. The Kachina Village Forest Health Project Area, Coconino National Forest, Arizona.

than 40 percent. The other management areas cover

steeper slopes, meadows, riparian, and developed

recreation sites.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 5

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Purpose and Need

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project is currently proposed in response to the Grand Canyon

Forests Partnership Cooperative Project, the National Fire Plan, and the implementation of the

Coconino National Forest Plan. The goals and

objectives of these plans are to improve forest health

and to help move the project area toward desired

future conditions described in the plans. The Forest

Plan includes forest-wide goals and objectives and

goals, objectives, and desired future conditions

specific to management areas. The goals and

objectives of the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project are listed below and additional detail is

provided in the Project Area Existing Conditions,

Desired Conditions and Needs that follow.

• Manage forest fuels and fire risk to reduce

the potential for a large, stand-replacing

fire in the Wildland-Urban Interface and to

create forest conditions from which a

crown fire would be unlikely to originate

under moderate fire weather.

• Address and correct historical causes of

ecosystem degradation to increase overall

forest ecosystem resilience to disturbance

events, including fire, drought, and insects.

• Protect habitat for all Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive species, including

Mexican spotted owls and northern goshawks, by reducing the probability of

stand-replacing fire in forested habitats

and through integrated measures to

protect wildlife habitat.

• Protect black bear, turkey, Abert squirrel,

and other wildlife species associated with

dense habitat by incorporating special

design features and to continue to provide

habitat for these species in the project

area, including important wildlife habitats

such as cover areas and movement corridors.

• Protect and enhance the quality of the Oak

Creek Watershed by reducing the probability of stand-replacing fire.

• Improve and enhance understory productivity, which has been negatively impacted

by increased overstory densities.

• Retain, enhance, and recruit mature or

“old yellow” ponderosa pine and Gambel

oak, which are declining in longevity and

frequency.

• Create the conditions necessary for the

reintroduction of fire to the ecosystem.

• Increase the diversity of age classes within

the forest to provide northern goshawk

habitat1 .

• Manage access, road networks, and

recreation to decrease fire starts, maintain

fire suppression access, and to better

balance the needs of people with wildlife

habitat and watershed and soil conditions.

• Restore and protect riparian habitats.

Additional goals and objectives that apply to the

Kachina Village Project and are incorporated into the

design of the project include:

• Research and demonstrate key ecological,

economical, and social dimensions of forest

health improvement efforts;

• Protect cultural sites2 ; and

• Provide access for the proposed treatments.

Applicable National Fire Plan goals and objectives

include:

• Reducing the number of small fires that

become large;

• Restoring natural ecological systems to

minimize uncharacteristically intense fires;

• Creating new jobs in both the private and

public sectors;

• Improving the capabilities of state and

volunteer fire organizations; and

• Reducing the threat to life and property

from catastrophic wildfire.

Goals, objectives and desired future conditions of

the management areas within the project area are

described in the following section.

Relationship to Forest Plan

National forest planning occurs at several levels,

including the national, regional, forest, and project

level. The Kachina Village Forest Health Project EIS

1 Desired conditions for northern goshawk habitat are described in Amendment 11 of the Forest Plan.

2 Protection refers to management activities and also damage from wildfire.
6 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

is a project-level analysis. The scope of the EIS is

confined to addressing the significant issues and

possible environmental consequences of the project.

It does not attempt to address decisions made at

higher levels. It does, however, implement direction

provided at those higher levels.

The Forest Plan embodies the provisions of the

National Forest Management Act, its implementing

regulations, and other guiding documents. The

Forest Plan sets forth, in detail, the direction for

managing the land and resources of the Coconino

National Forest. Where appropriate, the Kachina

Village Forest Health Project EIS tiers to the Forest

Plan FEIS, as encouraged by 40 CFR 1502.20.

The Forest Plan uses management areas to guide

management of the national forest lands within the

Coconino National Forest. Each management area

provides for a unique combination of activities,

practices, and uses. The Kachina Village Forest

Health Project area includes many management

areas. Goals, objectives, and desired future conditions of each management area are described in the

Forest Plan and subsequent Amendments. In

addition, the Forest Plan (Chapter 4) contains a

description of each management area.

Project Area Existing Conditions,

Desired Conditions and Needs

This section describes in more detail how the

current conditions specific to the Kachina Village

project area differ from desired conditions. This

comparison results in a description of where there is

a need for action to progress toward desired conditions. The desired conditions described for the

Forest Plan management areas, in conjunction with

the other Forest Plan directions outlined above,

provide the parameters for identifying and defining

project-specific desired conditions. The following

desired conditions will help guide management of

the project consistent with the Forest Plan, the

significant issues (described below), and the ecological conditions of the project area.

Existing and desired conditions are compared below.

The resulting purpose and need for action are

written in bolded italics. Chapter E of the Project

Record File and specifically PRD 49 clarifies the

desired condition, as developed by the Partnership,

the public, and the IDT working on this project.

Fire Risk and Fire Potential: Existing forest

conditions include continuous canopies, high stand

densities over 120 Basal Area3 , and unnaturally

high fuel loads. The current forest conditions are

conducive to future catastrophic wildfires. Current

high recreational use increases the risk of a fire

starting from escaped campfires, inappropriate

disposal of cigarettes, and catalytic converters.

Unlike the low intensity ground fires of the past,

fires will likely travel through the tree tops (crown

fires), resulting in greater intensity fire and increased destruction. The potential losses from such

fires are high. The communities of Kachina Village,

Forest Highlands, and Flagstaff are located north

and upwind of the project area. Other values at risk

from fire include threatened Mexican spotted owl

habitat, northern goshawk habitat, and areas that

provide recreation opportunities for the public.

Existing conditions show that stands within the

project area will produce flame lengths of 5.7 to 7.2

feet resulting in a high likelihood of producing and

supporting running crown fires that are difficult, or

more likely impossible, for firefighters to control.

The desired condition is a forest with low to moderate fire potential with reduced flame lengths below 4

feet.

Changes in camping locations and camping closures

are important in reducing the risk of human-caused

fires. Associated benefits of designated camping are

reduced fire risk and improved watershed, soil, and

recreation management.

Need to change flame lengths of 5.7 to 7.2 feet

(existing condition) to flame lengths of 4 feet or

less (desired condition) in an arrangement that

creates discontinuous canopies across the

project area. The risk of, and potential for,

catastrophic wildfire is achieved by creating

discontinuous tree canopies, removing ladder

and fuels on the forest floor, and, in general,

creating conditions that were prevalent prior to

the disruption of natural ecosystem processes.

Camping closures and the designated camping

areas will change the distribution and location

of human-caused fires to improve and lower

fire risk.

Plant and Animal Diversity: Today, the landscape

within the Kachina Village Project area is 99 percent

forested, with only 1 percent of the area in openings.

Very little understory grasses, forbs, and shrubs

currently exist. Additionally, only a small portion of

3 Basal area is a measure used to describe tree density. Basal area can be visualized as the amount of ground that is covered in wood.

Higher basal areas mean more trees are left (higher densities) than lower basal areas (lower densities).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 7

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

the area is in old-growth conditions, with most of

the ponderosa pine stands in small and medium

pole timber stages (trees 5 to 16-inches dbh).

There are few seedlings/saplings or mature “yellow”

pine trees. The overwhelming majority of plant

biological diversity is in the understory community.

The diversity of understory plants, in turn, comprises the essential habitat for many species of

native fungi, soil microorganisms, arthropods,

mammals, and birds. Currently, the lack of fire in

the understory is another factor that limits plant

diversity and vigor. Per northern goshawk Amendment 11 of the Forest Plan, the desired condition is

to return, in part, to ponderosa pine ecosystems that

are more open, with grassy openings comprising 10

percent of the area. Additionally, the desired

condition is for a mix of tree sizes and ages described in the Forest Plan that represents a more

even representation of each size class and a greater

percentage of large old trees on the landscape. This

desired condition is a better balance of ponderosa

pine age and size classes and a greater component

of grasses, shrubs, and forbs are required to meet

biological needs. Another desired condition is

recurring, low-intensity fire that recycles nutrients

and maintains forest understory health in ponderosa

pine ecosystems.

Need to change from 1 percent openings to 10

percent openings across the area. Need to

move from 60 percent young forest (VSS3) to

20-30 percent young forest, to achieve longterm goals of 40 percent mature and old forest

(VSS 5 & 6) to 40 percent mature and old

forest. There is a need to reintroduce

recurring, low-intensity fire.

Old-growth: Historically, old-growth ponderosa

pine in the Flagstaff area ranged in density from 0 to

greater than 100 trees per acre, with an average of

26 old-growth trees per acre. Today, the density of

old-growth trees is very different. Across the entire

project area, the average density of old-growth trees

is 4 per acre. There are 0 to 2 old-growth trees per

acre on 38 percent of the area; 2 to 4 old-growth

trees per acre on 23 percent of the area; 5 to 7 oldgrowth trees per acre on 20 percent of the area; and

8 and greater old-growth trees per acre on 19

percent of the area. The vigor and longevity of

existing old-growth trees is variable depending on a

particular site, and competition from surrounding

younger trees. The desired condition is 20 to 30 oldgrowth trees per acre or 40 percent of the project

area in mature or very old trees (VSS 4 and 5). The

desired condition is to maintain the current oldgrowth trees for as long as possible given the

relatively low number and length of time until other

trees can grow to replace them.

Need to promote future old-growth trees to

replace existing trees in the future and add to

the overall amount of old-growth trees. Need

to reduce competition between trees

immediately surrounding old-growth trees to

promote the vigor of existing old-growth trees,

thus increasing their resistance to insects and

disease and increasing longevity.

Recreation and Roads: Many people enjoy the

forest roads or travel cross-country on foot, mountain bikes, and motorcycles. Recreation use in this

area is very high. Recreation monitoring has documented approximately 400 dispersed recreation sites

and numerous transient camps across the entire

project area. Furthermore, there are approximately

4 miles of open Forest Service system roads per

section (640 acres). This current road density is two

times greater than the desired condition suggested

by the Forest Plan. In addition, there are numerous

unofficial roads created by hunters and

recreationists, as indicated by the presence of 2-

track dirt depressions. As a result, there are few

places where a person can gain a sense of solitude

and enjoy nature. The entire road network allows a

great deal of mobility throughout the area. However,

Forest Service road budgets do not allow for maintenance of all the current system roads and there is

no maintenance of unofficial roads.

Heavy recreational use occurs in the Mexican Pocket

area, above Sterling Canyon, and along the Forest

Roads (FR’s) 237 and 535. A substantial number of

non-system (social) trails are located south of

Kachina Village. These trails are often poorly

located and receive no maintenance. Some social

trails have resulted in conflicts between users.

Forest Service trail budgets do not allow for maintenance of all the current system trails and there is no

maintenance of unofficial trails.

The desired condition is a well designed system of

roads and trails that balances road and trail systems with demands for access for recreation and fire

suppression, as well as overall watershed productivity and long-term needs for wildlife populations near

urban areas.

Need to reverse deleterious trends in

recreation, road, and trail use. Need to reduce

road densities. Need to change camping uses

in highly impacted areas. Need to locate a

road and trail system that meets desired

conditions.
8 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Wildlife Movement: There is an important wildlife

travel corridor within the project area that provides

an important connection between the canyons in the

Kachina Village area and Woody Ridge. This corridor is impacted by high numbers of camping sites

and is at risk of crown fire, which could severely

impact the corridor for several decades. The desired

condition is to maintain the ability of wildlife to use

this travelway.

Need to reduce the risk of, and potential for,

catastrophic wildfire around this corridor.

Need to change from moderate to high levels of

human disturbance to wildlife to low to

moderate levels. Need to undertake a more

active management of roads and dispersed

recreation.

Goshawks: A northern goshawk Post FledglingFamily Area (PFA) is located within the project area.

Most of the project area provides either PFA or

foraging habitat for the goshawk. The desired

condition is to maintain habitat for goshawks per

the appropriate Forest Plan standards and guidelines. The existing forest structure is different from

the desired forest structure described in the Forest

Plan. Currently the PFA is lacking the number of

large trees recommended for PFA’s in the Forest

Plan.

Need to improve northern goshawk habitat by

creating a better balance of forest structures.

See additional information under plant and

animal diversity paragraph above.

Mexican Spotted Owls: Forest Plan standards and

guidelines for the Mexican spotted owl apply where

habitat for the Mexican spotted owl has been

designated or defined as “restricted” for this species.

The desired condition is to maintain occupied

habitat and to progress restricted habitat toward

conditions suitable for nesting roosting. The desired

condition is to lessen the risk of catastrophic fire

moving into these habitats from surrounding areas.

Need to retain some portions of the project area

as dense, multi-storied forest to maintain

current Mexican spotted owl habitat. Need to

reduce the potential for loss of Mexican spotted

owl habitat due to catastrophic wildfire to

lessen the possibility of losing the habitats and

the species in this area. See the fire risk and

fire potential discussion above for more

information.

Riparian: Current conditions at Kelly Seep include

bare ground, erosion, little plant reproduction or

diversity. The desired condition is lush vegetation

with little bare ground, good plant reproduction and

diversity, and water that percolates into the soil

rather that running over the ground. Riparian

habitats are very important for plant, bird, and

animal species dependent on these wet environments.

Need to restore the Kelly Seep riparian site.

Public Involvement

The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) defines

scoping as “...an early and open process for determining the scope of issues to be addressed and for

identifying the significant issues related to a Proposed Action’’ (40 CFR 1501.7). Among other

things, the scoping process is used to invite public

participation, to help identify public issues, and to

obtain public comment at various stages of the EIS

process. Although public participation is to begin

early, it is really an iterative process that continues

until a decision is made. In addition to the following

specific activities, the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project has been listed on the Coconino National

Forest Schedule of Proposed Actions since December

15, 2000, which is mailed to approximately 500

persons, organizations, and agencies. The Proposed

Action was mailed to approximately 100 addresses.

To date, the public has been invited to participate in

the project in the following ways.

Notice of Intent (NOI): A Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register

on March 9, 2001 (PRD 31).

Public Meetings: Public meetings were held in

February, March, and April of 2001 to provide

project area information, develop the desired future

condition, and discuss local concerns and interests

that should be addressed in the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project analysis. Over 50 people

attended the meetings.

Public Mailing: In June 2001, a letter providing

information and seeking public comment was mailed

to approximately 100 individuals and groups. This

included Federal and state agencies, Native American groups, municipal offices, businesses, interest

groups, and individuals. A total of 12 responses to

this initial mailing were received (PRD 93, Proposed

Action Mailing List).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 9

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Local News Media: Announcements regarding the

project were printed in the Arizona Daily Sun on

March 30, 2001 (PRD 53).

Meetings with Agencies, Communities, Native

Groups, and Others: In October 1999, a field trip

involving the Grand Canyon Trust (GCT), U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Native American

Enterprises, and the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) reviewed proposed projects for the

2001 fiscal year. Six interdisciplinary team meetings occurred in February, March, and April 2001,

involving the Coconino Natural Resources Conservation District, the Southwest Forest Alliance, USDA

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station,

AGFD, the Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) of

Northern Arizona University (NAU), the USFWS, the

Grand Canyon Forests Foundation, the GCT,

Flagstaff Fire Department, the Society of American

Foresters, the Highlands Fire Department, and the

Arizona State Land Department. The purpose of

these meetings was to work toward the Proposed

Action through development of a desired future

condition. Two field trips in April 2001 with the

Grand Canyon Forest Partnership discussed wildlife

habitat, specifically cover and movement corridors,

thinning to enhance yellow pines, roads, and fuels

reduction. In April 2001, an open house was held

for the residents of Kachina Village to identify issues

and concerns related to the project. Also in April

2001, AGFD, the Grand Canyon Forest Foundation,

and the ERI of NAU made a Mexican spotted owl

field visit. In May, July, and August 2001, the GCFP

held meetings to review the planning process and

recommendations to the Forest Service. A field trip

in July 2001 with AGFD was conducted to discuss

the proposed treatments in relation to game species

habitat. Two field trips in September 2001 with

AGFD and USFWS discussed fuels treatments within

Mexican spotted owl PAC’s.

Other Sources: Public comment received to the

Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis in response

to “Ideas Change for the Flagstaff/Lake Mary

Analysis” were reviewed by team members when

developing the Proposed Action.

Issues

Significant issues for the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project were identified through public

scoping. Similar issues were combined into one

statement, where appropriate. The following issues

were determined to be significant and within the

scope of the project decision. These issues are

addressed in the Proposed Action and alternatives to

the Proposed Action. Additional concerns were

considered but determined to be non-significant in

relation to the current project. These concerns are

discussed separately in “Significant and NonSignificant Issues,” located in Appendix A, “Scoping

Comment Analysis.”

Issue 1: 16-Inch Diameter Limit Issues

Cutting trees greater than 16-inch diameter would

affect future old-growth in the area, resulting in

fewer acres being able to qualify as old-growth forest

structure in the future.

Issue 2: 18-Inch Diameter Limit Issue

All project objectives could be met with an 18-inch

diameter limit and request that a quantitative

analysis be provided.

Issue 3: “Intensive Zone”

The Proposed Action does not reduce fuels sufficient

to protect the immediate wildland-urban interface.

An “intensive treatment zone” around private land is

requested for evaluation.

Issue 4: Lighter Thinning Methods

Thinning north of Kelly Canyon as described in the

Proposed Action goes beyond what is needed to

reduce fire risk. A lighter treatment of 60 to 120

basal area and a 9-inch thinning limit (where a

temporary road is needed) is requested for evaluation.

Issue 5: Road Issues

Temporary roads lead to increased soil compaction,

transport of exotic weeds, and have long-lasting

impacts on forest structure, therefore, we request

that no new temporary roads be created even if only

for the duration of the project.

Issue 6: Mechanized Equipment

Mechanized equipment and excessive thinning will

increase soil compaction and cause disturbance to

wildlife in areas south of Kelly Canyon. The area

south of Kelly Canyon should only be treated with

hand thinning and was requested for evaluation.
10 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 1 • Proposed Action

Other Concerns Raised by the Public

Following public scoping, other questions, concerns,

and comments related to various resource areas

were raised and considered in the analysis of

significant issues. However, they were determined

to be non-significant issues in that they would not

drive alternatives. All comments received were

addressed. There are three sections of Appendix A

that show how various comments, questions,

concerns, and issues were addressed. Some have

already been addressed through other processes, in

the Forest Plan, or their resolution is beyond the

scope of this project (see Appendix A).

Applicable Laws and Executive

Orders

Shown below is a partial list of Federal laws and

executive orders pertaining to project-specific

planning and environmental analysis on Federal

lands. While most pertain to all Federal lands, some

of the laws are specific to Arizona. Disclosures and

findings required by these laws and orders are

contained in Chapter 2 of this EIS.

Multiple-Use Sustained-Yield Act of 1960

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (as

amended)

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, (as

amended)

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of

1969 (as amended)

Clean Air Act of 1970 (as amended)

Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (as

amended)

Forest and Rangeland Renewable Resources

Planning Act (RPA) of 1974 (as amended)

National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of

1976 (as amended)

Clean Water Act of 1977 (as amended)

American Indian Religious Freedom Act of

1978

Archeological Resource Protection Act of 1980

Cave Resource Protection Act of 1988

Executive Order 11593 (cultural resources)

Executive Order 11988 (floodplains)

Executive Order 11990 (wetlands)

Executive Order 12898 (environmental

justice)

Executive Order 12962 (aquatic systems and

recreational fisheries)

Executive Order 13186 (Migratory Bird Treaty

Act)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 11

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered by the Forest Service for the

Kachina Village Forest Health Project. It includes a

discussion of how alternatives were developed; an

overview of mitigation measures, monitoring and

other features common to all alternatives, a description, visual simulations, and map of each alternative

considered in detail; and a comparison of these

alternatives focusing on the significant issues.

Alternative A is identified as the preferred alternative. Chapter 2 is intended to present the

alternatives in comparative form, sharply defining

the issues and providing a clear basis for choice

among options by the decision maker and the public

(40 CFR 1502.14).

Some of the information used to compare alternatives at the end of Chapter 2 is summarized from

Chapter 3, “Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences.” Chapter 3 contains the scientific

basis for establishing baselines and measuring the

potential environmental consequences of each of the

alternatives. For a full understanding of the effects

of the alternatives, readers will need to consult

Chapter 3.

Alternative A Development Process

The development of alternatives for the Kachina

Village Forest Health Project began with the development of the Proposed Action (Alternative A). This

alternative was crafted by the Forest Service Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) after several months of

collaboration and work with members of the public

and the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership. The

project focus is to improve forest health conditions

focusing on the Flagstaff Wildland-Urban Interface

(WUI). For the City of Flagstaff and the surrounding

satellite communities, the Forest Service has had a

definition of the WUI in the Coconino National

Forest Plan and a map of the interface that has been

in use for years. The Fire Management Area Zone

(FMAZ) Map shows that all but a small area south of

James Canyon are within the WUI. In the Forest

Plan, there is guidance on the size and scale of the

WUI. On page 93, the Plan states, “The urban

interface is defined as an area up to 10 miles long in

a southwesterly direction from urban areas.”

Wildland-Urban Interface Areas—

Background Information

The Council of Western State Foresters and the

Forest Service have adopted the following definition

of wildland-urban interface. A “Wildland-Urban

Interface is where humans and their development

meet or are intermixed with wildland fuels” (Teie and

Weatherford, 1998: 11-12).

There are four different wildland-urban conditions:

• An Interface Condition is a situation

where structures abut wildland fuels.

There is a clear line of demarcation between the structures and the wildland

fuels along roads or back fences. Wildland

fuels do not continue into the developed

area.

• An Intermix Condition is a condition in

which structures are scattered throughout

a wildland area. There is no clear line of

demarcation. The wildland fuels are

continuous outside of and within the

developed area.

• An Occluded Condition is a situation

normally within a city in which structures

abut an island of wildland fuels. There is a

clear line of demarcation between the

structures and the wildland fuels along

roads or back fences.

• A Rural Condition is a situation in which

scattered small clusters of structures are

exposed to wildland fuels. There may be

miles between these clusters.

The prioritization of the Flagstaff Urban Interface

has relied on the Forest Service and local fire

department personnel to describe areas that should

be treated to improve forest health, leading to

decreased wildfire potential. In the Cohesive Strategy, Laverty et al. (2000:17) states, “The first

priority for restoration will be the millions of acres

already roaded and managed landscapes that are in

close proximity to communities.” Laverty (2000: 14)

also sets the following three priorities:

• Wildland-Urban Interface. The WUI areas

include those areas where flammable

wildland fuels are adjacent to homes and

communities.

Chapter 2 • Alternatives
12 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

• Readily Accessible Municipal Watersheds. Water is the most critical resource

in many western states. Watersheds

impacted by uncharacteristic wildfire

effects are less resilient to disturbance and

unable to recover as quickly as those that

remain within the range of ecological

conditions characteristic of the fire regime

under which they developed.

• Threatened and Endangered Species

Habitat. The extent of recent fires demonstrates that, in fire-adapted ecosystems,

few areas are isolated from wildfire.

Dwindling habitat for many threatened and

endangered species will eventually be

impacted by wildland fire. The severity

and extent of fire could eventually push

declining populations beyond recovery.

Development of Alternatives

The IDT used information from public scoping,

including the significant issues identified for the

project (see Chapter 1), in conjunction with the fieldrelated resource information, to formulate different

alternative themes. Based on these themes, the IDT

then assigned different potential treatment prescriptions to land units to create the various alternatives.

The alternatives for the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project are differentiated primarily by a

limit on the size of tree to be thinned, the

intensity of the treatments proposed in thinning

units, and the miles of temporary road. The

Proposed Action (Alternative A) and each action

alternative presented in this EIS provide a different

response to the significant issues. One alternative

may respond to more than one issue. Each action

alternative is also designed to meet the stated

purpose and need for the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project and the project-specific desired future

conditions.

Each action alternative represents a site-specific

proposal developed through intensive interdisciplinary evaluation of current and desired conditions

based on field verification. Unit identification and

design also made use of high-resolution topographic

maps, aerial photos, and a large quantity of resource

data available in geographic information system

(GIS) format.

Items Common to All Action

Alternatives

Many items in the Proposed Action (Alternative A)

also occur in all action alternatives. The action

alternatives are differentiated by the size of the

trees to be thinned, changes in intensity of

thinning prescriptions, and the use of temporary

roads. The following items from the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) are common to Alternatives A, C, D,

and E and would not occur under Alternative B (No

Action). Refer to the Purpose and Need section of

Chapter 1 to see the reasons why these items are

proposed.

Administrative and Strategic Direction

for the Project Area

1. Follow all Coconino National Forest Plan

Standards and Guidelines and Apply

Mitigation Measures

This is the application of the Coconino

National Forest Plan and subsequent

amendments, including all guidelines for

Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk,

Management Indicator Species, Best

Management Practices for water and soil,

and archeological site protection. Refer to

“Forest Plan Consistency” and “Monitoring”

found later in this chapter for more detail.

2. Retain all existing mature ponderosa

pine trees or old “yellow-barked” trees.

Temporary road or landing locations to

achieve removal objectives will avoid large

diameter trees, where possible.

3. Prioritize Project Implementation

Project implementation will treat stands

adjacent to communities first, then progressing south thereafter.

4. Involve the Public

Involve individual property owners, fire

protection districts, and communities in

the proposed treatments. Currently,

Highlands Fire Department is actively

working in the communities of Kachina

Village and Forest Highlands, conducting

thinning projects and increasing public

awareness of fire prevention techniques.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 13

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

5. Encourage Research and Monitoring

The Arizona Game and Fish Department,

Northern Arizona University, and the USDA

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research

Station have expressed interest and discussed preliminary actions for research in

the project area. Possible research studies

may include Mexican spotted owl studies to

examine the effects of fuel reduction treatments, black bear, turkey, antelope, Abert

squirrel, and songbird studies to evaluate

the effects of the project, and further studies

by Northern Arizona University to evaluate

and compare the ongoing research and

monitoring of adaptive management strategies for the Grand Canyon Forests

Partnership Projects. See “Monitoring” later

in this chapter for more details.

6. Apply thinning systems to sites as appropriate

Thinning systems will include mechanized

equipment resulting in the commercial

removal of trees. Hand felling will also be

used for commercial thinning, as well as

public firewood use. Some trees will be

piled and burned on site.

Reducing Fire Potential – Improving

Forest Ecosystem Health – Fuels and

Vegetation Management

(See Figure 2, “Fuels Treatment Alternatives A, C, D

and E” and Figure 3, “Thinning Treatments Common

to All Action Alternatives A, C, D and E” for maps

related to the following items)

7. Broadcast Burning and Slash Treatment

Activity-generated slash resulting from

thinning will be treated through machine

piling or by hand. Existing large logs and

logs created will be retained. The majority

of slash from thinning will be piled in a

manner that minimizes soil disturbance.

Some small coarse woody debris will be

retained on the ground to meet Best Management Practices for soil and watershed

health. Nearly 80 percent of the slash

created will be treated. The slash piles will

be burned approximately 1 to 2 years

following thinning. Public firewood will be

made available from slash piles, where

feasible. Broadcast burning will occur after

thinning is completed. Best Management

Practices for soil and watershed management will be employed to minimize soil

disturbance and the spread of invasive and

noxious weeds. Broadcast burning will

begin adjacent to the communities and

progress south thereafter. Burns will

occur over a number of years with different

portions of the project area burned in a

given year. All national forest lands within

the project area, excluding the canyons,

are proposed for broadcast burning in the

following priority:

• First priority is the area north of Kelly

Canyon and along the Highway 89A

Corridor;

• Second priority is the area between

Kelly and James Canyons; and

• Third priority is the area south of

James Canyon.

8. Thinning from Below: Mexican Spotted

Owl (MSO) Protected Activity Centers

(PAC’s)

Four hundred fifty-six acres of thinning

from below is proposed for habitat within

Mexican spotted owl PAC’s. A special

team, including U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service (USFWS) personnel, Arizona Game

and Fish Department (AGFD) habitat

specialists, U.S. Forest Service (USFS)

wildlife biologist, and fire management

practitioners, are visiting all stands within

MSO PAC’s and recommending site-specific

treatments to lessen fire potential and risk.

Specifics for treatments are located in the

Project Record File. All stands are located

on slopes less than 30 percent. Proposed

management includes thinning trees less

than 9-inches dbh, broadcast burning, and

road access management to reduce fire

risk. The key to implementation of sitespecific thinning includes layout and

assistance during thinning by the USFWS,

USFS, and AGFD personnel.

9. Wildlife Movement Corridor

The AGFD and USFS wildlife biologists

identified the location of this wildlife

movement corridor (143 acres) based on

historical knowledge of the area. The

treatment within the corridor will include

light thinning within the drainage and the

area 200 yards on either side of the

drainage located in these two stands. The

remainder of the stand will be treated with
14 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 2. Fuels Treatment Alternatives A, C, D and E
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 15

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 3. Thinning Treatments Common to All Action Alternatives A, C, D and E
16 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

a variable thinning. The site-specific layout

will include assistance from the AGFD and

USFS wildlife biologists.

Reducing Fire Risk – Balancing Human

Influences, Fire Occurrence, Wildlife

Habitat, and Watershed Health Through

Management of Recreational Uses and

Access

(See Figure 4, “Management of Recreational Uses

Alternatives A, C, D and E” and Figure 5, “Open

Forest Roads” for maps related to the following

items)

10. Camping and Campfires

Camping and campfires will be prohibited

in the area north of Kelly Canyon and west

of Pumphouse Wash to one half mile on

the west side of Highway 89A, except in

designated areas. Camping and campfires

will be prohibited in areas of close proximity to Kachina Village and Forest

Highlands. Camping and campfires will

also be prohibited on the first one half mile

of the FR 535 as it departs Highway 89A.

Designated camping is proposed along the

FR 237. Camping will be limited to camping in designated campsites only.

Selection of designated campsite locations

will be determined from site-specific

inventory and be incorporated into the

layout of proposed thinning treatments.

Camping in the designated sites will be

allowed within a 50 to 100 foot radius of a

marked post.

11. Trails

Forest Service system non-motorized trails

are proposed south of Forest Highlands

and Kachina Village. Approximately 7

miles of trails are proposed south of

Kachina Village to replace a social trail

system in the area. Any newly designated

trail access from Kachina Village and

Forest Highlands will be determined with

the layout and design of a non-motorized

trail system for the area. One new

trailhead is proposed near the existing

ADOT yard on Highway 89A. An existing

social trail from Forest Highlands into the

Griffith Spring area will be converted to a

Forest Service system trail. Trails will

have additional visual and Recreation

Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) objectives

that will be included in thinning prescriptions and overall project design.

12. Mexican Pocket Management

Mexican Pocket will be designated for dayuse only, with no camping or campfires.

To continue to provide access to a popular

area, a 2-mile loop trail is proposed to

provide hiking to the edge of Pumphouse

Canyon and to connect the Oak Creek

Vista Overlook with a small trailhead

constructed near the ADOT yard.

13. Passenger Car Roads (Level 3 Roads)

Forest Roads 237 and 535 will be maintained as Level 3 roads, thereby providing

approximately 7 miles of passenger car

roads. FR 237 will continue to be the

primary access road to the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project Area, in addition to

important area access for wildfire fighting

efforts.

14. High-Clearance Vehicle Roads (Level

2 Roads)

Approximately 8.5 miles of road will be

maintained as Level 2 roads in the project

area (See Figure 5). The proposed road

access plan provides good administrative

access for firefighting and provides for the

best arrangement and location of roads to

balance wildfire risk (human access) and

recreation experience. Roads not shown

on the open-road system will be converted

to trails, obliterated, or gated for administrative use. Primary administrative use is

fire access.

15. Riparian Restoration Project at Kelly

Seep (Located Near Kelly Canyon)

The area around Kelly Seep will be fenced

and structures removed to improve riparian habitat conditions.

Forest Plan Consistency

All alternatives, including the Proposed Action, are

consistent with the Coconino National Forest Plan.

All applicable forest-wide and land use designation

standards and guidelines have been incorporated.

The Forest Service uses many mitigation and

preventive measures in the planning and implementation of land management activities. The

application of these measures begins during the

planning and design phases of a project. Additional

direction comes from the Regional Guide and

applicable Forest Service manuals and handbooks.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 17

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 4. Management of Recreational Uses Alternatives A, C, D, and E
18 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 5. Open Forest Roads.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 19

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Not all desired conditions in the Forest Plan can be

achieved with a single, on-the-ground action. Often

many actions are necessary in order to meet desired

conditions identified by management direction. For

example, this project has alternatives that make

progress toward the desired distribution of tree sizes

and ages described for northern goshawk habitat.

We do not plan to change the structure of the forest

stands in one single treatment in order to meet

those guidelines in this area.

Appendix E highlights some of the key directions

from the Forest Plan (primarily from Chapter 4,

“Forest-wide Standards and Guidelines”). Further

direction is located in Forest Plan as changed by

Amendment 11. (Also see, “Project-Specific Mitigation” that follows.)

Project-Specific Mitigation

The analysis documented in this EIS discloses the

possible environmental consequences that may

occur from implementing the actions proposed

under each alternative. Measures have been formulated to mitigate or reduce these impacts. These

measures were guided by the direction from the

Forest Plan and the interdisciplinary team (IDT) as

they developed the project.

IDT specialists use on-the-ground inventories,

computer (GIS) data, and aerial photographs to

prepare reports. Resource specialists include their

concerns in their reports and then describe how the

concerns can be mitigated, if not completely avoided,

in the design of each treatment unit or road segment. These reports may be found in the planning

record. Resource concerns and mitigation measures

may be further refined during the final design work,

when specialists have one more opportunity to revise

their recommendations.

Applicable Forest Plan standards and guidelines and

Best Management Practices (BMP’s) used to meet the

requirements of the Clean Water Act and projectspecific mitigation measures are identified in these

reports. The following items are mitigation measures that will be employed for the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project. Though most of the following

mitigation items are common to all action alternatives, there are a few associated with Alternative E

that are different. These exceptions are noted in the

text.

Soil and Watershed Protection

A Best Management Practice (BMP) is “a practice or

a combination of practices that is determined by a

state (or designated area-wide planning agency),

after problem assessment, examination of alternative practices, and appropriate public participation,

to be the most effective and practicable (including

technological, economic, and institutional considerations) means of preventing or reducing the amount

of pollution generated by nonpoint sources to a level

compatible with water quality goals (“Guidelines for

Using Best Management Practices” (FSH 2509.22)).”

Authority and guidance to prescribe and implement

BMP’s is defined in FSM 2501, 2530, FSH 2509.22,

and the Forest Plan.

BMP’s with numbers (e.g., 24.1 Timber Harvest Unit

Design) are from the Soil and Water Conservation

Practices Handbook. BMP’s without numbers (e.g.,

Mechanical Harvesting Restriction) are site and

activity-specific BMP’s designed to minimize

nonpoint source pollutants.

BMP’s are located in the project record file

(PRD137c) and will be reviewed by project implementation personnel.

Wildlife and Sensitive Species Habitat

Protection

Bald Eagle

• In the potential winter roost area, snags

and large yellow pine trees will have the

duff raked away from the tree bases.

• Implement a 300-foot radius buffer around

known bald eagle winter roosts (Coconino

National Forest Plan, 1987, p. 123), or as

amended.

• Mandatory Impact Minimization Measures

will be used to protect bald eagles (USDI

Fish and Wildlife Service 2001) if it is later

determined that the potential winter roost

site, or any other area within the project

boundary, is used for roosting by bald

eagles.

• There will be no project activities within

1/4 mile of known bald eagle winter roost

areas between October 15 and April 15.
20 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

• No treatment activities will occur within

PAC’s during the breeding season (March 1

to August 31).

• Microhabitat monitoring will be conducted

per protocol.

• Additional mitigation for MSO is in the

project record file (PRD151).

Peregrine Falcon

• Activities, including public use, are prohibited in the vicinity of occupied peregrine

falcon nesting habitats between March 1

and August 15 (Forest Plan page 64-1). No

treatments will occur on location/sites

354/29 and 31 and the southern half of

location/sites 354/23 and 24 from March

1 to August 15. This seasonal restriction

applies unless falcon habitat is determined

to be unoccupied. Trails will be designed

to avoid nesting areas.

Northern Goshawk

• Thinning treatments will not occur within or

near nesting areas during the breeding season

(March 1 through September 30).

• The Coconino National Forest Plan (1987 as

amended) standards and guidelines will be

followed regarding broadcast burning.

• Recreational trails that traverse nesting areas

will be closed. Access that will allow people to

travel into nesting areas will be discouraged.

Other Raptors

• Buffers for nest and roost sites will be

implemented according to the Coconino

National Forest Plan (1987 as amended, p.

123-124) standards and guidelines.

Turkey Nesting

• Thinning and broadcast burning will not

occur from April 15 through June 30

within turkey nesting and brood sites

within location 368/sites 7, 9, 10, 32, 33,

36, 37, and 38. Duff and debris will be

raked away from the base of roost trees

prior to broadcast burning. Also within

these stands, the wildlife biologist and

burn boss will coordinate, in the field,

whether or not to conduct spring burning

in these sensitive areas.

Plants

• To reduce the impacts on rare and sensitive plants, thinning slash and burn lines

will not be placed within plant populations.

Appropriate firing techniques will be used

to minimize the effect of burning on known

populations.

• Prescribed fire control lines and temporary

roads will avoid known populations of

sensitive plant species.

• Surveys for TE&S plant species will be

conducted prior to trail construction. If

sensitive plant species are found, rerouting

of trails will be required.

• Native perennial species or annual rye

grass seeds will be used where re-seeding

of grasses and herbaceous vegetation is

needed after ground disturbing activities.

Sterile non-native species or non-seeding

methods, such as weed-free straw, may be

necessary for sites where annual rye grass

persists. Seed mixes containing seeds of

non-native Penstemon spp. will be avoided.

• Equipment will be cleaned prior to entering

the project area to avoid introduction or

transfer of invasive and noxious weeds.

Within the project area, equipment will be

cleaned prior to leaving areas infested with

invasive and noxious weeds. Entrance and

exit routes from Interstate 17 and Highway

89A will include hand tool treatment of

noxious weeds. Known populations of

knapweed and bull thistle will be marked

for avoidance.

Yellow Pines and Other Mature Trees

• Slash piles will not be placed near large

yellow pines to avoid damage during

burning. This would be especially important in bald eagle winter roost areas,

turkey summer and winter ranges, and

protected or restricted MSO habitat.

• Burn damage to large mature trees will be

avoided. Burning techniques will protect

mast-producing trees (i.e. large alligator

juniper, large pine, and oak), and turkey

roost trees throughout the project area.

Burning techniques will minimize heat

effects to the feeder roots and cambiums of

mature trees.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 21

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

• Old trees will have duff raked away from the

bases where high litter depth layers (greater

than 6 inches) may result in girdling and

mortality. The Prescribed Burn Monitoring

Report and Information (Randall-Parker and

Miller 1999) will guide our actions.

Gambel Oak

• Gambel oak will be retained. Burn plans will

mitigate oak loss through the removal of

large material, raking duff from the base of

oaks, and avoidance of slash piles near oaks.

Snags and Logs

• Snags will be lined prior to broadcast

burning. Slash piles will be placed away

from snags.

• Loss of large logs will be minimized through

ignition techniques and possibly fire-lining.

The timing of prescribed burning (spring

burning) may also reduce the loss of logs.

• Trees that are converted to snags or logs will

be monitored.

Recreation

• No slash piling in dispersed camping sites.

• No log landings in dispersed camping sites.

• No disruptive restoration activities on

heavily-used holiday weekends such as

Memorial Day, Fourth of July, or Labor Day.

Visual Management – Coordination with

Layout and Design of stands prior to

marking

• Adjust unit boundaries to avoid straight

edges around units. Develop marking

prescriptions, which “feather” the edges of

units. Look for opportunities to define unit

boundaries with natural features such as

canyon edges or drainages and avoid using

roads or fence lines as unit boundaries when

those features are straight. Refer to visual

simulations for reference.

Apply above mitigation especially to units at

the upper elevations of the project, and to

units whose boundaries are visible from

areas of concern such as from Highway 89A

and Interstate 17.

Monitoring

Monitoring activities can be divided into forest plan

monitoring and project-specific monitoring. The

National Forest Management Act requires that

national forests monitor and evaluate their forest

plans (36 CFR 219.11). Chapter 6 of the Forest Plan

includes the monitoring and evaluation activities to

be conducted as part of forest plan implementation.

There are three categories of forest plan monitoring:

• Implementation monitoring is used to

determine if the goals, objectives, standards, guidelines, and practices of the

forest plan are implemented in accordance

with the forest plan.

• Effectiveness monitoring is used to

determine if the forest plan standards,

guidelines, and practices, as designed and

implemented, are effective in accomplishing the desired result.

• Validation monitoring is used to determine whether the data, assumptions, and

estimated effects used in developing the

forest plan are correct.

Effectiveness and validation monitoring are not

typically done as a part of the project implementation. Implementation monitoring and any additional

project-specific monitoring are, however, important

aspects of the project. Though most of the following

mitigation items are common to all action alternatives, there are a few associated with Alternative E

that are different. These exceptions are noted in the

text.

Routine Implementation Monitoring

Routine implementation monitoring assesses if the

project was implemented as designed and if it

complies with the Forest Plan. Planning for routine

implementation monitoring began with the preliminary design of the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project.

Routine implementation monitoring is a part of the

administration of all project contracts. They monitor

performance relative to contract requirements.

Input by resource staff specialists, such as wildlife

biologists, soil scientists, hydrologists, and engineers, is regularly requested during this

implementation monitoring process. These specialists provide technical advice when questions arise

during project implementation.
22 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

The Coconino National Forest staff conducts an

annual review of BMP implementation and effectiveness. The results of this and other monitoring are

summarized in the Coconino National Forest Annual

Monitoring and Evaluation Report. This report

provides information about how well the management direction of the forest is being carried out. It

also measures the accomplishment of anticipated

outputs, activities, and effects.

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project will

include the following implementation monitoring:

• Alternatives A, C, and D: Thinning from

Below, South of Kelly Canyon.

Site-specific implementation, such as the

layout of cover, marking, and thinning, will

include assistance from the Arizona Game

and Fish Department and the USFS

wildlife biologists. The monitoring objective will be to assure the sites include

cover patches. The sites will include 25

percent cover patches in patches no larger

than 1 acre. The district wildlife biologist

along with timber staff will assume responsibility for the completion of the task.

Alternative E does not include cover

clumps.

• All Action Alternatives: Thinning from

Below, MSO PAC’s

The key to implementation of site-specific

thinning includes layout and assistance

during thinning by U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, USFS, and Arizona Game and Fish

Department personnel. Recommendations

for thinning and prescribed burning are

located in the Project Record File (PRD

117). The objective of the monitoring is to

reduce fire potential within MSO PAC’s,

following recovery guidelines. Fuels

specialists and the district wildlife biologist

will be responsible for completing the task.

• All Action Alternatives: Wildlife Movement Corridor

The site-specific layout will include assistance from the Arizona Game and Fish

Department and USFS wildlife biologists.

The monitoring objective is to assure the

site includes adequate cover within the

movement corridor. The district wildlife

biologist along with the timber staff will

assume responsibility for completion of the

task.

• All Action Alternatives: Herbaceous

Understory Recovery

The Annual Operating Instructions (AOI)

for grazing allotments will be adjusted as

needed to allow for recovery of naturally

occurring herbaceous communities. Range

conservationists will conduct monitoring

following both thinning and burning

treatments. Monitoring will be conducted

via observations to determine readiness for

livestock use. These observations will

include species maturity (seed heads) and

abundance. Grass species, including

Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica), mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana), and

squirrel tail (Sitanion hystrix) will be the

key species used in these observations.

Invasive and noxious weed monitoring will

occur during these observations to detect

changes in distribution and/or abundance.

Project-Specific Effectiveness Monitoring

The purpose of effectiveness monitoring is to determine the efficacy and usefulness of specific design

features or mitigation measures in protecting

natural resources.

Administrative and Strategic Direction for

the Project Area

The Arizona Game and Fish Department, Northern

Arizona University (NAU), and the USDA Forest

Service Rocky Mountain Research Station have

expressed interest and discussed preliminary

actions for research within the project area. This

research and monitoring is encouraged. Possible

research studies may include MSO studies to

examine the effects of fuel reduction treatments,

black bear, turkey, antelope, Abert squirrel, and

songbird studies to evaluate the effects of the

project, and further studies by NAU to evaluate and

compare the ongoing research and monitoring of

adaptive management strategies for the Grand

Canyon Forests Partnership projects.

At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, three

monitoring proposals were submitted to the

Coconino National Forest for consideration. The

proposals are from the Arizona Game and Fish

Department to examine songbirds, Abert squirrel,

and mule deer. The proposals are supported by the

Forest Service and are included as part of the

project proposal. The Forest Service and the Arizona

Game and Fish Department are actively searching
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 23

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

for funding to support these wildlife monitoring

efforts. Proposals are located in Appendix B.

At the time the Draft EIS was prepared, an additional proposal from the Ecological Restoration

Institute (ERI) at NAU was discussed. The proposal

was to examine songbirds, using a community

collaborative approach. Members of NAU, the Grand

Canyon Trust, Arizona Game and Fish Department,

USFS, and Northern Arizona Audubon Society are

working to develop a proposal that would support

and enhance the monitoring efforts suggested by the

Arizona Game and Fish Department. Although no

formal proposal has yet been submitted, the Forest

Service encourages and is actively searching for

funding to support this effort.

Microhabitat Monitoring for Mexican

Spotted Owls

Microhabitat monitoring will be conducted according

to standard protocol as identified by Forest Service

Region 3 direction.

Implementation of NEPA Decisions

Implementation will occur over many years. Prior to

each year’s implementation or at approximately

every 3 to 5-year interval, the documentation will be

reviewed to see if any new information or changed

circumstances exist relating to the environmental

impacts of the project. If no new findings are made,

the project will continue. New findings may lead to

correction, supplementation, or revision of environmental documents.

Findings and Disclosures

Several of the laws and executive orders listed in

Chapter 1 require project-specific findings or other

disclosures, which are included in this DEIS.

Alternatives Considered but

Eliminated from Detailed Study

Several alternatives were considered during the

planning process but have not been included in the

DEIS for detailed study. These are described briefly

below, along with the rationale for not considering

them further.

Bird (April NOI response – April 19, 2001)

– Alternative Suggested

The Forest Service and GCFP have not offered

information that would preclude a purely processbased restoration alternative. We ask again that the

Forest Service fairly and accurately analyze an

alternative that would apply prescribed burns only

with necessary pre-fire fuels treatments, such as

raking needless from trees 24-inch dbh, pruning

lower ladder branches, etc.

Response

Prescribed fire without thinning over the entire

project area, as a distinct alternative, was not

practical from a biological standpoint, nor did it

meet the Kachina Village Forest Health Project

objectives. There are seven additional types of need

identified in Chapter 1, “Project Area Existing

Conditions, Desired Conditions and Needs.” Therefore, it was not considered as an alternative across

the entire landscape. However, this treatment is

incorporated into the Proposed Action to achieve a

mosaic of various stand conditions and resulting

effects. Prescribed fire without any mechanical

thinning is proposed for those stands in which it will

be effective and the desired effects are likely to be

achieved.

The prescribed fire without thinning alternative

was not developed as a distinct alternative for the

entire project area because it did not meet enough of

the project objectives. There are two main reasons:

1) prescribed fire alone is not effective in thinning

the sizes of tree in the project area and 2) prescribed

fire alone does not substantially reduce the risk of

future catastrophic wildfire because not enough

trees are killed. The following information discusses

these two points.

1) Most studies indicate that prescribed fire

alone is not effective in thinning the sizes

of trees in the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project.

Prescribed fire is not a very selective

thinning tool because a number of fires are

required to reduce fuels, change the

understory, and overcome the effects

caused by fire exclusion (Harrington and

Sackett 1990). Gaines et al. (1958),

Woolridge and Weaver (1965), and

Lindemuth (1960) all reported that fire was

a rather imperfect tool for thinning.

Harrington (1987) reported significant

reductions in tree density within sites
24 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

occupied by “dog-hair” thickets, while the

same prescribed fire did little to reduce

tree density where sites were dominated by

larger trees. Sackett (1980), Davis et al.

(1968), and Campbell et al. (1977) reported

similar results in both prescribed and

natural fires (Weatherspoon 1996). In

another study, Gaines et al. (1958) reported that even though younger,

suppressed classes had been thinned by

fire, the commercial overstory suffered

substantial injury. The trees Gaines refers

to as “the commercial overstory” are the

larger, older trees this project wishes to

retain for wildlife diversity. Lindenmuth

(1960) studied the effects of fire in eastcentral Arizona and concluded that 24

percent of the potential crop trees were

released from competition, however, 17

percent were killed or severely damaged.

Again, the trees Lindenmuth refers to as

“crop trees” are the larger, older trees this

project wishes to retain for wildlife diversity. Harrington (1981) reported an

average of 26 percent reduction in stems

per acre in southeastern Arizona; however,

surveys in years following the burns

revealed results that need special attention, which is the subsequent loss of

old-growth ponderosa pine trees.

Attempts to use fire alone to thin dense

stands frequently resulted in high levels of

mortality in the residual stands (Swezy and

Agee 1991, Sackett et al. 1996, and

Covington and Sackett 1984). Post-fire

mortality among old-growth trees was 23

percent higher in burned plots than in the

unburned controls over a 20-year period

(Sackett et al. 1996). More than 30 years

of study (since 1976) at the Fort Valley

Experimental Forest has demonstrated

that fire alone cannot effectively reduce

stand levels enough to protect remaining

mature and old-growth trees. Allowing

prescribed fires or wildfires to selectively

thin the pine forests of the Southwest may

be the most detrimental method of retaining old-growth trees (Weatherspoon 1996).

Substantial research has demonstrated the

effectiveness of thinning as one component

in a forest restoration program (Swezy and

Agee 1991, Fiedler 1996, Fenny et al.

1996, Weatherspoon 1996, Edminster and

Olsen 1996, Covington et al. 1997, Scott

1998, and Harrington and Sackett 1990).

Therefore, some combination of thinning,

manual fuel removal, and prescribed

burning will be necessary to restore

ponderosa pine ecosystems to more

natural conditions (Arno 1996; Fiedler

1996, Swezy and Agee 1991, and Oliver et

al. 1994).

Most research emphasizes the imperfection

of fire as a thinning tool. Prescribed fire by

itself is not effective in thinning ponderosa

pine trees greater than 3 inches dbh or

trees that are over 6 feet tall without

significant damage to the larger, older

trees. The Kachina Village Forest Health

Project wishes to retain the larger, older

ponderosa pine trees. The trees in overabundance and in need of thinning are

predominantly 5 to 16-inches dbh (PRD’s

79 and 79A).

Beginning in the 1930’s, research was

conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of a

range of treatment strategies to reduce

stand densities and fuel loads. Many

researchers initially believed that simply

reintroducing fire would be sufficient to

substantially reduce both stand densities

and fuel loads. Prescribed fire has been a

successful means of fuel reduction in some

forest types (Biswell et al. 1973, Knorr

1963, and Weaver 1952).

Folliott et al. (1977) reported a positive

thinning response following prescribed fire

in northern Arizona. However, basal area

was not reduced enough for optimal stand

stimulation. Weaver (1947) reported that,

30 years after burning, a young ponderosa

pine stand had fewer stems per acre,

greater heights, and larger diameters than

an adjacent unburned stand.

2) Using prescribed fire without thinning does

not substantially reduce the risk of a

catastrophic wildfire.

One of the primary goals of this project is

to reduce the risk of catastrophic (crown)

fire. Risk reduction is accomplished by

reducing the amount of ladder fuels and

tree canopy fuels, as well as by reducing

the amount of ground fuels (Ottmar 1997,

Agee et al. 1999, Buckley 1992, and Van

Wagtendonk 1996). Reducing ground fuels

temporarily reduces the fuel load and

ground fire intensity that could initiate a

crown fire. Removing ladder fuels will

reduce the potential for ground fire to
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 25

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

climb into the tree crowns. However, only

by recreating a discontinuous canopy layer

can a treatment inhibit the rate of spread

and the eventual extent of a destructive

crown fire.

In a report by the National Commission on

Wildfire Disasters, Sampson (1994) states

many forest situations will require mechanical removal of excess trees via

thinning before fire can safely be reintroduced. In an extensive 1995 report to

Congress, the authors of the Sierra Nevada

Ecosystem Project (ponderosa pine is a

major forest type in the Sierra Nevada)

concluded that an extensive modification

of forest structure by thinning and burning

is needed to minimize severe fires in the

future (McKelvey et al. 1995). In an

extensive scientific evaluation (involving

over 100 scientists) of the effects of Forest

Service management practices on the

sustainability of eastern Oregon and

Washington ecosystems (ponderosa pine is

a major forest type), Everett et al. (1994)

found a need to use thinning as one of

several actions to restore wildfire to a more

natural behavior. In contrast to the

destructive crown fire, a more natural fire

behavior for ponderosa pine forests is a

low-intensity ground fire, with flame

lengths of less than 2 feet.

Bird (July 23, 2001) – Alternative

Suggested

Develop a non-commercial alternative, restoration

alternative that uses non-commercial treatments in

the WUI*. Focus efforts on private homeowner

education and assistance, encouraging re-introduction of fire outside the WUI. Homeowner education

would be a coordinated program of public presentations, direct mail education, media public interest

education, and news features. The local economy

stimulated through local landscape businesses and

construction companies retrofitting home sites for

protection. Jobs and income generated by activities

on Federal lands that prepare the forests outside the

WUI for re-introduction of fire.

Goals include:

1. improve protection of homes;

2. economic opportunities;

3. clean water and healthy watersheds;

4. restore wildfire to forest ecology;

5. improve scientific understanding of fire

ecology; and

6. improve public understanding of fire

ecology and forest management.

Alt. Based on work of Jack Cohen: 40 meters of

home most important; beyond 40 meters has little

effect on the likelihood a home will burn.

* Inside WUI—focus on most flammable material—brush and

weeds and lower branches of trees. Prioritize treatments

around communities. Outside the WUI use prescribed fire—

prioritize use—in conjunction with non-commercial preparation

such as brush removal, needle raking and lower branch

pruning. If small tree removal is scientifically justified, offer as

public fuelwood by permit only.

Response

The respondent has overlooked that this project has

a purpose and need which goes beyond the purpose

and need for reducing fire potential. The purpose

and need is aimed at long-term improvement of

forest health. Seven additional topics are intertwined with fire hazard/risk reduction as identified

in the Purpose and Need (see Chapter 1). The

description of work proposed by the respondent

within the WUI and outside the WUI are very similar. As described in the previous response, these

actions would not meet the objectives of the Kachina

Village Forest Health Project. Prescribed fire with

only raking or pruning will not meet most of the

purpose and need for this project.

The Federal Government does not have the authority

to require homeowners to change physical conditions present on private land. However, the city and

county have some authority through ordinances and

such. In the Flagstaff community, the Forest

Service and local fire departments have provided

education, as well as assistance, to private landowners to reduce wildfire risk. The Proposed Action

includes ongoing efforts such as working with

homeowners adjacent to the communities of Flagstaff, Kachina Village, Mountainaire, and Forest

Highlands. Local fire departments, as well as the

Forest Service, have conducted public presentations

and completed direct mail education. Almost daily,

there are articles in the paper and news media

across the West regarding homeowner preparedness.

However, these actions in and of themselves will not

solve the problems south of Kachina Village and

Forest Highlands.

There are numerous small businesses in the Flagstaff area that conduct thinning and prescribed

burning on private land and are replacing shakeshingle roofs with metal roofs. Many of the goals of

your alternative are similar to our goals and the
26 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

goals of the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership.

However, your goals will never be met with the

alternative you have recommended, especially Item

1, “Improve protection of homes.”

All lands adjacent to Forest Highlands and Kachina

Village that are in need of treatment to address

declining forest health and reduce high fire hazard

are proposed for treatment. A fire in this area, as

shown with Farsite Fuels Modeling (PRD 73), will

easily travel 2.5 to 3 miles in one afternoon, thereby

prompting us to look at the entire area to protect

MSO PAC’s, old-growth habitats, old trees, northern

goshawk habitat, cultural sites, the Oak Creek

Watershed, and homes in Forest Highlands and

Kachina Village. Direction in the Forest Plan

provides guidance on the size and scale of the urban

interface. Page 93 of the Forest Plan defines the

urban interface as an area up to 10 miles long in a

southwesterly direction from urban areas.

Reducing stand densities throughout the Kachina

Village Project area is critical to reducing fire potential. The single most ecologically damaging and life

threatening forest fire is the crown fire. The intensity of crown fires prevents direct fire suppression.

The massive blizzard of embers associated with

crown fires leads to long-range spot fires, which

travel over and beyond areas with little fuel. The

presence of numerous spot fires leads to erratic fire

behavior and rapid acceleration in a fire’s growth.

The most critical element in fire management is the

prevention of crown fires. It is important to evaluate

fire potential miles away from communities as well

as immediately adjacent to them.

Nowicki – Suggested Alternative

In fact, even a 12-inch dbh cutting limit would not

impede the treatments from achieving the stated

objectives, as a large proportion of the trees in the

project are smaller than 12-inches dbh. That is,

thinning treatments would be able to create a

diversity of stand densities and structures by

implementing varying levels of thinning the trees

less than 12-inches dbh. This analysis and cutting

limit is absolutely necessary to protecting vital

components of the current forest structure, and the

next generation of old-growth that will develop in the

forest.

Response

A 12-inch limit was analyzed using the Forest

Vegetation Simulator (FVS) computer model and

applying professional knowledge to decide if would

result in a viable alternative for the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project. The analysis looked at the

viability of a 12-inch limit over the entire area, as

suggested by the comment provided.

FVS was used to model various thinning scenarios.

These scenarios showed the resulting differences in

diameter, density, and mortality conditions after

thinning. These scenarios analyzed certain alternatives, such as what happens if we impose a 12-inch

limit on cutting trees. Seven stands were selected to

model that show a range of both densities and site

indexes that reflect the Kachina project area in

general. In all the scenarios, only ponderosa pine

was simulated for cut, even though many of the

stands have an oak component.

A 12-inch limit scenario attempted to cut stands to a

50 basal area (BA) and an 80 BA, which is needed to

meet goals and objectives in the Proposed Action

such as reducing wildfire potential, increasing

understory, and increasing individual tree growth.

In most cases, 50 BA could not be achieved, even

when the model cut almost everything (a cutting

efficiency of 0.95) between 5 to 12-inches dbh. Four

out of the seven stands that were modeled still had

considerable BA over 50. The 12-inch limit scenario

also tends to have slightly lower future growth rates

for the remaining trees than other alternatives

modeled. Growth was evaluated over a 50-year

period. The model also indicated a higher mortality

rate in stands treated with a 12-inch limit over the

same 50-year period. Overall, the target densities

recommended in the Proposed Action (Alternative A)

could not be met with the 12-inch limit. Objectives

to enhance understory, create grassy openings, and

reduce wildfire potential could not be met in the

majority of the project area if a 12-inch diameter

limit were imposed. To enhance understory, it is

desirable to reduce BA to less than 40. Diameter

limits in general reduce our ability to create grassy

openings, due to the distribution of trees on the

landscape. A 12-inch diameter limit would make it

impossible to meet our objective for creating 10

percent grassy openings within treated stands.

Higher BA’s resulting from a 12-inch cutting limit

would not adequately decrease stand densities and

achieve our goal of reducing fire potential. Fire

potential would remain moderate to high across

most of the project area.

Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Proposed Action (Alternative A) and four additional alternatives are considered in detail.

Alternative B is the no-action alternative, under
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 27

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

which the project area would have no project activities at this time and would remain subject to natural

or ongoing changes only. The other action alternatives represent different means of satisfying the

purpose and needs, to varying degrees, by responding with different emphases to the significant issues

discussed in Chapter 1. The alternatives for the

Kachina Village Forest Health Project are differentiated primarily by a limit on the size of tree

to be thinned, the intensity of the treatments

proposed in thinning units, and miles of temporary road. Maps of all alternatives considered in

detail are provided in Appendix C (“Alternatives A, C,

D Thinning” and “Alternative E Thinning”). Figures

12 and 13 (displayed on following pages) provide an

overview of the various treatments and intensities.

Visual simulations produced by Visual Nature Studio

Software are included to compare and contrast the

alternatives. The visual simulations are a photo

realistic power tool from 3D Nature, makers of the

award-winning World Construction Set. They

portray actual places using stand data and present

complex spatial concepts to display forest management proposals. The visual simulations are

discussed in detail in Appendix D. Figures 6 through

11 (on the following pages) provide visual simulations of varying basal area conditions so that the

reader might have a better understanding or image

of the treatments as they are described in alternative

discussions that follow. Visual simulations will also

compare the visual effects of treatments located

north of Kelly Canyon (Figures 14 through 19) and

compare the visual effects of treatments in Mexican

Pocket (Figures 20 through 22). These are located in

“Comparison of Alternatives” later in this chapter.

Larger scale maps of the alternatives are contained

in the project planning record.

Alternative A - Proposed Action cutting some trees

over 16-inches dbh under specific criteria only.

Alternative B - No Action.

Alternative C - Proposed Action cutting no trees

over 16-inches dbh.

Alternative D - Proposed Action cutting some trees

over 16-inches dbh under specific criteria only and

cutting no trees over 18-inches dbh.

Alternative E - Proposed Action with modifications

based on issues of roads and concerns for wildlife

habitat posed by the Southwest Forest Alliance.

(Alternatives A, C, D, and E have many similar

actions that were previously described in “Items

Common to All Action Alternatives,” “Project

Specific Mitigation,” and “Monitoring.”)

Differences in basal areas are displayed in Figures 6

through 11 to compare and contrast the various

alternatives.

Proposed Action (Alternative A)

Administrative and Strategic Direction

for the Project Area

Retain all existing mature ponderosa pine trees

or old “yellow-barked” trees. Thinning objectives

will be met by primarily thinning smaller diameter

ponderosa pine trees. Alternative A does not include

a diameter limit. We recognize and acknowledge the

important role that 16 inch and larger trees play in

the ecosystem. Snag recruitment, future old-growth

objectives, and managing for the Northern goshawk

are important considerations to take into account

before cutting a 16-inch dbh pine. However, some

black-barked trees larger than 16-inches dbh may

be removed to achieve important and valuable

objectives, such as creating grassy openings, and

reducing wildfire potential. This alternative includes a strict set of guidelines regulating the size of

trees that would be thinned. Ponderosa pine trees

larger than 16 inches may be removed only to:

• create grassy openings;

• enhance existing forest openings;

• enhance growth and health of larger

ponderosa pine to promote future oldgrowth; and,

• reduce fire potential.

Temporary road or landing locations needed to

achieve removal objectives will avoid large diameter

trees where possible. Temporary road construction

will be required to conduct thinning within the

project area. We have estimated 5.75 miles of

temporary roads will be required to implement the

Proposed Action. These temporary roads will be

obliterated following thinning treatments. Level 2

and 3 roads will be used for thinning activities as

well. Some roads will need to be improved before

the initiation of thinning activities.
28 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 6. Visual simulation of a basal area of

40 square feet, representing very good

conditions for the abundance of understory

vegetation (grasses, forbs, and wildflowers),

excellent conditions for the suppression of

wildfire, and a very low potential for crown

fire. Alternatives A, C, and D will result in 30

percent of the project area in a basal area of

40 to 50 square feet. Alternative E manages for

this condition within the intensive zone.

Figure 7. Visual simulation of a basal area of

60 square feet, representing good conditions

for the abundance of understory vegetation,

good conditions for suppression of wildfire,

and low to moderate potential for crown fire.

All action alternatives will result in some areas

(approximately 10 percent) managed in this

condition.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 29

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 8. Visual simulation of a basal area of

80 square feet, representing poor conditions for

understory development, good conditions for

suppression of wildfire, and moderate to high

potential for crown fire. Alternative E within

areas thinned emphasizes this condition in

areas north of Kelly Canyon.

Figure 9. Visual simulation of a basal area of

100 square feet, representing the absence of

understory vegetation, poor wildlife cover

values, moderate to poor conditions for the

suppression of wildfire, and high potential for

crown fire. All action alternatives will result in

10 percent of the treated area in this basal

area.
30 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 11. A visual simulation of a basal area of 200

square feet, representing the absence of understory

vegetation, good to excellent wildlife cover values,

high potential for wildfire, and extreme potential for

crown fire. All action alternatives maintain dense

stand conditions within the canyons. Alternatives A,

C, and D maintain small patches of this condition

south of Kelly Canyon for wildlife cover. Alternative

E, in areas with a 9-inch thinning limit, would result

in this condition on some sites.

Figure 10. A visual simulation of a basal area of 120

square feet, representing the absence of understory

vegetation, moderate to good wildlife cover values,

moderate to poor conditions for the suppression of

wildfire, and high potential for crown fire.

Alternatives A, C, and D will manage for this stand

density within Mexican spotted owl (MSO) areas.

Alternative E will manage for this condition on 46

percent of the area. The 9-inch thinning limit will

manage for basal areas of approximately 100 to 200

square feet.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 31

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Snags and logs will be created from some of the

16-inch dbh black-barked trees as we work toward

meeting guidelines for these habitats. Emphasis for

snag and log recruitment will be in the areas south

of Kelly Canyon, in northern goshawk PFA’s, and in

developing old-growth. Data has been collected on

existing log, snag, and yellow-barked trees and will

be used to select recruitment areas and describe

recruitment densities. Selection of logs and snags

will be made during marking for the project as

described in PRD 120.

Actions to Meet Objectives for Reducing

Fire Potential – Improving Forest

Ecosystem Health – Fuels and

Vegetation Management

1. Fire potential reduction and forest

health improvement – North of Kelly Canyon

and Lower Highway 89A Corridor (Variable

thinning 40 to 120 BA with creation of

openings 10 percent)

Thinning from below is proposed on 1,924 acres in

areas north of Kelly Canyon and along the Highway

89A corridor. Thinning will focus on reducing

wildfire potential by reducing ladder fuels and

breaking up continuous crown canopies. The

thinning of small trees will develop clumps of trees

in a mosaic of varying densities, ranging from 40 to

120 square feet of basal area4 . The clumps will be

selected based on existing structure. Canopy

closure will be reduced to 40 to 50 percent, with

crown base height raised to an average of 15 feet.

All old trees will be deferred from treatment and

remain on the site. Thinning will occur around old

trees to reduce competition for light, moisture, and

nutrients to improve their longevity. Approximately

10 percent of the area will be managed to provide for

grassy openings. Grassy openings will be managed

by using the existing areas on the landscape where

open areas may have occurred in the past or have

been created. Trees around the edges of the openings or within the interior of the opening will be

removed to expand the size of the opening. The

openings will be irregular in shape to create stringers of openings that will improve the understory and

reduce fire potential. Thinning will also occur

around large Gambel oak trees and clumps to

improve their longevity. No Gambel oaks will be cut.

This thinning will be very similar to the thinning

proposed around the old trees. Thinning will

enhance vigor and growth of oak in the area and

reduce fire potential. Removing the pine canopy

surrounding Gambel oak will reduce the potential

for fire ladders.

2. Dense Canopy Retention for Improving

Forest Resiliency of Goshawk Habitat

(Variable thinning to average of 80 BA with

openings created)

Within northern goshawk post fledging areas (PFA’s),

124 acres will be thinned to lessen fire potential by

removing ladder fuels and creating some canopy

breaks. Scientists who developed management

recommendations for this species recommend this

type of treatment to reduce fire potential and improve northern goshawk habitat. A more dense

stand or stands with higher canopy closure will exist

after treatment than is prescribed for much of the

area surrounding this PFA (as described above).

Canopy cover will average 60 percent within the 124

acres of treatment.

3. Improving Old Tree Longevity and

Gambel Oak Habitat (Variable thinning

around old trees and Gambel oak)

Four hundred eighteen acres of thinning from below

will be conducted within and around mature ponderosa pine trees and Gambel oak. In these stands,

there are opportunities to conduct limited thinning

around the old trees and Gambel oak to improve

their longevity. Openings created around Gambel

oak and mature ponderosa pine will reduce fire

potential, decrease competition for sunlight, moisture, and nutrients, and create grassy openings.

Where opportunities arise to improve the distribution and abundance of openings in these stands,

additional thinning may occur.

4. Fire potential reduction, forest health

improvement, and wildlife cover

management – South of Kelly Canyon

(Variable thinning 40 to 100 BA with 25

percent cover patches maintained with the

creation of openings 10 percent)

South of Kelly Canyon, between James and Kelly

Canyons, and South of James Canyon, 1,411 acres

of thinning from below will occur to lessen the fire

potential. Along the rims of the canyons, a fire line

approximately 3-feet wide will be constructed either

by using a drag, small bobcat, or hand crews. The

fire line will be constructed approximately 200 to

4 Basal area is a measure used to describe tree density. Basal area can be visualized as the amount of ground that is covered in wood.

Higher basal areas mean more trees are left (higher densities) than lower basal areas (lower densities).
32 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

300 feet above the steep break of the canyon below.

The 200 to 300-foot area between the edge of the

canyon and the fire line will assist in prescribed

burning activities and will maintain key habitat for

bear and turkey using the edges of the canyons for

wildlife movement. Beyond this fire line, the ridge

between James and Kelly Canyons and south of

James Canyon will be thinned to create an open

ponderosa pine habitat with dense cover patches.

Up to 25 percent of the area will be in dense patches

of variable size, with a minimum of 35 trees per

dense clumps (small clumps). The size of these

clumps will vary from approximately 1/10th of an

acre to 1 acre. Some light thinning may occur

within the patches to reduce ladder fuels or remove

trees with poor crown development. The clumps will

be closed canopy clumps, with the limbs and

needles of the trees interlocking. These clumps are

important to a variety of bird species and to Abert

squirrel and deer for bedding. The dense clumps

will be selected using the existing vegetation or

existing structure and consideration of fire hazard.

Around these dense clumps, the area will be open

ponderosa pine habitat. The thinning around the

clumps will maintain tree densities between 40 to

100 square feet of basal area. The savannah or

open area around the clumps will reduce fire potential, increase the herbaceous understory, and benefit

wildlife species, such as blue birds, rabbits, turkey,

and deer, requiring open habitats for foraging.

As described above for areas north of Kelly Canyon,

the following will also occur south of Kelly Canyon.

All old trees will be deferred from treatment and

retained. Thinning will occur around old trees to

improve their longevity by reducing competition for

light, moisture, and nutrients. Approximately 10

percent of the area will be managed to provide for

grassy openings by using the existing areas on the

landscape where grassy openings may have occurred

in the past or have been created. Trees around the

edges of the openings or within the interior of the

opening will be removed to expand the size of the

opening. The openings will be irregular in shape

and will create stringers of openings to improve

understory development and reduce fire potential.

Thinning will also occur around large Gambel oak

trees and clumps to improve their longevity. This

thinning will be similar to the thinning proposed

around the old trees. No Gambel oaks will be cut.

This will enhance vigor and growth of oak in the

area and reduce fire potential. Removing the pine

canopy surrounding Gambel oak will reduce fire

laddering potential.

Site-specific implementation will include layout and

assistance with marking and thinning from the

Arizona Game and Fish Department and USFS

wildlife biologists.

Within the Mexican Pocket area, thinning similar to

that proposed for areas south of Kelly Canyon will be

conducted. However, the dense cover patches, as

described above, will be focused on north-facing

slopes. The dense patches will be less evenly

distributed. Two hundred forty-six acres

have a high density of old yellow pine clumps,

providing for more dense patches throughout much

of the area. These old yellow pine groups will be

maintained. Thinning around the groups will help

improve their longevity, lessen fire potential to the

groups, and improve aesthetic values in the area.

Site-specific implementation will include layout and

assistance with marking and thinning from the

Arizona Game and Fish Department and USFS

wildlife biologists.

5. Thinning from Below – Griffiths Spring

Drainage

Eighty-two acres of thinning involving trees less

than 9-inches dbh will occur along the Griffiths

Spring drainage. Light thinning is proposed to

reduce fire potential and balance visual quality

concerns in a heavily-used area.

No Action (Alternative B)

Description of Alternative B

The No Action Alternative would propose no future

management activities within the project area at this

time. It does not preclude activities in other areas at

this time or from the project area at some time in

the future. The Council on Environmental Quality

(CEQ) regulations (40 CFR 1502.14d) require that a

“no action” alternative be analyzed. This alternative

represents the existing condition against which the

other alternatives are compared.

Summary of Significant Issues That

Developed Alternative B

No significant issues raised during scoping or

comment to the Proposed Action are addressed by

the No Action Alternative. However, many comments and non-significant issues are addressed

through the No Action Alternative (see Appendix A).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 33

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Purpose and Need Evaluation

The No Action Alternative does not meet the purpose

and need for the proposed project.

Specific Outputs and Differences

Between the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) and Alternative B

The No Action Alternative would maintain current

conditions within the project area. Wildfire potential

would remain high. There would be no improvement

in forest health. Recreation and road management

would continue to contribute to the current high fire

risk and would continue to impact wildlife habitat,

soil, and watershed conditions.

Alternative C

Description of Alternative C

This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) except that this alternative will not

cut any trees over 16-inch dbh.

Administrative and Strategic

Direction for the Project Area

Retain all existing mature ponderosa pine trees or

old “yellow-barked” trees. Thinning objectives will be

met by primarily thinning smaller diameter ponderosa pine trees. Ponderosa pine trees greater than

16-inch dbh will be retained. This alternative would

drop the creation of logs and snags.

Summary of Significant Issues That

Developed Alternative C

Issue 1: 16-Inch Diameter Limit Issues

Cutting trees greater than 16-inch diameter would

affect future old-growth in the area, resulting in

fewer acres being able to qualify as old-growth forest

structure in the future.

Purpose and Need Evaluation: The alternative

generally meets the desired future conditions

described under the purpose and need of the

project. There are only slight differences when

comparing Alternative C to the Proposed Action

(Alternative A). The implementation of a 16-inch

diameter limit would result in approximately 7,000

fewer trees thinned from the landscape compared to

the Proposed Action. Based on professional experience and modeling, this is estimated to result in 50

percent fewer grassy openings created, thus leading

to less improved habitat for Navajo Mountain

Mexican voles and sensitive plant species in the

project area. The alternative would result in slightly

higher fire potential.

Specific Outputs and Differences

Between the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) and Alternative C

Related to Issues

Issue 1: Cutting trees greater than 16-inch diameter would affect future old-growth in the area,

resulting in fewer acres being able to qualify as oldgrowth forest structure in the future.

A detailed analysis of old-growth is located in

Chapter 3. The effects analysis states there is

relatively no difference between the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) and Alternative C (16-inch diameter

limit) in regard to future old-growth recruitment.

Map of Alternative C: A detailed map of Alternative

C is located in Appendix C.

Alternative D

Description of Alternative D

This alternative is identical to the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) except that this alternative would not

cut any tree over 18-inches dbh.

Administrative and Strategic

Direction for the Project Area

Retain all existing mature ponderosa pine trees

or old “yellow-barked” trees. Thinning objectives

will be met by primarily thinning smaller diameter

ponderosa pine trees. Ponderosa pine trees greater

than 18-inches dbh will be retained.

Creating Logs and Snags - Snags and logs will be

created from some of the 18-inch dbh black-barked

trees as we work toward meeting guidelines for these

habitats. The alternative maintains the element of

creating logs and snags from the trees 16 to 17.9

inches dbh. Emphasis for snag and log recruitment

will be in the areas south of Kelly Canyon, in northern goshawk PFA’s, and in developing old-growth.

Data has been collected on existing log, snag, and

yellow-barked trees and will be used to select
34 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

recruitment areas and describe recruitment densities. Selection of logs and snags will be made during

marking for the project as described in PRD 120.

Summary of Significant Issues That

Developed Alternative D

Issue 2: 18-Inch Diameter Limit Issue

All project objectives could be met with an 18-inch

diameter limit and request that a quantitative

analysis is provided.

Purpose and Need Evaluation: The alternative

meets the desired future conditions described under

the purpose and need of the project. There are only

slight differences when comparing Alternative D to

the Proposed Action (Alternative A), as described in

Chapter 3. Cutting no trees greater than 18-inches

dbh would result in approximately 2,000 fewer trees

thinned from the landscape. Grassy openings

created would be the same as Alternative A. An

evaluation conducted by specialists found little to no

difference between the Proposed Action (Alternative

A) and Alternative D upon detailed study.

Specific Outputs and Differences

Between the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) and Alternative D Related

to Issue 2

There is little to no difference between the Proposed

Action (Alternative A) and Alternative D.

Map of Alternative D: A detailed map of Alternative D is located in Appendix C.

Alternative E

Description of Alternative E

Alternative E is different from the Proposed Action

(Alternative A). The thinning units are the same,

however, different thinning prescriptions are applied

to the units based on issues. The alternative looks

at thinning prescriptions that change the intensity

of thinning and a 16-inch diameter limit is in place

like Alternative C. There are fewer temporary roads

and less mechanized equipment used.

Administrative and Strategic

Direction for the Project Area

Retain all existing mature ponderosa pine trees

or old “yellow-barked” trees. Thinning objectives

will be met by primarily thinning smaller diameter

ponderosa pine trees. Ponderosa pine trees greater

than 16-inches dbh will be retained.

Temporary roads or landing locations to achieve

removal objectives will avoid large diameter trees

where possible. Temporary roads would be used to

thin the “Intensive Zone” described below. Approximately 2.5 miles of temporary roads would be

required. These temporary roads will be obliterated

following thinning treatments. Level 2 and 3 roads

will be used for thinning activities as well. Some

roads will need to be improved before initiation of

thinning activities.

Reducing Fire Potential – Improving

Forest Ecosystem Health – Fuels and

Vegetation Management

“Intensive Zone” Thinning – Adjacent to Private

Land (Variable thinning 40 to 50 BA) . Implement thinning from below to create a fuel break

north of Kelly Canyon within the “intensive zone,”

i.e., 1/8 mile (660 feet) immediately adjacent to

homes. The “intensive zone” should leave very few

interlocking crowns and provide a fuel break adjacent to private land. Temporary roads could be

established to thin the “intensive zone” (Nowicki -

PRD 119). The “intensive zone” is 439 acres.

Fire potential reduction and forest health improvement – North of Kelly Canyon and Lower

Highway 89A Corridor (Variable thinning 60 to

120 BA). Beyond the 1/8-mile “intensive zone,”

implement a variable “thinning from below” to 60 to

120 BA north of Kelly Canyon on 1,746 acres.

Fire potential reduction and reducing temporary

road construction—North of Kelly Canyon and

Lower Highway 89A Corridor (to reduce temporary road construction do not thin any tree over

9-inches dbh). In the areas north of Kelly Canyon,

363 acres could not be reached using the existing

road network and would require temporary road

construction. The alternative discussed with Brian

Nowicki on several occasions resulted in these units

having a 9-inch diameter limit. South of Kelly

Canyon, 363 acres would be thinned from below,

with nearly all 9-inch trees thinned, stacked, and

burned.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 35

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Reducing disturbance to soils and wildlife –

South of Kelly Canyon, including Mexican pocket

area (No use of heavy equipment, all treatments

completed with hand thinning methods only, do

not thin any trees over 9-inches dbh). South of

Kelly Canyon 2,020 acres would be thinned from

below, with nearly all 9-inch and smaller trees

thinned, stacked, and burned.

Thinning from below – Griffiths Spring Drainage.

Sixty two acres of thinning involving trees less than

9-inches dbh will occur along the Griffiths Spring

drainage. Light thinning is proposed to reduce fire

potential and balance visual quality concerns in a

heavily-used area.

Summary of Significant Issues That

Developed Alternative E

Issue 3: “Intensive Zone”

The Proposed Action does not reduce fuels sufficient

to protect the immediate wildland-urban interface.

An “intensive treatment zone” around private land is

requested for evaluation.

Issue 4: Lighter Thinning Methods

Thinning north of Kelly Canyon as described in the

Proposed Action goes beyond what is needed to

reduce fire risk. A lighter treatment of 60 to 120

basal area and no trees cut over 9-inches dbh to

reduce the need for temporary road construction is

requested for evaluation.

Issue 5: Road Issues

Temporary roads lead to increased soil compaction,

transport of exotic weeds, and have long-lasting

impacts on forest structure, therefore, we request

that no new temporary roads be created even if only

for the duration of the project.

Issue 6: Mechanized Equipment

Mechanized equipment and excessive thinning will

increase soil compaction and cause disturbance to

wildlife in areas south of Kelly Canyon. The area

south of Kelly Canyon should only be treated with

hand thinning and was requested for evaluation.

Purpose and Need Evaluation

Alternative E falls severely short of achieving the

desired outcomes specified in the purpose and need.

Alternative E will result in very little protection of

T&E habitat and urban areas from wildfire. Thinning no trees over 9-inches dbh does very little to

reduce flame lengths and results in little or no

change in expected fire behavior when compared to

the No Action Alternative. Nearly 2,400 acres treated

under Alternative E would remain in high wildfire

potential with flame lengths averaging 7.2 feet. Tree

mortality following a wildfire is estimated at 80 to

100 percent. Other differences in outputs include

the creation of very few openings, with Alternative E

creating less than 1 percent new openings. Alternative E has long-term negative impacts on developing

old-growth and stand health. Alternative E showed

very little improvement to wildlife habitat.

Specific Outputs and Differences

Between the Proposed Action

(Alternative A) and Alternative E Related

to Issues

Issue 3

The Proposed Action does not reduce fuels sufficient

to protect the immediate wildland-urban interface. An

“intensive treatment zone” around private land is

requested for evaluation.

The “intensive treatment zone” concept is analyzed

in detail in Chapter 3. The effects analysis states

that on the Coconino National Forest, a 660-footwide fuel break has not proven to be an effective fire

stop against fires approaching from beyond such a

strip. An illustration is the Slate Fire (1996). An

entire strike team of wildland fire engines was

unable to even slow down the forward spread of the

fire at any of three separate breaks similar to the

“intensive zone” treatment proposed.

Issue 4

Thinning north of Kelly Canyon as described in the

Proposed Action goes beyond what is needed to

reduce fire risk. A lighter treatment of 60 to 120

basal area and no trees cut over 9-inches dbh to

reduce the need for temporary road construction is

requested for evaluation.

Alternative E would fail to meet other fire-related

objectives within 1 mile of the residential neighborhoods, since flame lengths and fire intensity

generated by the model were not reduced from the

existing condition. The probability of large tree (12 to

20" dbh) mortality would remain very high at over 90

percent. However, the flame length that would likely

be needed to transition into a crown fire would be

increased to 7.9 feet by this alternative (within this

northern zone). Farther than 1 mile, yet north of

James Canyon, the model indicated Alternative E

would reduce flame lengths from 7.2 feet to approxi-
36 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

mately 4 feet and the probability of tree mortality

from 90(+) percent to 16(-) percent for a wildfire

originating in this zone. Within this zone, the model

indicated the only significant difference in tree

mortality between the action alternatives was among

trees less than 12-inches dbh. Alternative E leaves a

higher degree of closed canopy (in this middle zone)

that could increase tree group torching and spotting.

Issue 5

Temporary roads lead to increased soil compaction,

transport of exotic weeds, and have long-lasting

impacts on forest structure, therefore, we request that

no new temporary roads be created even if only for

the duration of the project.

Alternative E results in 2.5 miles of temporary road

construction compared to the Proposed Action

(Alternative A), which results in 5.75 miles of

temporary road construction. This translated to a

difference of 8 acres on the ground. The change to

forest structure is insignificant, as only .0017

percent of the project area is affected by this action.

There was no detectible change to soil compaction

due to the short-term duration of use and mitigation

applied to the Proposed Action (Alternative A).

Alternative E would reduce the potential for invasive

and noxious weed invasion on 8 acres of the landscape, an insignificant change when considering

there are 177 acres or 50 miles of existing roadways.

Temporary roads will result in little change to

invasive and noxious weed spread.

Issue 6

Mechanized equipment and excessive thinning will

increase soil compaction and cause disturbance to

wildlife in areas south of Kelly Canyon. The area

south of Kelly Canyon should only be treated with

hand thinning and was requested for evaluation.

The effects from Alternative E on soil compaction

will be slightly less due to the limited equipment use

in areas south of Kelly Canyon. However, undesirable effects from the proposed activities will be

mitigated through the implementation of Best

Management Practices and the effects of activities

proposed in Alternative A are minimal. Effect

analysis completed for Management Indicator

Species, Threatened, Endangered and Sensitive

species concluded that disturbance effects would be

minimal under the Proposed Action (Alternative A)

Proposed Action with mitigation measures applied as

described previously in this chapter. There was very

little difference in disturbance effects associated

with the action alternatives.

Map of Alternative E: A detailed map of Alternative E is located in Appendix C.

Comparison of Alternatives

This section compares outputs, objectives, and

effects of the alternatives in terms of the significant

issues for the Kachina Village Forest Health Project.

The discussions of effects are summarized from

Chapter 3, which should be consulted for a full

understanding of these and other environmental

consequences.

Figures 12 and 13 are provided to contrast and

compare the alternative treatments and intensities.

The visual aids are followed by a discussion of each

significant issue, comparing the alternatives in

terms of that issue. The relevant numerical data is

displayed to compare outputs, objectives, and effects

of the alternatives.

Lastly, Table 5 provides an overview comparison of

the alternatives relevant to the purpose and need

for the project (Chapter 1, “Purpose and Need”).

The table does not include Alternative B (No Action)

which has no outputs or activities.

The alternatives for the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project are differentiated primarily by a

limit on the size of tree to be thinned, the

intensity of the treatments proposed in thinning

units, and miles of temporary road.

Table 1. Comparison of Action Alternatives

Based on Key Differences

Key Alternatives

Differences A C D E

Diameter None1 16-inch 18-inch 16-inch

limit dbh2 dbh3 dbh4

Thinning acres 4,266 4,266 4,266 2,328

that will reduce

crown fire potential

Miles of 5.75 5.75 5.75 2.5

temporary roads

1 For trees being thinned over 16-inches dbh there is specific criteria.

2 No trees over 16-inches dbh will be harvested for any reason

3 For trees being thinned between 16 and 17.9-inches dbh, there is

specific criteria

4 No trees over 16-inches dbh will be harvested for any reason
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 37

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 12. Overview of Treatment Intensities for Alternatives A, C, and D.
38 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 13. Overview of Treatment Intensities Alternative E.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 39

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 14. Existing

conditions just south of

Kachina Village with

Interstate 17 in the

lower, left-hand corner.

Figure 15. Alternative A,

following thinning as proposed

for fire potential reduction and

forest health improvement north

of Kelly Canyon and the lower

Highway 89A corridor (variable

thinning 40 to 120 BA with

creation of openings 10

percent). See Chapter 2.

Figure 16. Alternative E, following

thinning as proposed for intensive

zone adjacent to private land

(variable thinning 40 to 50 BA) and

fire potential reduction and forest

health improvement north of Kelly

Canyon and the lower Highway

89A corridor (variable thinning 60

to 120 BA). See Chapter 2.
40 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 17. Existing

condition, location/site

345/01, immediately

south of Kachina Village.

Interstate 17 is shown in

the bottom of the picture.

Figure 18. Alternative E, location/

site 345/01 following thinning as

proposed for intensive zone

adjacent to private land (variable

thinning 40 to 50 BA). See Chapter

2.

Figure 19. Alternative A, location/

site 345/01 following thinning as

proposed for improving old-tree

longevity and Gambel oak habitat

(variable thinning around old trees

and Gambel oak with 10 percent

openings created). See Chapter 2.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 41

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Figure 20. Existing conditions in the Mexican Pocket area, location/site 345/17. Pumphouse Canyon is visible as the

dark area on the right side and Highway 89A is visible as the straight white line on the left-hand side (left photo). The

picture on the left displays a high oblique; the picture on the right is a low oblique.

Figure 21. Alternative A, following thinning as proposed for fire potential reduction, forest health improvement, and

wildlife cover management, south of Kelly Canyon (variable thinning 40 to 100 BA with 25 percent cover patches

maintained with the creation of openings 10 percent). See Chapter 2.

Figure 22. Alternative E, following thinning as proposed for reducing disturbance to soils and wildlife, south of Kelly

Canyon, including the Mexican Pocket area (9-inch thinning limit; treatments completed with hand thinning methods only.

No use of heavy equipment). See Chapter 2.
42 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives — Issue 1:

16-inch Diameter Limit

Issue: Cutting trees greater than 16-inch diameter

would affect future old-growth in the area, resulting

in further degradation of old-growth forest structure.

Old-growth

Alternatives A, C, and D would thin from below both

existing and developing old trees resulting in the

greatest decrease in stand densities. Thinning will

improve the health, growth, and vigor of the oldgrowth tree component and decrease the risk of

wildfire, thus promoting development of old-growth

habitat. All existing old-growth trees would be

maintained across all action alternatives. Additionally, the different thinning prescriptions would

result in varying tree densities across the landscape.

This is desirable for wildlife and would help create a

diversity of species across the project area. Over a

period of 50 years, these alternatives would result in

the greatest recruitment for old-growth into VSS 5

and VSS 6. There is relatively no difference between

the Proposed Action (Alternative A), Alternative C

(16-inch diameter limit), and Alternative D (18-inch

diameter limit) in regards to future old-growth

recruitment.

Under Alternative B (no action), the dense nature of

the forest would persist. Old tree mortality would

occur at a greater rate than in thinned stands due to

biological stresses, such as competition, insects,

disease, and wildfire. Without treatment, many oldgrowth recruitment areas would decline in health

and vigor, with some never reaching old-growth

conditions due to high tree densities. In 50 years,

there would be no recruitment into VSS 5 and VSS

6. Because 95 percent of developing and existing

old-growth sites have expected fire behavior rated as

high to extreme, wildfire may result not only in the

loss of old-growth trees but also blocks of old-growth

trees.

Under Alternative E, trees would have smaller

diameters due to slower growth rates. With limited

treatment in sites where no trees over 9-inches dbh

would be thinned, old-growth recruitment areas

would decline in health and vigor, with some never

reaching old-growth conditions due to high tree

densities. The high fire hazard potential would

persist for old-growth stands. In the event of a large

wildfire, old-growth sites would be compromised and

trees would be lost, thus affecting form and function

of old-growth. In 50 years post-treatment, there

would be little recruitment into old-growth conditions, with an increase of 18 percent in VSS 5 and

no recruitment in VSS 6.

Economic Analysis

Economic analysis was conducted using techniques

and methods developed by Dr. Debra Larson of

Northern Arizona University. The analysis focused

on the economic question of how 16 inch and

greater diameter trees would contribute to total

return estimates. Modeling runs were conducted

using two product mixes and two logging systems

reflecting local markets. Alternative B (No Action)

could potentially result in a loss of over 1 billion

dollars if Forest Highlands Subdivision were impacted severely by a large catastrophic fire event

(Jim Pond, Highlands Fire Department personal

communication). Estimates to fight such a fire were

estimated at 3 million dollars. Long-term impacts to

Oak Creek Canyon, wildlife habitat, and T&E habitat

would be significant. Alternative A without a 16-

inch diameter limit would result in a 5-10 percent

positive change per thousand cubic feet (CCF) when

compared to Alternative C. The estimated value of

the 7,000 trees thinned using Alternative C is

approximately $175,000 based on an estimated

value per CCF, which is taken from Larson (2000 in

press). However, given the poor tree form expected

of the 16 inch diameter trees removed, the grade of

these trees may not be realized in the market, which

was analyzed.

Table 2. Comparison of Cost Per Thousand

Cubic Feet (CCF), Number of Trees Removed

Greater than 16-inches dbh, and Estimated Value

for All Action Alternatives.

Economic Alternatives

Evaluation A C D E

Number of 5000 0 5000 0

16" and Greater (16.1-17.9) (16.1-17.9)

Diameter Trees 2000

Removed (18"+)

Estimated Value $498,000 0 $373,500 0

of 16" and Greater

Diameter Trees
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 43

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Comparison of Alternatives — Issue 2:

18-inch Diameter Limit

Issue: All project objectives could be met with an

18-inch diameter limit and request that a quantitative analysis is provided.

The issue is addressed in Alternative D. The specific

issue was that all project objectives could be met

with an 18-inch diameter limit. A review of Chapter

3 finds very few differences between the Proposed

Action (Alternative A) and Alternative C and that

project objectives were met equally to the Proposed

Action (Alternative A).

Comparison of Alternatives — Issue 3:

“Intensive Zone”

Issue: The Proposed Action does not reduce fuels

sufficient to protect the immediate wildland-urban

interface. An “intensive treatment zone” around

private land is requested for evaluation.

Fuel Reduction - “Intensive Zone”

The “Intensive Zone” is a component of Alternative E

only. The most important aspect to reducing

wildfire potential was to manage the entire project

area to reduce fuels. The “Intensive Zone” treatment

area did not result in additional protection of the

area immediately adjacent to private land. This

alternative proposes an “Intensive Zone” treatment

for a width of 660 feet along the forest abutment

with private property to mitigate the fire effects of

not thinning any trees over 9-inches dbh and higher

canopy closures over the rest of the project area.

Initial attack has been quite effective against fires

starting in such a fuel break. However, on this forest

a 660-foot-wide fuel break has not proven to be an

effective fire stop against fires approaching from

beyond such a strip. An illustration is the Slate Fire

(1996). An entire strike team of wildland fire engines

was unable to even slow down the forward spread of

the fire at any of three separate breaks similar to the

“intensive zone” treatment.

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 4:

Lighter Thinning Methods

Issue: Thinning north of Kelly Canyon as described

in the Proposed Action goes beyond what is needed

to reduce fire risk. A lighter treatment of 60 to 120

basal area and 9-inch thinning limit (where a

temporary road is needed) is requested for evaluation.

Fuel Reduction

Each of the action alternatives affects the potential

for a large stand replacing fire to varying degrees.

The differences of effects in meeting all of the

objectives listed above are largest between Alternative E and the other action alternatives.

Alternative A has the greatest reduction in crown fire

potential and severe fire behavior. Alternative A

provides a higher degree of habitat protection (a firerelated objective) by reducing the probability of tree

mortality more than the other alternatives (induced

by both wild and prescribed fires). By reducing the

probability of mortality among large trees (12 to 20-

inches dbh) more than the other alternatives, this

alternative is also most likely to retain and recruit

mature ponderosa pine trees (a fire-related objective).

Alternative B calls for no action as stated in the

existing condition section, the current fuel and

vegetative conditions would be likely to generate

severe fire behavior. Modeling indicated significant

torching and spot fires more than half a mile ahead

of a running crown fire.

Alternative C is difficult to model with precision,

since relatively few trees larger than 16-inch dbh

would be removed under Alternative A. The model

did not indicate any difference in expected flame

length or probability of large tree (12 to 20-inches

dbh) mortality between Alternatives A and C. Alternative D appears to reduce the fire hazard to both

the nearby communities and the forest itself as

much as Alternative A. Within this project area, it

provides only slightly less canopy break and almost

as much reduction in fire-laddering fuel as Alternative A.

Alternative E has the least reduction in crown fire

potential and severe fire behavior, but in most

instances it showed improvement over the existing

Table 3. Economic Improvement

Alternative Amount Generated or Cost

A $510,090 generated from trees thinned.

C $238,886 generated from trees thinned.

D $402,045 generated from trees thinned.

E Thinning will cost $670,975.
44 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

condition. The fuels analysis shows that there is

little difference in fire effects between the proposed

thinning of 40 to 120 BA in Alternatives A, C, and D

and the 60 to 120 BA thinning in Alternative E.

However, the 9-inch thinning limit in Alternative E

in areas where no new temporary roads were constructed resulted in unacceptable wildfire potential

within 1 mile of the Forest Highlands and Kachina

Village residential areas. South of Kelly Canyon, the

9-inch thinning limit maintains high fire potential

threat to wildlife and T&E habitat.

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 5:

Road Issues

Issue: Temporary roads lead to increased soil

compaction, transport of exotic weeds, and have

long-lasting impacts on forest structure, therefore,

we request that no new temporary roads be created

even if only for the duration of the project.

Transportation System/ Soil Compaction

and Exotic Weeds

All action alternatives intend to rehabilitate 17.65

miles of existing roadway by closing, scarifying, and

re-vegetating. These areas will not likely return to

full productivity for many years, but will become

stable after only a few years. The area of rehabilitated roadway amounts to 43 acres.

Alternatives A, C, and D will require 5.75 miles of

temporary road. Alternative E requires 2.5 to

complete the “intensive zone” thinning. There was

little or no difference described in effect analysis for

soil compaction or transport of exotic weeds. Alternative E would result in 8 fewer acres of disturbance

than other action alternatives.

The No Action Alternative results in no change.

Comparison of Alternatives - Issue 6:

Mechanized Equipment

Issue: Mechanized equipment and excessive thinning will increase soil compaction and cause

disturbance to wildlife in areas south of Kelly

Canyon. The area south of Kelly Canyon should

only be treated with hand thinning and was requested for evaluation.

Soil Compaction

In Alternatives A, C, and D, provided that mitigation

measures described in the soil and water mitigation

section are followed, there will be only minor impacts to on site soil quality and productivity from

the proposed activities. Some compaction from

skidding equipment will occur in all treatment areas

except hand treatment.

In Alternative E, treatment acres and erosion hazard

are the same as other alternatives. The difference in

this alternative is that only 2,330 acres will be

mechanically treated or a little over half of the other

alternatives. Consequently, we can expect about

half of the impacts to soil quality and productivity to

occur. Provided that mitigation measures described

in the soil and water mitigation section are followed,

there will be only minor impacts to on site soil

quality and productivity from the proposed activities.

In Alternatives A, C, and D, the combination of

thinning to open the stand and burning will likely

result in the promotion of herbaceous vegetation

over litter as the major component of ground cover.

Stand canopy conditions and fuel loading will be

reduced so that the potential effects of intense

wildfire are reduced. This effect will be strongly

reduced in Alternative E, where thinning only to 9

inches will limit thinning treatments.

South of James Canyon the model indicated that

Alternative E would not reduce flame lengths from

7.2 feet nor would it decrease tree mortality from

90(+) percent. The model indicated that a fire

occurring in this zone after Alternative E was

applied would almost certainly produce multiple

spot fires in Kelly and James Canyons. Fires in

these canyons would, in turn, generate severe fire

behavior, spotting over long distances, and threatening several communities to the north. Within this

southernmost zone, the probability of tree mortality

would remain over 90 percent in all size classes.

Under Alternative B there are no mechanized

equipment effects.

Table 4. Miles of Temporary Roads, Road

Maintenance, and Rehabilitation.

Temporary Road RehabilAlternative Road Maintenance itated

A, C, and D 5.75 miles, 36 miles, 17.65 miles,

14 acres 87 acres 43 acres

E 2.5 miles, 36 miles, 17.65 miles,

6 acres 87 acres 43 acres
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 45

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Wildlife Habitat (MIS Species)

Abert squirrel: All alternatives provide greater than

20 percent forage and cover habitat. Considering

cover and forage together, Alternative B offers the

best quality habitat for Abert squirrel. None of the

action alternatives would greatly affect Abert squirrel.

Elk: There would be adequate cover under all

alternatives. Best foraging opportunities would

occur under Alternatives A, C, and D. Considering

cover and forage together, all action alternatives

would improve habitat quality for elk, with Alternatives A, C, and D, offering better habitat quality than

Alternatives B or E.

Hairy Woodpecker: Considering cover and forage

together, Alternatives A, C, and D would offer better

habitat quality than Alternatives B or E. The

greatest increase in VSS 5 class would occur under

Alternatives A, C, and D. This class contains large

trees which are recruitment trees for snags.

Northern Goshawk: Considering cover and forage

together, Alternatives A, C, and D would offer better

habitat quality than Alternatives B or E.

Mule Deer: Considering cover and forage together,

Alternatives A, C, and D offer the best quality

habitat for mule deer. Thinning of stands, creation

and/or expansion of openings, and broadcast

burning will stimulate understory plant growth.

This would provide more forbs and browse for mule

deer.

Pygmy Nuthatch: Considering cover and forage

together, Alternatives A, C, and D offer the best

quality habitat for pygmy nuthatch. These three

alternatives would increase the percentage of late

seral stages of the forest the most.

Turkey: Alternatives A, C, and D would offer the

most foraging and nesting habitat based on more

created openings. Openings would promote greater

amounts and vigor of growth of the understory

vegetation and offer more edge effect. Alternatives A,

C, and D would also offer the most roosting habitat

due to an increase in VSS 5 class (refer to the tables

at the beginning of the wildlife section).

Conclusions

Overall, Alternatives A, C, and D would offer better

habitat quality for management indicator species.

The exception is with Alternative B offering better

quality habitat for Abert squirrel.

High fire hazard potential would persist under

Alternatives B and E. With the advent of a large

wildfire, habitat for forest-dependent management

indicator species would be destroyed.

Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives Based on Improving Conditions Stated in the Purpose and Need.

Purpose

and Need Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Reduce

Potential for

Stand

Replacing

Wildfire

Fire potential reduced on

4,266 acres with crown fire

potential reduction.

Fire potential reduced on

4,266 acres with crown

fire potential reduction;

16-inch dbh limit lessens

effect slightly.

Fire potential reduced

4,266 acres with crown

fire potential reduction;

18-inch dbh limit will

have little to no effect.

Fire potential reduced on

2,328 acres; 9-inch dbh

limit will not lessen

crown fire potential on

other acres treated.

Improve

Forest

Ecosystem

Resilience —

Wildfire,

Mistletoe, and

Bugs.

Ecosystem resilience

improved on 4,266 acres.

Dwarf mistletoe and bug

infestation decreased.

Ecosystem resilience

improved on 4,266 acres;

16-inch dbh limit lessens

ability to treat dwarf

mistletoe.

Ecosystem resilience

improved on 4,266

acres; 18-inch dbh limit

lessens ability to treat

dwarf mistletoe slightly.

Ecosystem resilience

improved on 2,328 acres.

On 1,898 acres the 9-inch

dbh limit will result in

50% less dwarf mistletoe

and bark beetle treatment.
46 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives Based on Improving Conditions Stated in the Purpose and Need

(continued).

Purpose

and Need Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

Protect

Threatened,

Endangered

and Sensitive

Species

The absence of a diameter

limit effects bald eagle

habitat slightly.

The 16-inch dbh limit

effects development of

old-growth stand

conditions, and is less

desirable for promoting

old tree development.

The 18-inch dbh limit is

better for bald eagle

habitat.

The 9-inch dbh limit will

result in 50% less old tree

development for the

future with impacts to

promoting Bald Eagle

habitat.

Protect Oak

Creek

Watershed

From the

Effects Of

Wildfire

Most reduction in fire

potential.

Reduction in fire

potential, however the

16-inch dbh limit lessens

wildfire reduction

slightly.

Most reduction in fire

potential.

The 9-inch thinning limit

maintains high wildfire

potential that could

damage the watershed.

Protect

Habitat for

Species

Requiring

Dense Stand

Meets need due to the

inclusion of cover patches

and deferral along canyon

rims south of Kelly

Canyon.

Meets need due to the

inclusion of cover

patches and deferral

along canyon rims south

of Kelly Canyon.

Meets need due to the

inclusion of cover

patches and deferral

along canyon rims

south of Kelly Canyon.

Meets need somewhat less

because the 9-inch

thinning limit maintains

more cover, but places the

cover at high risk of loss

from wildfire.

1 All alternatives retain all existing mature ponderosa pine trees or old “yellow-barked” trees. Temporary road or landing locations to achieve

removal objectives will avoid large diameter trees where possible.

Improve

Understory

Productivity

(Desired

Condition is

10%

Openings)

Grassy openings created on

10% of acres treated and

canopy cover conditions

improved on 30% of the

project area to support a

diverse understory.

Grassy openings created

on about 5% of the

project area. Canopy

cover improves

understory on 30% of the

project area. The 16-

inch diameter limit

reduces the number of

grassy openings,

With grassy openings

created on 10% of acres

treated and canopy

cover conditions

improved on 30% of the

project area. The 18-

inch dbh limit reduces

the number of grassy

openings slightly.

Grassy openings would be

created on 1% of acres

treated and canopy cover

improved on 5% of the

project area. Both the 9-

inch dbh limit and 16-inch

dbh limit reduce the

number of grassy

openings.

Enhance and

Recruit Old

Trees and

Gambel Oak1

For both short and longterm management there

would be an increase of

225% large diameter trees

in 50 years.

For both short and longterm management there

would be an increase of

225% large diameter

trees in 50 years.

For both short and

long-term management

there would be an

increase of 225% large

diameter trees in 50

years.

For both short and longterm management there

would be an increase of

only 18% large diameter

trees in 50 years.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 47

Chapter 2 • Alternatives

Table 5. Comparison of Alternatives Based on Improving Conditions Stated in the Purpose and Need

(continued).

Purpose

and Need Alternative A Alternative C Alternative D Alternative E

2 The need for fire reduction resulted in improvement of VSS distribution among VSS 3, 4, 5 and 6. VSS 1 and 2 remain mostly unchanged

under all alternatives.

3 All project activities follow mitigation measures designed to protect cultural sites.

Improve

Conditions for

Natural Fire

Treatments reduce wildfire

potential to work toward

natural fire cycles.

Treatments reduce

wildfire potential to work

toward natural fire

cycles.

Treatments reduce

wildfire potential to

work toward natural

fire cycles.

The treatments do not

reduce wildfire potential

to work toward natural

fire cycles on

approximately 50% of the

project area.

Improve

Vegetative

Structural

Stage (VSS)

Distribution2

VSS 5 (27.5%) and 6

(4.5%) structural stages

nearly meeting VSS 5 and

6 conditions of northern

goshawk guidelines in 50

years.

VSS 5 (27.5%) and 6

(4.5%) structural stages

nearly meeting VSS 5

and 6 conditions of

northern goshawk

guidelines in 50 years.

VSS 5 (27.5%) and 6

(4.5%) structural stages

nearly meeting VSS 5

and 6 conditions of

northern goshawk

guidelines in 50 years.

VSS 5 (10%) and 6 (3%)

structural falling

considerably short of

meeting VSS 5 and 6

conditions of northern

goshawk guidelines in 50

years.

Manage Roads,

and Recreation

to Decrease

Fire Starts,

and to Better

Balance

Human Uses

With Wildlife

Habitat and

Watershed and

Soil Conditions

All alternatives change some areas to day-use recreation only, adjust dispersed camping to designated sites in

some areas, identify and construct trails and trailheads, maintain some roads and close others. Where actions

occur, wildlife habitat, soil, and watershed resources are improved. Risk of human-caused wildfire is reduced.

Improve

Riparian

Habitat at

Kelly Seep

All alternatives improve riparian habitat at Kelly Seep.

Provide

Wildlife Cover

Movement

Corridors

All alternatives contain dense forest cover habitat and a wildlife movement corridor is maintained.

Protect

Cultural Sites3

Potential damage to sites

from wildfire is reduced on

4,266 acres.

Potential damage to sites

from wildfire is reduced

on 4,266 acres with

crown fire potential

reduction; 16-inch dbh

limit will affect slightly.

Potential damage to

sites from wildfire is

reduced on 4,266 acres.

Potential damage to sites

from wildfire is reduced

on 2,328 acres.
48 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 2 • Alternatives
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 49

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Introduction

This chapter provides information concerning the

existing environment of the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project area and potential consequences to

that environment. It also presents the scientific and

analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives

presented in Chapter 2. Each resource potentially

affected by the Proposed Action or alternatives is

described in terms of its current condition and uses.

These resource descriptions also include descriptions of and reasons for the spatial and temporal

boundaries of cumulative effects analyses. Existing

baseline, or benchmark, conditions and possible

thresholds are also indicated.

Following each resource description is a discussion

of the potential effects (environmental consequences)

to the resource associated with the implementation

of each alternative. All effects—including direct,

indirect, and cumulative effects—are disclosed.

Effects are quantified, where possible, and qualitative discussions are included. The means by which

potential adverse effects will be reduced or mitigated

are described in Chapter 2.

The discussions of resources and potential effects

take advantage of existing information included in

the Forest Plan’s EIS, EIS’s from other projects,

project-specific resource reports and related information, and other sources as indicated. Where

applicable, such information is briefly summarized

and referenced to minimize duplication. The planning record for the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project includes all project-specific information,

including resource reports, the watershed analysis,

and other results of field investigations. The record

also contains information resulting from public

involvement efforts. The planning record is located

at the Peaks Ranger District office in Flagstaff,

Arizona, and is available for review during regular

business hours.

Assumptions for This Analysis

Throughout this chapter the reference to “wildfire”

equals a high intensity crown fire. There are many

kinds of wildfire depending on weather and fuel

conditions. Low intensity crown fires are normally

suppressed and do not contribute extensively to the

future condition of the project area. These effects

sections describe the effects of high intensity wildfire

that could change future conditions of the area.

Projects identified in the cumulative effects analysis

are different depending on the resource discussed.

Table 6 on the following page describes projects that

were considered in this document by one or more of

the resource specialists. Long past projects are not

listed as they contributed to forest conditions

described under the affected environment sections.

The Flagstaff/Lake Mary Ecosystem Analysis (FLEA)

is not listed as a cumulative project because this

project does not propose any on-the-ground activities. The FLEA project proposes to amend the

Forest Plan. The Kachina Village FHP contains sitespecific actions that meet current Forest Plan

direction.

Analyzing Effects

Environmental consequences are the effects of

implementing an alternative on the physical, biological, social, and economic environment. The Council

on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act

(NEPA) includes a number of specific categories to

use for the analysis of environmental consequences.

Several are applicable to the analysis of the proposed project and alternatives and form the basis of

much of the analysis that follows. They are explained briefly here.

Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Direct environmental effects are those occurring at

the same time and place as the initial cause or

action. Indirect effects are those that occur later in

time or are spatially removed from the activity, but

would be considerable in the foreseeable future.

Cumulative effects result from incremental effects of

actions, when added to other past, present, and

reasonably foreseeable future actions, regardless of

what agency or person undertakes such other

actions. Cumulative effects can result from individually minor, but collectively major, actions taking

place over a period of time.

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

Implementation of any action alternative that would

cause some adverse environmental effects that

cannot be effectively mitigated or avoided. Unavoidable adverse effects often result from managing the

land for one resource at the expense of the use or

condition of other resources. Many adverse effects

can be reduced, mitigated, or avoided by limiting the

extent or duration of effects. The interdisciplinary

procedure used to identify specific practices was

designed to eliminate or lessen adverse consequences. The application of Forest Plan standards

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and

Environmental Consequences
50 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 6. Projects Considered in Cumulative Effects Analysis

Name Timing Activities Area

Pumphouse Multiproduct Past Thinning, pile burning, broadcast 1,359 acres adjacent to Kachina

Timber Sale burning Village FHP.

ADOT Tree Removal along Ongoing Removal of most trees within a 30- Both sides of Highway 89A

foot area or the right-of-way fence through Kachina Village FHP.

Griffiths Spring Parking and Ongoing Parking area, toilet and trail. Griffiths Spring, 1 mile of trail

Interpretitive Trail and 1/4 acre parking

Airport Fuels Reduction Project Forseeable Future Broadcast burning 1,000 acres northeast of

(broadcast burning only) Kachina Village FHP

(approximately 200 acres

within Kachina Village FHP

boundary)

I-17 Wireless Communication Forseeable Future Construct tower 1/4 acre

Tower at James Canyon

Fort Tuthill to Kachina Village Forseeable Future Nonmotorized trail 3 miles

Trail

Oak Creek Canyon Fuels Forseeable Future Thinning, pile burning; Interior of Oak Creek Canyon

Reduction Project broadcast burning, brush crushing. outside of wilderness

boundaries.

State Section 26 (1/2) Ongoing Thinning, pile burning 320 acres

Development of Previously Ongoing; currently Residential development Section 24 (640 acres)

Undeveloped Private Land being developed.

Maintenance activities on Ongoing Grading, culverts, painting, and In and around the Kachina

National Forest Roads, signing. FHP.

Facilities and Trails

Illegal Firewood Cutting Ongoing; low levels Large diameter green trees cut. In and around the Kachina

FHP.

Recreation Activities Ongoing Hiking, biking, horseback riding, In and around the Kachina

ATV, rock climbing, picnicking, FHP.

camping, etc.

and guidelines, Best Management Practices, projectspecific mitigation measures, and monitoring are all

intended to further limit the extent, severity, and

duration of potential effects. Such measures are

discussed throughout this chapter and are discussed in Chapter 2. Regardless of the use of these

measures, some adverse effects will occur. The

purpose of this chapter is to fully disclose these

effects.

Short-term Use and Long-term Productivity

Short-term uses and their effects are those that

occur annually or within the first few years of

project implementation. Long-term productivity

refers to the capability of the land and resources to

continue producing goods and services long after the

project has been implemented. Under the MultipleUse Sustained-Yield Act and the National Forest

Management Act, all renewable resources are to be
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 51

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

managed in such a way that they are available for

future generations. Harvesting and use of standing

timber is an example of short-term use of a renewable resource. This long-term productivity is

maintained through the application of the resource

protection measures described in Chapter 2, in

particular those applying to soil and water resources. These are also discussed throughout this

chapter, particularly in terms of wildlife habitat,

TE&S habitat, development of old-growth, wildfire

potential, and overall forest health goals.

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments

There are no irreversible or irretrievable commitments associated with this project. Irreversible

commitments are decisions affecting non-renewable

resources such as soils, wetlands, unroaded areas,

and cultural resources. Such commitments are

considered irreversible because the resource has

deteriorated to the point that renewal can occur only

over a long period of time or at a great expense, or

because the resource has been destroyed or removed.

Available Information

There is less than complete knowledge about many

of the relationships and conditions of wildlife, fish,

forests, jobs, and communities. The ecology, inventory, and management of a large forest area are a

complex and developing science. The biology of

wildlife species prompts questions about population

dynamics and habitat relationships. The interaction

of resource supply, the economy, and communities

is the subject matter of an inexact science. However, the basic data and central relationships are

sufficiently well established in the respective sciences for the deciding official to make a reasoned

choice between the alternatives and to adequately

assess and disclose the possible adverse environmental consequences. New or improved information

would be very unlikely to reverse or nullify these

understood relationships.

Plans of Other Agencies

The Kachina Village Project does not conflict with

objectives of other Federal, state, and local land use

plans, policies and controls for the area. The

Council for Environmental Quality regulations

implementing NEPA require a determination of

possible conflicts between the Proposed Action and

the objectives of Federal, state, and local land use

plans, policies, and controls for the area.

Aesthetics

In addition to inventory revisions directed by the

Forest Plan, the Forest Service is required to begin

using the Scenery Management System (SMS) to

replace concepts and terminology of the Visual

Management System (VMS). In lieu of a forest-wide

revision, following is an assessment of the project

area using SMS terminology and concepts. Many of

the SMS concepts are borrowed from the VMS so the

inventory and analysis updates are similar. The

major difference between the two systems relevant to

this analysis is the addition of a more complete

discussion of “landscape character” with the SMS.

An expanded discussion of landscape character

suitable for an SMS analysis is included in the

following section. Inventory and analysis required

for implementing the SMS is scheduled to coincide

with the next Forest Plan revision (scheduled to

begin 2006).

Affected Environment Landscape

Character and Scenic Integrity

The Landscape Character Description, as defined in

“Landscape Aesthetics - A handbook for Scenery

Management” (USDA Handbook 701) describes the

positive scenic and cultural elements inherent to the

landscape that collectively form the base for comparison of alternative management scenarios.

Landscape management that tends to preserve or

enhance the inherent positive scenic elements will

maintain or increase the scenic integrity of the

landscape and will help achieve landscape character

goals. Landscape management that eliminates or

obscures positive scenic elements or that introduces

elements that are visibly alien to the characteristic

landscape will degrade scenic integrity and thwart

achievement of landscape character goals.

Appendix F contains definitions and explanation of

landscape character, including a history of this

landscape.

Overall, the landscape within the analysis area

appears slightly altered but with the natural appearing landscape dominating. This equates to a

moderate to high level of scenic integrity. Alterations to the natural appearing landscape within the

project boundary (including private lands) includes

the presence of roads and trails, power lines, residential developments, including the Kachina and

Forest Highlands subdivisions, and a cell tower.

Except for roads and trails, most of these structures

are on private land. This assessment will not

include any further analysis of private lands within
52 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the project area. Over the past several years increased recreation use of areas adjacent to Kachina

and Forest Highlands subdivisions, along portions of

FR 237, and in the Mexican Pocket area, have

resulted in increasing visible evidence of human

activity such as fire rings, compacted bare ground,

litter, and additional unauthorized roads and ATV

tracks. All of these additional elements in the

landscape detract from its natural appearance and

degrade the scenic integrity of the area, resulting in

a “low” scenic integrity rating that equates to a

“Modification” Visual Quality Objective (VQO)5 at

best for the specific areas affected. These more

heavily impacted areas, though most visible because

of proximity to major roads and access sites, make

up a small percentage of the project area.

In contrast, most of the project area located away

from the residential areas and high use forest areas

have high scenic integrity that equates to the

prescribed Retention6 and Partial Retention7 VQO’s

defined in the Forest Plan. Past management has

altered the vegetative pattern from the more desirable open pine stands with more big trees to the

present less desirable condition with more dense

stands of smaller trees. Although the resulting

landscape looks unaltered and natural to the casual

observer and meets the original VQO’s set forth in

the Forest Plan, the existing scenic condition falls

far short of the potential scenic values inherent in

the historic ponderosa pine forest with its open

parks dominated by large yellow-barked trees.

The canyons that occur in the area (James and Kelly

Canyons and Pumphouse Wash) are mostly not

accessible to motorized vehicles and bicycles and are

often difficult for pedestrians to negotiate. The

canyon vegetation is more diverse and not as fire

dependent as the ponderosa pine forests which

occur on top of the plateaus between the canyons.

The resulting appearance of the canyons is generally

primitive with little evidence of human activity and

influence, and with vegetation that probably looks

very similar to what it has looked like since people

first arrived in the area. The existing scenic condition of the area canyons probably comes close to

meeting the full potential for scenic quality inherent

to such canyon settings within the Flagstaff Character Type. This equates to the prescribed Retention

Visual Quality Objective in the current Forest Plan.

Landscape Character Goals

A landscape character goal is an objective for the

overall scenic character of the landscape. There is

no present direction in the Forest Plan defining any

landscape character goals for the Coconino NF.

There is language in the Plan directing that, forestwide, changes to any VQO will be limited to plus or

minus 15 percent. The intent of this direction was

to maintain the natural appearing landscape character that existed at the time the Plan was developed

(mid 1980’s). In lieu of a designated landscape

character goal defined in the Forest Plan, this

analysis will assess the affect of the alternative

actions on what we can reasonably discern to be

people’s preferences for landscape character based

on existing research and professional experience.

Scenic Integrity Goals

Visual Quality Objectives defined in the Forest Plan

for the area include:

• Retention along the Interstate 17 and

Highway 89A road corridors within the

foreground viewing position (up to 1/2 mile

distance), which allows for no visible

evidence of management activity or human

alteration;

• Modification8 in areas unseen from roads

and trails, which allows for visible alterations to the natural appearing landscape

that blend with the natural appearing

landscape; and

• Partial retention for the westernmost

extent of the plateau between James and

Kelly Canyons, which allows for alterations

to the natural appearing landscape which

are subordinate to the landscape character.

The Forest Plan calls for an update of the initial

VQO inventory at the time of project analysis. An

updated inventory has been completed and the

5 Visual Quality Objectives (VQO’s) are desired levels of visual quality based on the physical and sociological characteristics of an area.

VQO’s refer to the degree of acceptable alterations of the characteristic landscape.

6 Retention is a degree of alteration in which management activities, in general, are not evident to the casual forest visitor.

7 Partial Retention is a degree of alteration in which management activities, in general, may be evident but must remain subordinate to the

characteristic landscape.

8 Modification is a degree of alteration in which management activities may dominate the characteristic landscape but must, at the same

time, use naturally established form, line, color, and texture. It should appear as a natural occurrence when viewed in the middleground or

background.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 53

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

result is: 1) Retention VQO areas would remain the

same; 2) Partial Retention areas would remain the

same; and 3) Modification areas would change to

Partial Retention. By selecting one of the action

alternatives, the decision maker adopts the new

VQO inventory.

Impacts to visual quality objectives from the alternatives are assessed based on the updated inventory.

All “action” alternatives (all alternatives except the

“No Action” alternative, Alternative B) would change

the landscape character of the area by thinning out

the forest. Research and observation both suggest

that a forest with fewer trees than now exists across

much of the Colorado plateau will generally be more

aesthetically pleasing to most people (Brown and

Daniel, 1984).

Direct Effects of Alternative A

Alternative A will result in a landscape that will

experience disruptions of existing scenic integrity

beginning with thinning activities and persisting

until thinning slash and other evidence of thinning

activity is sufficiently reduced. Some Partial

Retention VQO areas will shift to Modification

during this short-term period of time. In areas

where thinning slash is aggressively removed or

burned, as is typically done along some sections of

highway or major road corridor, scenic integrity will

generally be reduced for 1 to 3 years following tree

cutting. In areas with less aggressive slash treatment, which includes the majority of the project

area, evidence of thinning activities will likely persist

for 3 to 5 years decreasing considerably as prescribed burns reduce the presence of “red” slash and

stumps. Prescribed burning and natural processes

will most likely reduce the slash throughout the area

so that most forest visitors do not notice it 5 years

after the thinning.

The west side of the I-17 corridor would receive

thinning of smaller diameter trees consistent with

the forest beyond the right-of-way. The result would

be a relatively consistent appearing landscape

character on both sides of the right-of-way fence

that would be more pleasing in appearance to most

people than Alternative B (No Action).

Broadcast burning will result in disruption of the

scenic integrity immediately following the burn and

until vegetation re-sprouts in the area (usually 1 to

3 months). Some blackened bark may remain on

the base of trees. Partial Retention VQO’s may shift

to Modification during this short-term time period.

The visual affect is for only a portion of the Kachina

Village Project area at one time, because different

burn blocks9 will be treated on different years. The

amount of seen area will depend on the major roads

or trails adjacent to the burn block.

Visual access into the forest landscape will be

greatly increased immediately following treatment

revealing more landform and vegetative features in

the landscape. It will result in a more diverse

vegetative mosaic that will generally be less dense

and more transparent and, therefore, more interesting to the typical person viewing it than the present

scenic condition.

Recreation activities described in Alternative A and

common to all of the action alternatives will reduce

the visible impacts of heavy recreation use along FR

237 and some of the other road sections identified in

the recreation report (PRD 137b). This improvement

occurs immediately after activities occur. The fence

at Kelly Seep will surround a very small area and

affect only that site.

Direct Effects of Alternative B

There are no direct effects to scenic integrity from

the “no action” alternative.

Direct Effects of Alternative C

The direct effects of Alternative C are similar to

Alternative A (Proposed Action) but with several

more trees per acre less than 16 inches removed.

The result will be a slightly more transparent and

open forest than the Proposed Action, as seen from

the perspective of someone viewing it from ground

level. This occurs immediately after thinning treatments.

The direct effects of recreation management activities, broadcast burning, and the I-17 corridor are

the same as Alternative A.

Direct Effects of Alternative D

The direct effects of Alternative D are similar to

those described for Alternative A (Proposed Action).

The direct effect on scenic integrity would be the

9 Burn blocks is an informal term used to describe areas of land, usually roughly 100-500 acres in size that are burned in a given year or

single entry. Roads, utility lines, or fire line usually bound burn blocks.
54 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

same as Alternative A except that there would be a

small number (estimated to be about 2,000 trees in

this category total across roughly 4,500 treated

acres, or 1 tree per 2.25 acres) of black-barked trees

larger than 18 inches left standing with this alternative that would be cut in Alternative A. Consequently,

there would be slightly more smaller diameter trees

cut to meet fire reduction basal area objectives

resulting in slightly more “transparency” to the

forest setting, as seen from ground level. There

would also be one additional large “recruit” tree for

every 2.25 acres that would “soon” be a large yellowbarked tree (normally within 40 to 60 years for a

typical 18 inch tree on a good site).

The direct effects of recreation management activities, broadcast burning and the I-17 corridor are the

same as Alternative A.

Direct Effects of Alternative E

This alternative would result in more stems per acre

remaining after treatment than Alternative A. Many

stands with larger trees predominant would not be

thinned at all. As a result there will be less disruption of the existing scenic condition, and less slash

to dispose of (except for within the “Intensive Zone”)

throughout the treated stands. This alternative

would meet standards for the prescribed Partial

Retention VQO (moderate scenic integrity) in all

treatment areas except the “Intensive Zone”, where it

would only meet standards for a Modification VQO

(low scenic integrity) due to the contrast with

adjacent stands and due to the geometric shape of

the “Intensive Zone”. This affect occurs immediately

after thinning treatment. The direct effects of

recreation management activities, broadcast burning

and the I-17 corridor are the same as Alternative A.

Indirect Effects of Alternative A

Alternative A will help the area attain its long-term

scenic potential by increasing the viability of older

trees, increasing the growth rate of smaller trees,

and by creating and maintaining a more diverse and

more interesting vegetative pattern mosaic across

the affected landscape. The ability of the landscape

to reach the maximum inherent scenic potential that

existed historically will be enhanced with this

alternative. The presence of grassy openings,

created by this alternative will add to the scenic

quality.

A long-term effect of recreation management activities and broadcast burning is to also help the area

attain its long-term scenic potential.

The risk of a running crown fire is lowest in Alternative A.

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

The No Action Alternative results in a vegetative

pattern that tends to decrease the viability of larger,

older trees and to favor conditions that result in

dense stands of smaller diameter trees. Crowding

by smaller trees for moisture and nutrients will tend

to accelerate mortality in the larger trees, as well as

to put them at risk of mortality by wildfire. The

long-term result will likely be a decrease in the

number and extent of large “yellow pine” across the

landscape. The ability of the landscape to reach the

maximum inherent scenic potential that existed

historically will be compromised with this alternative

compared to Alternative A.

Continuation of existing recreation dispersed

camping and social trail use will continue creating

pockets of landscape with compacted bare soil, fire

rings and redundant roads and trails. In these

places scenic integrity will trend downward over

time.

The potential for large fires occurring within the

Kachina area, though reduced considerably from the

existing condition, would be higher for this alternative than for the action alternatives (A, C, and D). A

large crown fire could either add interest to the

landscape or decrease its scenic value depending on

the configuration and extent of the burned area.

However, the other risk is that an especially large,

hot crown fire could reduce the mosaic to a simple

burned landscape, reducing the mosaic effect and

producing a much less complex and much less

appealing landscape pattern.

The risk of a running crown fire is greater in Alternative B than any of the action alternatives.

Indirect Effects of Alternative C

The indirect effects of Alternative C are similar to

Alternative A, except that this alternative will result

in a large number of possible “recruitment” trees for

the next generation of yellow-barked dominant trees,

but will tend to more severely thin out the smallest

trees in a stand. Lack of sufficient thinning within

stands presently dominated by trees 16 inches and

larger will slow the growth of the trees and, therefore, slow the rate of “recruitment” in the stands to a

small degree.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 55

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Forest canopies would tend to remain closed where

larger trees are now predominant which will tend to

reduce ground cover production on some sites. The

resulting diversity of forest settings, from closed

canopy stands of large and mid-sized trees, to both

open stands and dense stands of smaller trees,

interspersed with the prescribed openings and dense

groups, would be an interesting vegetative composition resulting in generally good visual access into

the forest. It is a small number of trees that would

be retained under Alternative C and cut under

Alternative A (estimated at about 7,000 trees or

about 1.5 trees per treated acre). This number

results in a relatively minor effect to total landscape

character over the long and short term; however,

since the 7,000 trees affected are not distributed

evenly over the landscape, the effect on some sites

could be noticeable.

Long-term effects of recreation management activities and broadcast burning is to also help the area

attain its long-term scenic potential.

The risk of a running crown fire is somewhat greater

than Alternative A and less than Alternative B.

Indirect Effects of Alternative D

The indirect affects of Alternative D are almost

identical to Alternative A. The small number of trees

greater than 18-inch diameter that are retained

under this alternative are likely to turn yellow within

20 to 60 years and as such represent an investment

in future scenic value. There would be a minor

acceleration in the number of black-bark “recruits”

within this size class to replace aging yellow-bark

pine as they die. The small number of trees that

would be retained under Alternative D and cut

under Alternative A (estimated at about 2,000 trees

or about 1 tree per 2.25 treated acres) results in a

relatively minor effect to total landscape character

over the long and short-term; however, since the

2,000 trees affected are not distributed evenly over

the landscape, the effect on some sites could be

noticeable.

Long-term effects of recreation management activities and broadcast burning is to also help the area

attain its long-term scenic potential.

The risk of a running crown fire is similar to Alternative C.

Indirect Effects of Alternative E

This alternative would lead to improvements to the

long-term landscape character, but would result in

less change than the other action alternatives

mainly due to the reduced growth rate on the

remaining trees that could be expected following

treatment in comparison to the action alternatives.

The ability of the landscape to reach the maximum

inherent scenic potential that existed historically will

be enhanced with this alternative, but not to the

extent of other action alternatives (Alternatives A, C,

and D).

This alternative would be more at risk for stand

replacement wildfires than Alternatives A, C, and D.

The diverse pattern that this thinning regime would

produce is more likely to result in a burned area

mosaic that would add a high degree of scenic

interest to the landscape. However, the other risk is

that an especially large, hot crown fire could reduce

the mosaic to a simple burned landscape, reducing

the mosaic effect and producing a much less complex and much less appealing landscape pattern.

The risk of a running crown fire is greater in Alternative E than Alternatives A, C, and D and the risk

of such a fire is less than Alternative B.

Conclusion: All of the action alternatives have very

similar effects on recreation settings throughout the

Kachina area primarily because they would all adopt

the same transportation plan which would close out

many of the non-system roads and roads that are in

excess of those needed for administrative or recreation access. Decreasing road densities in some

areas where they exceed the 2 miles per square mile

density objective from the Forest Plan will help

retain or expand semi-primitive characteristics to

counter the expansion of Roaded Natural characteristics over the past 2 decades.

People will tend to prefer the appearance of the

landscape resulting from the action alternatives,

compared to what will result from Alternative B (No

Action), and will tend to use that landscape more as

a result.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

Areas chosen for cumulative effects analysis are

those projects immediately adjacent to the Kachina

Village Project. Projects in the distant past have

contributed to the existing condition as described in

the preceeding affected environment section and in

Appendix F. One recently completed project—the
56 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale—resulted in

some thinning from below. Combined with the

Kachina Village Project, there is an enhancement of

the ability of the landscape to reach maximum

inherent scenic potential that existed historically.

The presence of grassy openings created by this

Alternative A will add to the scenic quality. Recently, ADOT removed trees extensively along the

Highway 89A corridor. At this time, there is little

blending of these activities with the forest beyond.

The action alternatives will thin up to the right-ofway fence in some locations, enhancing visual

quality by blending the roadway edge with the forest.

The Airport Fuels Reduction Project on the northern

boundary of the Kachina Village Project will receive

broadcast burning that will have the same shortterm impacts and long-term future conditions and

broadcast burning in the Kachina Village Project

area.

Alternative A (Proposed Action) will result in landscape patterns that will blend with other local

vegetative patterns resulting from these management initiatives and trends to help create a more

scenic landscape character for the Flagstaff Character Type in the long term.

Alternative A (Proposed Action) will have a cumulative effect on the view from I-17 and Highway 89A in

that thinning smaller diameter trees will help blend

ongoing and future ADOT thinning initiatives along

the highways.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

The visual effects of a high intensity crown fire, as

described under indirect affects of Alternative B,

would result in a dramatically different landscape

than surrounding areas. There would be a sharp

contrast at the border of a wildfire area.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

There is very little difference between Alternatives A

and C.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

There is very little difference between Alternatives A

and D.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

This alternative will not blend with other wildlandurban interface initiatives nor with ADOT

right-of-way thinning, as well as the other action

alternatives in the areas south of Kelly Canyon

where cutting no trees over 9 inches dbh would

occur. Cutting only lower diameter trees limits

flexibility for creating openings or clumpiness which

add scenic quality.

Conclusion: Alternative A (Proposed Action) will

generally enhance the scenic quality of the affected

landscape considerably more than continued

implementation of the No Action Alternative (Alternative B – existing management). The difference in

scenic quality between the two alternatives will

increase over time as the vegetative pattern favored

by the Alternative A management scenario matures.

Alternatives C and D are very similar to Alternative A

in their effects on both scenic integrity and landscape character. Alternative D is slightly more

desirable for landscape character concerns than

Alternative A because of the retention of a few more

of the largest black-bark pine in the stands, which

could be a major factor in a few sites. Alternative C

is slightly less desirable than Alternative A for longterm landscape character concerns because, even

though more of the larger black-barked trees are

retained, some of the existing large tree clusters will

not be thinned enough to increase the viability of

existing large trees at those sites. Alternative E is

the least disruptive of the action alternatives, except

for the “intensive zone” adjacent to the Kachina

community which is the most visually discordant

element proposed for any of the alternatives. Alternative E does the least to enhance long-term

landscape character except for Alternative B. Alternative E introduces a large discordant element into

the landscape (the “Intensive Zone”) and falls far

short of Alternatives D, A, and C in enhancing longterm landscape character.

Air Quality

Affected Environment or General Air

Quality

The prevailing winds for this project area are out of

the southwest. However, as fronts pass, winds can

arrive from any compass direction for a period

ranging from a few hours to 2 or 3 days. The area is

not prone to inversions, but inversions do occur

more between October and December than at other

times of the year. Stable atmospheric conditions,

when they occur, may last from 12 hours to 6 or 7

days at a time.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 57

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The Kachina Village Project area is located within

the Verde Airshed and downwind activity occurs

within this airshed only. There are no non-attainment areas10 or Class 1 airsheds11 within this

airshed.

Flagstaff and its surrounding communities lie to the

north and northeast (approximately 2 to 6 miles)

from the project area. The communities of Kachina

Village and Forest Highlands are immediately

adjacent to the northern boundary of the project

area. Another area, Oak Creek Canyon, is smoke

sensitive because it conveys a large number of

tourists through regionally popular vistas. Oak

Creek Canyon lies to the southwest of the project

area (approximately 2 to 10 miles). Two highway

corridors border the project area. They are I-17 and

Highway 89A. Traffic is constant along both of these

highways. There is a high level of recreation activities, especially in the summer months, within

portions of the analysis area.

Air quality surrounding the project area is generally

good. However, smoke from wood-burning stoves

and automobile exhaust from commuter traffic can

be seen at times during the winter months. Prescribed burning from other fuels treatment projects

generates emissions that must be balanced with the

air mass’ ability to disperse on any given day.

All forest burning activities are regulated and

administered by Article 15, Forest and Range

Management Burn Rules (10/8/96). The Arizona

Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ)

strictly models emissions/pollutants from all prescribed burning within the state. Any prescribed

burn planned by the Forest Service must be approved by ADEQ on a daily basis. ADEQ will not

allow more acres burned per day, per airshed, than

is acceptable with current air quality conditions.

The burn boss is responsible for monitoring smoke

plume trajectories to assure impacts are within

predicted values. The burn boss will make changes

as needed when unpredicted weather changes

threaten stronger impacts.

Each of the action alternatives seeks to reduce the

fire hazard while retaining as many nutrients on site

as possible. Each of the action alternatives proposes

burning the piled thinning slash (4,804 acres), as

well as prescribed burning of the forest floor (6,229

acres). Generally, emissions from prescribed fires

can be controlled within acceptable limits while

emissions from a wildfire tend to exceed air quality

standards in both quantity and duration.

Direct Effects of Alternative A

Emissions generated by the alternatives have been

estimated and all modeled emissions would meet

National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.

Calculations are located in the project record file.

Smoke from prescribed burning will have short-term

impacts on local air quality. Effects occur in two

forms: 1) pile burning of slash generated from

thinning trees, and 2) broadcast burning the forest

floor in small blocks.

Direct Effects of Pile Burning for

Alternative A

Pile burning is relatively efficient combustion

producing far fewer emissions than broadcast

burning. Broadcast burning of the forest floor

produces considerably more emissions but is more

beneficial to the forest environment. Finally, a

wildfire burning through the current fuel conditions

produces the greatest amount of emission levels and

the most destructive effects.

Under Alternative A, thinning slash shall be piled for

burning. Based on current conditions we expect the

following tons per acre of fuel to be generated by

each of the thinning prescriptions (see Table 7).

Approximately 20 percent of this slash would be left

on the ground to meet Best Management Practices

for soil and watershed health. The balance of the

slash would be piled and the piles would be burned

under conditions meeting air quality standards.

10 The EPA has established NAAQ’s for specific pollutants emitted in significant quantities throughout the country that may be a danger to

public health and welfare. These pollutants are called criteria pollutants. The NAAQ’s are designed to protect human health and the public

welfare. The Clean Air Act defines public welfare effects to include, but not be limited to, “effects on soils, water, crops, vegetation, manmade materials, animals, wildlife, weather, visibility and climate, damage to and deterioration of property, and hazards to transportation, as

well as effects on economic values and on personal comfort and well-being.” If a community or area does not meet or “attain” the standards,

it becomes a non-attainment area and must demonstrate to the public and EPA how it will meet standards in the future. This demonstration

is done through the State Implementation Plan.

11 Designation as a Class 1 area allows only very small increments of new pollution above already existing air pollution levels. Examples

include Congressionally designated wilderness areas.
58 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Piles can be burned during rain and snowstorms

with excellent smoke dispersion and little diurnal12

smoke flow into the canyons. Proper pile burning

consumes a majority of the fuels before atmospheric

cooling begins leaving a small volume of fuel to

produce smoke for nighttime subsidence flows.

Smoke from pile burning may subside into upper

Oak Creek Canyon area. Pile burning immediately

adjacent to subdivisions may cause short-term (1

day) smoke impacts to the subdivision. Public

notification of burning will take place prior to

ignition.

The high levels of recreation activity that occur in

the summer months is not likely to be impacted by

smoke because burning is not likely to occur during

these times. Fire personnel are usually busy with

fire suppression activities in the summer. Hunters

and other people recreating in the project area in the

fall and spring could be impacted by smoke from

burning.

Direct Effects of Broadcast Burning for

Alternative A

The initial broadcast burning of each block in the

Kachina Village Project will generate smoke for as

long as 72 hours after ignition. Successive broadcast burns on a given block (initiated to mimic the 3

to 15-year natural burning cycle) will generate far

less smoke volume and have virtually no smoke after

sunset of ignition day.

Smoke plume trajectories indicate that Kachina

Village, Forest Highlands, I-17, Highway 89A and

the upper portions of Oak Creek Canyon may be

impacted by smoke when burning. Short-term air

quality degradation and reduced visibility may be

experienced in the smoke plume trajectories. After

sunset, cooling atmospheric conditions will carry

smoke down drainages like water flows. Under

Alternative A, these down canyon flows may reach

upper Oak Creek Canyon in the early morning

hours. These nighttime flows may carry smoke

down Kelly or James Canyon and reduce visibility

along portions of I-17 and Highway 89A adjacent to

the project area. These portions will be posted with

appropriate signs warning motorists of reduced

visibility. Ignition of each days block would be

completed in the afternoon, thus limiting the smoke

generated after atmospheric cooling begins.

The highest levels of recreation use occur in these

summer months when broadcast burning is less

likely to occur because fire management personnel

are usually busy doing fire suppression at that time.

Hunters and other people recreating in the project

area may be displaced for a short time due to

burning activities.

Direct Effects of Alternative C

Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, but does not

thin any trees greater than 16-inches dbh. The

difference in Alternative C is difficult to model with

precision, since relatively few trees larger than 16-

inches dbh would be removed under Alternative A

and retained under Alternative C. The amount of

thinning slash generated and the emissions produced by pile burning are only slightly less than

Alternative A (included in Table 7 for Alternative A

Direct Effects).

Direct Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D is similar to Alternative A with the

addition of no trees greater than 18-inches dbh

being thinned. The difference is difficult to model

with precision since relatively few trees larger than

18-inches dbh would be removed under Alternative

A that would be retained under Alternative D. The

amount of thinning slash generated and the emissions produced by pile burning is between

Alternatives C and A (included in Table 7 for Alternative A Direct Effects).

Table 7. Slash Generated for Alternative A.

Thin No Thin Thin No

Thinning Larger Than Between Between Thinning;

Prescription 9-inch dbh 40-120 BA 40-100 BA Burn Only

Approximate Acres 681 2,342 1,781 1,425

Slash Generated Tons/Acre 8 13 14 None generated

12 Occurring during the day
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 59

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects of Alternative E

Table 8 displays the average amount of thinning

slash generated by each prescription of this alternative. The sum of these acres (including the 1,425

acres that are no cut, burn only) would be broadcast

burned and receive recurring maintenance burns.

As in the other action alternatives, approximately 20

percent of this slash would be left on the ground to

meet Best Management Practices for soil and watershed health. The balance of the slash would be piled

and the piles would be burned under conditions

meeting air quality standards.

Broadcast burning could be conducted without

violating air quality regulations, although more

frequent maintenance burning would be necessary.

This causes an increase in the number of individual

days that people may experience the short-term

smoke impacts described under the other action

alternatives.

Indirect Effects of Alternative A

Alternative A has the greatest reduction in crown fire

potential and severe fire behavior over time. The

reduction in the fuel load and the increased openness of the canopy will allow future broadcast

burning under a wider range of weather conditions

than the other alternatives. Having a wider range of

weather conditions in which to burn increases the

ability of burn managers to limit undesirable smoke

impacts.

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

As stated in the existing condition section, the

current fuel and vegetative conditions would be

likely to generate severe fire behavior. The modeling

indicated that a wildfire starting as far as 2 miles

from the residential areas could exceed 1,000 acres.

Modeling also indicated that such a fire would

exceed air quality standards.

Alternative B calls for no action. There would be no

emissions except from wildfires that occur. Should

a wildfire occur, the amount of fuel consumed and

the smoke generated would be geometrically greater

than that of the action alternatives. The resulting

smoke would spread wider and farther than under

controlled burning. Nighttime smoke impacts would

reach farther and be more severe and could impact

the smoke sensitive areas of lower Oak Creek

Canyon. Smoke impacts from a wildfire would

extend for more days and nights than under the

action alternatives.

Should a wildfire occur, there could be bare soil

areas that, when exposed to wind, would continue to

produce air pollutants (ash and dust) until precipitation sealed the surface.

Indirect Effects of Alternative C

The difference in Alternative C is difficult to model

with precision, since relatively few trees larger than

16-inches dbh would be removed under Alternative

A and retained under Alternative C (7,000 trees).

Alternative C is somewhat less effective in preventing

a wildfire that would exceed air quality standards.

The resulting forest condition would allow prescribed burning under a narrower range of weather

conditions than Alternative A.

Indirect Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D may be slightly less effective in reducing crown fire potential and severe fire behavior than

Alternative A and slightly more effective in reducing

crown fire than Alternative C. The difference is

difficult to model with precision, since relatively few

trees larger than 18-inches dbh would be removed

under Alternative A and retained under Alternative

D. The resulting condition would provide a slightly

narrower range of weather conditions appropriate for

burning than Alternative A and a slightly wider

range than Alternative C.

Table 8. Slash Generated for Alternative E.

Thin No Thin Thin No

Thinning Larger Than Between Between Thinning;

Prescription 9-inch dbh 40-120 BA 40-100 BA Burn Only

Approximate Acres 2,475 1,889 439 1,425

Slash Generated Tons/Acre 8 13 14 None generated
60 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E has the least reduction in crown fire

potential and severe fire behavior, but in most

instances it showed improvement over the existing

condition (Alternative B). Emissions from the modelgenerated wildfire in this project area exceeded air

quality standards in both quantity and duration.

This alternative results in a higher percentage of

closed canopies. Prescribed burning weather

conditions would have a considerably narrower

range than the other action alternatives making it

considerably more difficult to prescribe burn without

undesirable smoke impacts. At the same time by

retaining more trees per acre, this alternative would

tend to accumulate forest floor fuels more quickly

than the other action alternatives. This in turn

would require more frequent maintenance burning.

This increases the number of individual days the

airshed is impacted.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

There are many prescribed burning projects that

have occurred or are planned to occur within the

Verde River airshed. However, ADEQ has and will

monitor the amount of acres being burned in each

airshed on each day. ADEQ does not allow acres

burned per day to exceed limits that will lead to

excessive air quality degradation. The cumulative

effect of this project is to add to the list of requested

burn days and increase competition between project

areas for those days.

Burning activities on the Kachina Village Project will

add to the air quality effects of wood burning stoves,

car emissions and other influences from developed

private lands. These cumulative effects are short

term and so the added effect is not significant.

Projects in the immediate vicinity of the Kachina

Village Project include the: Fort Valley Forest

Restoration Project; Mars Hill Fuels Reduction

Project; Arboretum/Naval Observatory Fuels Reduction Project; Airport Fuels Reduction Project; Lake

Mary Fuels Reduction Project; Lake Mary Parcels

Fuels Reduction Project; Skunk Fuels Reduction

Project; and the proposed Kachina Village Forest

Health Project are nearly adjacent to each other. All

of these projects progress toward a forest condition

with less risk of wildfire. The addition of Alternative

A for the Kachina Village Project adds a positive

cumulative effect.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

There are no direct effects to air quality from this

alternative and, therefore, no cumulative effects.

This alternative has a higher risk of high intensity

wildfire that could cumulatively add to other air

quality impacts and cause emissions beyond State

and National standards.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

The cumulative effects of Alternative C are the same

as Alternative A with slightly less reduction in fire

risk than Alternative A and slightly more reduction

in fire risk than Alternative D.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

The cumulative effects of Alternative D are similar to

Alternative A with slightly less reduction in fire risk

than Alternatives A and C.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E has a considerably lower probability

(than the other action alternatives) of preventing a

wildfire that would exceed air quality standards.

Alternative E has a greater probability of preventing

a wildfire than Alternative B. More frequent broadcast burning would be necessary under this

alternative, which has a cumulative effect on implementation of other projects. Requiring more “burn

days” from ADEQ to complete the Kachina Village

Project leaves fewer “burn days” to complete other

fuels reduction burning.

Fire

The objectives related to fire effects, as stated in the

Proposed Action’s Purpose and Need, Chapter 1, are

to:

• Reduce the potential for a large, standreplacing fire in the wildland-urban

interface;

• Increase the resilience of the area to

wildfire;

• Protect wildlife habitat;

• Retain and recruit mature ponderosa pine

trees and gambel oak; and

• Set conditions for the reintroduction of fire

in the ecosystem.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 61

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Each of the action alternatives affects the potential

for a large stand-replacing fire to varying degrees.

The differences of effects in meeting all of the

objectives listed above are largest between Alternative E and the other action alternatives.

Affected Environment

Pumphouse Wash, Kelly Canyon, and James Canyon

transect the project. These drainages contain fuel

and canopy conditions that can generate severe fire

behavior. They also provide slope and wind funneling that increase fire behavior. These drainages are

left untreated under each of the action alternatives

to provide wildlife habitat and travel corridors. The

presence of these drainages and their condition

amplify the importance of fuels treatments above

and in between these drainages.

The fire suppression forces making the initial attack

on wildfires that may occur within the project area

are wildland fire engines. These initial attack forces

can generally take effective suppression action

against wildfires with flame lengths of less than 4

feet. Fires with flame lengths greater than 4 feet

generally require bulldozers and even air tankers. It

might even require an indirect-attack strategy,

which requires considerably more distance and time

to control the fire.

Flame length is also a reliable indicator of fire

intensity and the probability of tree mortality. Hence

it can indicate how effectively each action alternative

meets the other fire-related objectives identified in

the Purpose and Need, Chapter 1.

In the analysis, the Fuel Management Analyst

software was used to model wildfire behavior that

would probably occur after each of the treatments

(PRD 149). Common to each action alternative is a

considerable change in treatment across three areas

of the proposed project. The first area or zone is

within 1 mile of the residential neighborhoods.

Within 1 mile of residential, thinning trees up to 9

inches was compared with thinning to an average of

50 basal area left by Alternatives A, C, and D.

Alternatives C and D differ from Alternative A only

by a 16- and 18-inch diameter restriction, while

Alternative E cuts trees 9 inches or less on a large

portion of the area within 1 mile of the residential

neighborhoods.

The second zone is greater than 1 mile from the

neighborhoods yet north of James Canyon. North of

James Canyon, thinning to an average basal area of

80 (Alternative E) was compared with thinning to an

average basal area of 50 left by Alternatives A, C,

and D.

And the third zone is the area south of James

Canyon where thinning trees 9 inches or less

(Alternative E) was compared with thinning to a 50

basal area (Alternatives A, C, and D).

Direct Effects of Alternative A

Alternative A has the greatest reduction in crown fire

potential and severe fire behavior immediately after

treatment across all three zones (a fire-related

objective). This alternative has the greatest reduction of fire hazard to both the nearby communities

and the forest itself. It provides the greatest canopy

break (assessed in both percent of opening and

distribution of the breaks), the greatest reduction of

fire-laddering fuel, and it is the most effective in

meeting fire-related objectives.

Within 1 mile of the residential neighborhoods, the

flame lengths generated by the model were reduced

from 5.7 feet to 3.5 feet and the probability of large

tree (12 to 20-inch dbh) mortality was reduced from

over 90 percent to less than 20 percent. Farther

than 1 mile, yet north of James Canyon, the model

indicated this alternative would reduce flame

lengths from 7.2 feet to approximately 4 feet and the

probability of tree mortality from over 90 percent to

less than 16 percent. South of James Canyon the

model indicated that this alternative would reduce

flame lengths from 7.2 feet to 3.5 feet and tree

mortality from over 90 percent to less than 16

percent.

Recreation and road management activities will

lessen fire risk in a similar manner for all action

alternatives.

There is no effect from riparian rehabilitation

activities at Kelly Seep.

Direct Effects of Alternative B

There are no direct effects to fire behavior from the

No Action Alternative.

Direct Effects of Alternative C

Alternative C is somewhat less effective in reducing

crown fire potential and severe fire behavior across

the three zones. The reduction in the fuel load

should be as great as Alternative A, although there

would be slightly more canopy-closure and a slightly

greater number of fire-prone trees.
62 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects of Alternative D

Alternative D may be slightly less effective in reducing crown fire potential and severe fire behavior than

Alternative A. Under Alternative D, 2,000 fewer

trees are thinned than Alternative A. The model is

not sensitive enough to discern this small difference

between Alternatives A and D. Therefore, the model

did not indicate any difference in expected flame

length or probability of large tree (12 to 20-inches

dbh) mortality between Alternatives A and D.

Alternative D appears to reduce the fire hazard to

both the nearby communities and the forest itself as

much as Alternative A. Within this project area, it

provides only slightly less canopy break and almost

as much reduction in fire-laddering fuel as Alternative A.

Direct Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E has the least reduction in crown fire

potential and severe fire behavior, but in most

instances it showed improvement over the existing

condition. Within 1 mile of the residential neighborhoods, the flame lengths generated by the model

were not reduced at all (5.7 feet). These flame

lengths would make initial attack difficult and

ineffective.

This alternative proposes an “intensive zone” treatment for a width of 660 feet where the national

forest meets private property. This zone is intended

to mitigate the effects of fire resulting from thinning

trees only up to 9 inches diameter and having higher

canopy closures over the rest of the project area.

Initial attack has been quite effective against fires

starting in such a fuel break. However, on the

Coconino National Forest, a 660-foot-wide fuel break

has not proven to be an effective fire stop against

fires approaching from beyond such a strip. An

illustration is the Slate Fire (1996). An entire strike

team of wildland fire engines was unable to even

slow down the forward spread of the fire at any of

three separate breaks similar to the “intensive zone”

treatment.

Jack Cohen’s research on wildfire-related structure

loss was referenced in comments received in response to the Proposed Action. This research

recommended the “intensive zone approach.”

Cohen’s argument that homeowner’s could take

action to protect their houses is important to those

living in the wildland-urban interface. However, Mr.

Cohen’s research narrowly focuses on “home

ignitability” and the combustion of structures. It

cannot be extrapolated to address the safety of the

adults and children living in a home or working in a

community that is threatened by wildfire.

Research showing that an “intensive zone” treatment

is effective in protecting structures assumes that

emergency response personnel have had enough

time to safely remove all the children and adults

from harm’s way. Consider the time it would take a

local law enforcement agency to gather enough

personnel to control entrance and exits to a threatened neighborhood. Consider the time and

personnel it would take to notify residents and

employees door-to-door. Consider the time it would

take a parent to gather up each of their children

playing out in the woods, over in a friend’s backyard, or who have bicycled down to the

neighborhood store. Alternative E does not treat

enough of the forest to sufficiently reduce the

possibility of a severe fire spreading rapidly to

nearby communities.

Indirect Effects of Alternative A

By reducing the expected fire intensity more than

the other alternatives, Alternative A provides the

most resilience to fire (a fire-related objective). The

reduction in the fuel load and the increased openness of the canopy will allow prescribed burning

under a wider range of weather conditions. This is

extremely important because each of the action

alternatives requires periodic prescribed burning of

the forest floor to maintain the reduction in crown

fire potential and severe fire behavior achieved by

the initial treatment (a fire-related objective).

Having a wider range of weather conditions in which

to burn increases the number of days a prescribed

burn can be executed. The wider range also allows a

greater variety of fire effects as well as reducing

burn costs and smoke impacts.

Alternative A provides a higher degree of habitat

protection (a fire-related objective) by reducing the

probability of tree mortality more than the other

alternatives (induced by both wild and prescribed

fires). By reducing the probability of mortality

among large trees (12 to 20 inches dbh) more than

the other alternatives, this alternative is also most

likely to retain and recruit mature ponderosa pine

trees (a fire-related objective).

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

Alternative B calls for no action. As stated in the

existing condition section, the current fuel and

vegetative conditions would likely generate severe
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 63

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

fire behavior. The modeling indicated considerable

torching and spot fires more than half a mile ahead

of a running crown fire. The forest condition after a

high intensity wildfire would likely not meet management direction in the Forest Plan for a variety of

resources.

The modeling indicated an extremely high occurrence of tree mortality (78 to 98 percent) among

large trees (12 to 20 inches dbh). Modeling also

indicated that a fire starting even as far as 2 miles

from the residential areas could burn through

Kachina Village, cross a 4-lane highway, and

threaten other neighborhoods farther north during

one burning period.

Indirect Effects of Alternative C

The difference in Alternative C is difficult to model

with precision, since relatively few trees larger than

16-inches dbh would be removed under Alternative

A. The model did not indicate any difference in

expected flame length or probability of large tree (12

to 20-inches dbh) mortality between Alternative A

and C. This alternative would allow prescribed

burning under a slightly narrower range of weather

conditions than Alternative A.

Alternative C is similar to Alternative A, but does not

thin trees greater than 16-inches dbh. Those trees

greater than 16 inches targeted for removal under

Alternative A and retained under this alternative

have some canopy characteristic that worsens the

expected fire behavior. This alternative could not

remove: large trees (greater than 16 inches dbh) with

disease or infection that make the tree more prone

to torching; trees greater than 16-inches dbh with

genetic flaws that propagate fire-prone regeneration;

trees greater than 16-inches dbh that bridged a

desired break in the canopy; and trees greater than

16-inches dbh with crown ladders and interlocking

crowns. Adequate canopy breaks are necessary to

reduce crown fire risk

Indirect Effects of Alternative D

With so few trees greater than 18-inches dbh being

removed with Alternative D versus Alternative A, the

model was unable to show any difference in fire

intensity between the two. Therefore, Alternative D

should provide as much resilience to fire. This

alternative is effective in meeting the other firerelated objectives as well.

Modeling in these stands indicated the same probability of tree mortality as Alternative A (induced by

both wild and prescribed fires). Therefore, Alternative D should provide as high a degree of habitat

protection as Alternative A (a fire-related objective).

With the same probability of mortality among large

trees (12 to 20-inches dbh), this alternative is as

likely as Alternative A to retain and recruit mature

ponderosa pine trees (a fire-related objective) with a

few more mature ponderosa pine possibly killed by

fire.

Alternative D would allow prescribed burning under

a wide range of weather conditions. Each of the

action alternatives requires periodic prescribed

burning of the forest floor to maintain the reduction

in crown fire potential and severe fire behavior

achieved by the initial treatment (a fire-related

objective). The wider range also allows a greater

variety of fire effects as well as reducing burn costs

and smoke impacts

Alternative D is similar to Alternative A, but does not

thin trees greater than 18-inches dbh. Those trees

greater than 18-inches dbh retained would have

some canopy characteristics that worsen expected

fire behavior. This alternative could not remove:

large trees (greater than 18-inches dbh) with disease

or infection that make the tree more prone to

torching; trees with genetic flaws that propagate fireprone regeneration; and trees greater than

18-inches dbh with crown ladders and interlocking

crowns. This thinning restriction would also interfere with creating adequate canopy breaks in some

locations.

The probability that a mistletoe-infected tree (retained because it is greater than 18-inches dbh)

could infect other trees within spore-transport

distance is a difference from Alternative A, since a

mistletoe-infected stand is much more flammable.13

The other canopy characteristics do not appear to

considerably worsen the expected fire behavior

because of the small number of trees greater than

18-inches dbh targeted for removal under Alternative A.

Indirect Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E would fail to meet other fire-related

objectives within 1 mile of the residential neighborhoods, since flame lengths and fire intensity

generated by the model were not reduced from the

existing condition due to the high number of sites

13 Mistletoe creates dense branches sometimes referred to as “witches broom”.
64 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Flame Length That

 Initiates Crownfire

Probability of Mortality

 12" dbh (%)

Probability of Mortality

 14" dbh (%)

Probability of Mortality

 16" dbh (%)

Probability of Mortality

 18" dbh (%)

Probability of Mortality

 20" dbh (%)

Within 1 Mile of Residential

335 15 Existing 8 5.7 5.1 Passive Crown 98 96 95 91 78

9-inch limit 15 5.7 7.9 Surface 98 96 95 91 78

50 BA 15 3.5 7.9 Surface 17 12 9 7 5

336 5 Existing 9 5.7 5.6 Passive Crown 97 93 86 31 60

9-inch limit 15 5.7 7.9 Surface 97 93 86 31 60

50 BA 35 3.5 14.2 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

North of James Canyon

344 4 Existing 16 7.2 8.3 Surface 98 96 95 94 92

80 BA 24 4.1 10.9 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

50 BA 24 4.4 10.9 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

344 10 Existing 14 7.2 7.5 Surface 98 96 95 94 92

80 BA 22 4.1 10.3 Surface 21 12 9 7 5

50 BA 24 3.5 10.9 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

344 19 Existing 18 4.4 9.0 Surface 28 14 10 7 5

80 BA 27 3.5 11.9 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

50 BA 30 2.5 12.8 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

South of James Canyon

354 8 Existing 13 7.2 7.2 Passive Crown 98 96 95 90 84

9-inch limit 20 7.2 9.6 Surface 98 96 95 90 84

50 BA 30 3.5 12.8 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

354 10 Existing 8 7.2 5.1 Active Crown 98 96 95 90 84

9-inch limit 13 7.2 7.2 Pass Crown 98 96 95 90 84

50 BA 12 3.5 6.8 Surface 16 12 9 7 5

Table 9. Fuels Management Analysis1

Location2

Site3

Treatment Effective Canopy Base Ht.

Flame Length

 Generated by Model

Fire Type

Generated By

Model

1 The Fuels Management Analysis for the Kachina Village Forest Health Project was conducted using the Fuels Management Analyst Program

(PRD 149).

2 The location, previously called compartment, is a grouping of stands.

3 A site is a stand of trees.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 65

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

with a 9-inch diameter limit. The probability of large

tree (12 to 20 inches dbh) mortality would remain

very high at over 90 percent. However, the flame

length would be increased to 7.9 feet by this alternative (within this northern zone) which would

increase the likelihood of a wildfire moving into the

tree crowns. Prescribed burning weather conditions

would have a considerably narrower range than the

other action alternatives provide.

Farther than 1 mile, yet north of James Canyon, the

model indicated Alternative E would reduce flame

lengths from 7.2 feet to approximately 4 feet and the

probability of tree mortality from 90(+) percent to

16(-) percent for a wildfire originating in this zone.

Within this zone, the model indicated the only

considerable difference in tree mortality between the

action alternatives was among trees less than 12-

inches dbh. Alternative E leaves a higher degree of

closed canopy (in this middle zone) that could

increase tree group torching and spotting.

Only within this middle zone does Alternative E

come close to Alternative A in meeting each of the

fire-related objectives. Within this middle zone, the

reduction in the fuel load and the increased openness of the canopy would allow prescribed burning

under as wide a range of weather conditions as

Alternative A and probably a wider range than

Alternatives C or D.

South of James Canyon, the model indicated that

Alternative E would not reduce flame lengths from

7.2 feet nor would it decrease tree mortality from

over 90 percent. The model indicated that a fire

occurring in this zone after Alternative E was

applied would almost certainly produce multiple

spot fires in Kelly and James Canyons. Fires in

these canyons would, in turn, generate severe fire

behavior, spotting over long distances, and threatening several communities to the north. Within this

southernmost zone, the probability of tree mortality

would remain over 90 percent in all size classes.

Prescribed burning weather conditions would have a

considerably narrower range within this zone than

the other action alternatives. Therefore, Alternative

E would fail to meet several of the fire-related

objectives within this southern zone.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

Wildfires in the wildland-urban interface place

particularly high demands on emergency response

personnel. Such a fire threatens multiple structures

and multiple groups of people in a very short span of

time. Firefighting resources must be deployed to

protect the people and properties that lie in the fire’s

path, as well as to extinguish the fire. This complex

situation not only leaves fewer firefighters to suppress the wildfire, but also fewer firefighters to

respond to unrelated medical emergencies and

structure fires that normally occur within urban

settings.

Fuel reduction treatments within the wildland-urban

interface should reduce expected fire behavior to a

level at which a small number of response personnel

can quickly and effectively control a wildfire.

Accumulating fuel treatments over a greater area is

beneficial, reducing the possibility that a wildfire

can get established, and reducing the intensity with

which a wildfire can burn. Each of these fuel

treatments in the Flagstaff area has the cumulative

effect of reducing the total number of acres through

which a fire can spread virulently. The cumulative

effect of this alternative further reduces the probability that the demand on emergency response

personnel will be exceeded.

The following list shows projects from the recent

past, and present that occur within the Flagstaff

wildland-urban interface14 and in the vicinity of the

Kachina Village Project. It includes those listed in

the introduction of this chapter, as well as additional projects around Flagstaff and its

communities. Other projects, not described in detail

here, have occurred farther in the past and contributed to current forest conditions. All acres are

approximate.

• Fort Valley Restoration Project (5,000

acres)

• A-1 Ecosystem Management Project (2,500

acres)

• Mars Hill Fuels Reduction Project (500

acres)

• Arboretum/Naval Observatory Fuels

Reduction Project (600 acres)

• Airport Fuels Reduction Project (1,000

acres)

• Lake Mary Fuels Reduction Project (1,800

acres)

• Skunk Fuels Reduction Project (500 acres)

14 The Fire Management Analysis Zone 1U was used to identify these projects in the wildland-urban interface.
66 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale (750

acres)

• Elden Fuels Reduction Project (100 acres)

• Townsend Winona Fuels Reduction Project

(300 acres)

One formal proposed action exists for a future fuels

reduction project at this time. The Oak Creek

Canyon Fuels Reduction Project is a proposal to

develop a comprehensive fire management plan to

reduce fuels in Oak Creek Canyon. Acres are unknown at this time.

On State Section 26 (1/2 of the section) a pulpwood

sale of less than 12-inch diameter trees occurred 5

years ago. Currently slash piles exist on this

section. Future planned activities on Section 26 are

to re-pile and burn the existing slash piles, conduct

pre-commercial thinning, continue to allow livestock

grazing, and finish filling in a rock pit. Trees are

marked for pre-commercial thinning; however, there

are currently no funds to carryout the thinning and

pile burning on Section 26 (Paijkos personal communication, 2001).

The above listed projects tend to link fuel treatments

that are nearly adjacent to each other. Each of

these fuel treatments in the Flagstaff area has the

cumulative effect of reducing the total number of

acres through which a fire can spread virulently.

The Kachina Village Project adds to these effects and

further reduces the probability that the demand on

emergency response personnel will be exceeded. The

reduction in risk of high intensity wildfire cumulatively reduces the deleterious effects of such a fire

on the landscape.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

The absence of an effective fuel treatment under this

alternative would prevent it from accumulating the

benefits of reduced fire hazard in conjunction with

other fuel treatment projects. The No Action Alternative actually reduces the benefits of other nearby

fuels treatment projects by leaving a high fire hazard

area, analogous to a hole in the layer of protection

around Flagstaff.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative C

The cumulative effects of Alternative C are similar to

Alternative A except there is a slightly smaller

reduction in the risk of high intensity crown fire as a

result of trees retained in this alternative that would

have been removed under Alternative A (7,000

trees).

Cumulative Effects of Alternative D

The cumulative effects of Alternative D are similar to

Alternative A.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

For the reasons stated in the narrative above,

Alternative E does not sufficiently reduce the possibility of a severe fire spreading rapidly to nearby

communities. The fuel treatments proposed for the

northern and southern zones under Alternative E

would not accumulate as much fire hazard reduction in conjunction with other fuel treatment

projects. This alternative actually reduces the

benefits of other nearby fuels treatment projects by

leaving a high fire hazard area in the layer of protection around Flagstaff.

Vegetation

Affected Environment

The vegetation on the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project is comprised mostly of younger ponderosa

pine (blackjacks) of various densities, associated

with Arizona fescue (Festuca arizonica) and mountain muhly (Muhlenbergia montana) in the

understory. Existing older ponderosa pine (yellow

pine) are scattered throughout as individuals and

small groups but are not numerous in most places.

There is quite a bit of Gambel oak in the southern

part of the project and the steeper slopes of James

and Kelly Canyons have a good component of

Douglas-fir, especially on the north-facing slopes.

Riparian species and conditions exist in the bottom

of the canyons. Because of the moderate to heavy

canopy cover and density of much of the project

area, grasses/forbs and understory shrubs are not

in good condition. The underlying parent material is

limestone in the northern part of the project area

and basalt with areas of sandstone in the rest of the

area.

Most of the area, even portions of the steeper

canyons, was heavily logged in the railroad-logging

era of the late 1800’s to the early 1900’s. It was not

unusual to take every usable tree for railroad ties

and mining props, as well as lumber—maybe leaving

a few blackjacks as seed trees. The mature yellow

pine we have today are very likely those leave trees

that were left 80 to 100 years ago. These conditions,

in conjunction with heavy grazing from sheep and

cattle in the early 1900’s, and an unusually heavy

ponderosa pine cone crop and optimum moisture
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 67

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

patterns in 1919, resulted in very heavy pine regeneration. The increased density in the 70 to 80-year

blackjack pine (approximately 7 to 14 inches in

diameter—or poles and mid-aged trees) that we have

today is a direct result of that heavy regeneration.

The present age class distribution and density (acres

and percent of the total area) of ponderosa pine in

the Kachina Village Project area are displayed in

Table 10.

There are also 42 acres (0.5 percent of the area) of

grass/shrubs and 2,703 acres of private and State

Trust Land within the project area. The above data

show that 86 percent of the trees (primarily ponderosa pine) are between 5 to 18-inches dbh (poles and

mid-aged). Approximately 93 percent of the project

area is moderate to heavy in density. These classifications and acres were derived from stands where

each stand was inventoried and assigned an age

class and density description (Vegetation Structural

Stage or VSS). It should be noted that most stands

have more than one age class category—the most

common occurrence being primarily pole or midaged stands in denser groups with less groups or

smaller groups and individuals of mature or oldgrowth included. Also, the arrangement among

trees tends to be random or grouped, not homogeneous. The classification for the stand represents

the most common age group within that stand.

Much of the project area has small groups of

Gambel oak scattered throughout, usually of smaller

diameter stems up to about 10-inches dbh. Some of

these groups are growing in small openings of their

own and growing fine, but many are being crowded

and overtopped by larger ponderosa pine which

tends to suppress their growth.

Dwarf mistletoe occurs on ponderosa pine throughout the area in patches. While it can be severe in

individual patches and cause or contribute to tree

mortality, it does not seem to be a serious problem

over the entire area. Tree mortality caused by bark

beetles due to physiological stress from very dense

conditions and competition among trees will continue. Currently, this mortality occurs in individual

trees or small pockets scattered throughout the

denser stands. To date, mortality caused by bark

beetles has not caused serious problems, but it has

slightly increased from year to year since we first

noticed it about 10 years ago. This mortality adds to

the existing fuel loading of the stand and may create

small openings within the stand if enough trees are

killed. In addition, current dense stand conditions

contain the potential for larger scale mortality from

bark beetles.

Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) is the computer

model used to project various stand parameters into

the future for a given alternative. The original data

came from compartment exam data and reflect

stand averages. The modeled treatment is somewhat

different than what will

actually occur on the

ground. Stands chosen for

on-the-ground treatment are

generally overtopped and

smaller. Trees are grouped

by cutting small corridors or

openings between groups,

while the larger trees are

retained. Smaller diameter

trees are retained if they are

growing vigorously with

good growth characteristics.

A larger diameter tree may

be cut in place of a smaller

one if the larger tree has

some flawed growth characteristic, dwarf-mistletoe

infection, or has been

attacked by bark beetles.

Enough trees are cut to

leave a desired density to

meet certain objectives such

Table 10. The Present Age Class Distribution and Density, by Number of

Acres and Percent of Project Area, for Ponderosa Pine (Pinus

ponderosa).

Age Class Number of Acres Percent of Project Area

Seedlings/Saplings 385 5

Poles 4,761 62

Mid-aged 1,867 24

Mature 449 6

Old-growth 210 3

Total 7,672 100

Density

Open canopy 0-39% (Canopy A) 498 6

Medium canopy 40-59% (Canopy B) 3,302 43

Dense canopy 60%+ (Canopy C) 3,872 50

Total 7,672 100
68 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

as the promotion of better growth and

vigor among residual trees, reduction of

the impact of dwarf-mistletoe, promotion

of grass/forb development in the understory, or reduction of the risk of crown

fires. These densities can, and often do,

vary throughout a stand. This is complex

and fairly difficult to model. This particular model is spatially independent, which

means that it cannot model the complexities of groups, small openings, or variable

spacing between trees. FVS assumes that

the trees are spaced homogenously

throughout the stand. It is also difficult to

model different density objectives within a

stand. However, the model can be useful

in comparing alternatives and projecting

future conditions as long as we remember

these limitations and look at trends rather

than the veracity of a particular number.

The growth rates for given densities are

realistic. Table 11 displays certain stand

parameters taken from seven selected

stands through time. These growth

simulations are based on the assumption

that stands are treated initially under each

alternative. However, no further treatments are conducted because this analysis

is measuring the effects of only this entry.

Table 11 displays growth for seven selected stands as modeled by the FVS.

Our experience from observations at

Taylor Woods shows that we can maintain

a healthy grass/forb component within a forest

stand measuring up to about 60 square feet of basal

area. Grasses and forbs decline considerablely

underneath the tree canopy from 60 to 80 sq. ft. of

basal area, and are barely present in the understory

with basal areas above 80 sq. ft. For the Kachina

Village Forest Health Project, this means we have a

healthy grass/forb component on only about 6 to 7

percent of the entire area as an average. Since we

are using stand averages, there may be slightly more

than this amount in small openings overall, but not

a great deal. This is in stark contrast to historical

reference conditions where approximately 85 to 90

percent of the area had a thriving grass/forb community present. Since there are approximately 140

or so species of grasses, forbs, sedges, and shrubs

from research conducted by NAU on their Centennial Forest (personal conversation Margaret Moore,

NAU) compared to only 3 or 4 tree species, the

amount of grass understory has some serious

implications for both the amount and composition of

native biodiversity.

Even with broadcast burning occurring, some pine

seedlings may establish over time. However, the

overall percentage of VSS 2 (seedlings and saplings)

is not expected to change over time. In order to

accurately display the differences between alternatives for the larger diameter material, predicted

regeneration after treatment was not considered.

This allowed the model to focus on the differences

between alternatives of the larger size trees.

Direct Effects of Alternative A

The treatments of Alternative A will shift the average

age/diameter class from young-aged forest, 9 to

11.9-inches dbh (62 percent of the analysis area) to

mid-aged forest, 12 to 17.9-inches dbh (57 percent

of the area). The computer model shows the average

diameter to increase from 7.2 inches in Alternative B

(No Action) to 12.7 inches in Alternative A, directly

after cut (see Table 11). This is entirely due to

mathematical averages as smaller trees are removed

and larger trees remain. The treatments will also

Table 11. Growth for Seven Selected Stands. (Growth was

modeled by Forest Vegetation Simulator (FVS) for a period of 49

years based on five alternative treatment regimes.)

Year Per Trees Basal QMD TPA

Alternative Per Acre Area (ft2) (inches) 24+ inches

2000

Alt. B 228 149 7.2 0.9

Alt. A 115 83 12.7 0.9

Alt. C 114 86 12.8 0.9

Alt. D 115 84 12.7 0.9

Alt. E 143 111 12.7 0.9

2019

Alt. B 221 176 8.3 1.4

Alt. A 110 107 14.4 2.1

Alt. C 109 110 14.3 2.1

Alt. D 110 108 14.4 2.1

Alt. E 136 135 14.0 1.8

2049

Alt. B 210 210 9.6 2.7

Alt. A 103 136 16.9 6.6

Alt. C 102 139 16.7 6.8

Alt. D 103 137 16.8 6.7

Alt. E 128 166 16.1 4.4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 69

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

reduce overall density from 50 percent of the area in

“C” canopy closure to 16 percent of the area in “C”

canopy closure. Correspondingly, the “A” canopy

closure will increase in acres from 6 percent before

the treatment to 32 percent after the thinning.

Reducing the overall density in Alternative A (Proposed Action) has the most effects. This alternative

will reduce competition among all tree species,

allowing increased growth rates for oak as well as

pine and, therefore, more vigorous conditions. Oak

tends to be suppressed by pine, so the oak will

immediately respond beneficially from removal of

pines that overtop them. More vigorous conditions

allow individual pine trees to better withstand bark

beetle attacks. The more open stands reduce the

trees physiological stress. Finally, focusing the

thinning on the smaller trees (thinning from below)

will dramatically reduce the fuel laddering conditions that contribute to destructive crown fires. The

amount of thinning and creation/enhancement of

forest openings will break up the heavy canopy

closure, and improve understory, also reducing fire

risk conditions.

More open conditions allow for more grasses, forbs,

and shrubs to grow which can increase the number

and amount of biodiversity and be beneficial to

many wildlife species. The rehabilitation actions at

Kelly Seep also contribute to biodiversity.

There are no direct effects to vegetation from recreation and road management activities as proposed.

Short-term effects to ground cover from broadcast

burning are described in the soil and water section

below.

Direct Effects of Alternative B

There are no direct effects from Alternative B (No

Action).

Direct Effects of Alternatives C and D

These two alternatives are the same as Alternative A

(we will still treat the same 4,804 acres) except that

we will not cut any trees that are 16-inches dbh or

greater in Alternative C and 18-inches dbh or

greater in Alternative D.

Under Alternative C, approximately 7,000 fewer

trees will be cut, compared to Alternative A (Proposed Action). This restriction will change the VSS

class of only three stands, resulting in no difference

in VSS classes and very slight differences (1 percent)

in crown canopy closures (density). On these three

stands there were enough larger trees cut that

Alternative C would change the density from an A

canopy (less than 40 percent crown canopy closure)

to a B canopy (40 to 60 percent crown canopy

closure). The amount of difference between Alternative A and Alternative C is small. Also, the VSS

categories have a wide range of inclusion. Small

differences often do not show up in the VSS categories unless they occur right at the breaking points

between categories. Under Alternative D, approximately 2,000 fewer trees will be cut than Alternative

A.

One of the project objectives is to manage for 10

percent of the area in small openings. To accomplish this, there is a need to enlarge some existing

small openings. The intent is to remove smaller

diameter trees whenever possible, but it may be

necessary to cut an occasional larger tree and

limiting trees cut to less than 16 inches or 18 inches

may hinder this effort. This is especially evident for

Alternative C where the estimated percent of openings drops from 10 percent in Alternative A to 5

percent in Alternative C.

Also, both bark beetles and dwarf mistletoe are

present in the project area and have caused mortality in larger sized ponderosa pine individually and in

small groups. There is more flexibility to treat the

occasional outbreak of bark beetle or mistletoe if

trees 16 or 18 inches or over can be removed as

needed for this purpose. Under Alternatives C and

D there is less flexibility to accomplish bark beetle

and mistletoe treatment.

Direct Effects of Alternative E

Treatments in Alternative E will result in average

diameters greater than Alternative B, but not as

much as Alternative A over 50 years (9.6-inches dbh

for Alternative B; 16.1-inches dbh for Alternative E;

and 16.9-inches dbh for Alternative A). The computer model shows the average diameter to increase

from 7.2 inches in Alternative B to 12.7 inches in

Alternative E (as well as Alternative A) immediately

after treatment. This is entirely due to mathematical averages as smaller trees are removed and larger

trees are retained. The alternative treatments will

immediately shift the average age/diameter class

from young forest, 5 to 11.9-inches dbh (62 percent

of the existing structure) to mid-aged forest, 12 to

17.9-inches dbh (44 percent of the area after treatment). Likewise, treatments will reduce density

from 50 percent (Alternative B) to 31 percent in

Alternative E for the “C” canopy closure, but not as

much as the 16 percent for Alternative A. Because
70 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the cuts in Alternative E are not as heavy as the

cuts in Alternative A, the effects lie between Alternative B and Alternative A, and the resulting benefits

of increased tree growth and vigor are about half of

Alternative A.

Alternative E accomplishes only about half of the

oak release that would occur in Alternatives A, C

and D. Grass/forb establishment will be helped

about twofold (the “A” crown canopy closure increases from 6 percent to 12 percent), but not as

much as for Alternative A (the “A” crown canopy

closure increases from 6 percent to 32 percent, or

fivefold). Therefore, native biodiversity in the

grasses/forbs and shrubs will benefit about twice as

much as Alternative B but not quite half as much as

with Alternative A. Limiting tree removal to 9 inches

and less on certain stands will hinder the creation of

10 percent of the area in openings.

Indirect Effects of Alternative A

The computer model suggests that Alternative A will

achieve twice the growth at half the mortality over

Alternative B (No Action) over time. Also, we will

have over twice the number of large-sized trees

(24+/- inches dbh) after 50 years than Alternative B.

The reduction of competition and stress and promotion of vigorous growing conditions within the

stands greatly reduces the risk of serious bark

beetle mortality.

Alternative A would reduce the pole-size age class by

more than 35 percent and the dense canopy closure

by more than 34 percent. Therefore, stand susceptibility would be reduced compared with Alternative B

(No Action).

Pine regeneration will result from the created

openings and broadcast burns, but plans to conduct

broadcast burns over time will kill most of the pine

seedlings, maintaining a primarily 2-aged older

stand structure.

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

Pine trees will continue to grow at slow rates,

averaging about 0.3 to 0.4-inches diameter growth

per decade.

Current stand structures are characterized by a

high degree of fuel laddering, with smaller, overtopped trees and a large amount of closed and

continuous canopy closure (over 93 percent of the

project area has either very dense or moderately

dense canopy closure). This will continue and even

increase over time, contributing to undesirable fire

risk conditions.

The indirect effects of having so much of an area in

high density stand conditions has some major

implications from a forest health aspect due to

potential mortality from bark beetles. Several

species of bark beetles affect ponderosa pine on the

Coconino National Forest, with the most important

being the western pine beetle and pine engraver

beetles (Ips spp.). These agents are among the most

important mortality agents affecting ponderosa pine.

Outbreaks of the western pine beetle are mostly

associated with relatively dense, mature pine forests

and are often precipitated by drought. Pine engraver

beetles prefer to breed in fresh pine debris, but

under certain conditions will attack living trees,

typically smaller diameter trees or tops of larger

trees. The western pine beetle targets dense stands

also. Historically, frequent fire regimes in the

ponderosa pine forests may have limited bark beetle

populations by maintaining stands in an open

condition. In the absence of fire or other stand

disturbance, susceptibility to bark beetles will

increase over time, especially if drought conditions

continue.

Analysis of existing conditions (Alternative B)

consisted of using current stand variables to develop

hazard ratings of bark beetles attacking ponderosa

pine. The hazard rating system was previously

adapted by Jill L. Wilson, former entomologist with

the Arizona Zone Entomology and Pathology Office,

from the rating system developed by Munsen and

Anhold (Chojnacky et al., 2000). The rating method

requires stand measurements of basal area, average

ponderosa pine diameter at breast height (dbh), and

the proportion of ponderosa pine in the canopy.

Although this hazard rating system was originally

developed for mountain pine beetle, it has been

transferred to other Dendroctonus bark beetles

attacking ponderosa pine.

Based on the current stand data, all compartments

have composite stand values in the moderate to high

hazard categories. Of the 43 stands analyzed, 30

are in the high hazard category, 13 in the moderate

category, and none in the low category. Furthermore, all compartments had at least 50 percent of

stands in the high category. Therefore, it can be

concluded that much of the analysis area is moderately to highly susceptible to bark beetle attack. (See

Table 12.)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 71

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The amount of tree mortality varies considerably

during bark beetle infestations. Sometimes only a

few groups of trees are attacked and killed, but in

other situations literally thousands of pine trees can

be killed. Within severely impacted areas, Ips

populations in central Arizona have killed up to 176

trees per acre and nearly all tree size classes were

affected (Parker, 1991). Roundheaded pine beetle

outbreaks in New Mexico and Arizona have resulted

in basal area reductions ranging from 25 to more

than 50 percent (Negrón et al., 2000). Mortality

caused by the western pine beetle typically has been

limited to small pockets of ponderosa pine within

the recent history of Arizona, but has the potential

to cause extensive mortality (DeMars and

Roettgering, 1982).

Factors that influence the amount of mortality are

not well understood, but factors contributing to

more severe outbreaks include extensive stands of

susceptible hosts, extended periods of drought or

other favorable climatic conditions, and consecutive

years of creating slash within adjacent areas.

Indirect Effects of Alternatives C and D

Differences between Alternatives C and D and

Alternative A are not measurable in terms of improved growth, number of trees 24 inches in

diameter or greater, and a reduced mortality over

time. Long-term effects on the reduction of susceptibility to bark beetle infestation are the same for

Alternatives C and D as for Alternative A.

Indirect Effects of Alternative E

Growth rates and individual tree vigor is greater

than Alternative B, but only about half as much as

Alternative A. In regards to bark beetle susceptibility, there are slight differences between the effects of

Alternative E and Alternatives A, C, and D. More

acreage would be retained in the pole-size age class

and there would be less acreage in the mid-aged to

mature age classes in Alternative E compared with

the other action alternatives. Crown canopy density

distribution under Alternative E retains 85 percent

of the area in B and C canopy densities, where

Alternatives A and D maintain 60 percent and

Alternative C, 61 percent. There would be a considerable reduction in both the pole-size age class and

the dense canopy compared with Alternative B.

Therefore, Alternative E also would reduce stand

susceptibility to bark beetle attack compared with

Alternative B.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative A

The projects discussed here are immediately adjacent to the Kachina Village Project area. This is

because a tree removed from one location only

affects the trees immediately surrounding it. The

effects of reducing tree densities and, thereby,

increasing tree vigor are additive to the lessening of

the possiblility of large scale mortality from fire,

insects or disease across the larger landscape. This

effect occurs in areas surrounding the project area,

unlike fire effects which look at the wildland-urban

interface.

Many past projects and management activities have

shaped the current conditions as described in the

affected environment part of this section. The

majority of acreage in the Kachina project and

adjacent areas (Swinging Timber Sale around

Mountainaire, Newman Timber Sale directly to the

east of the Kachina Project area, and the Woody area

to the west) support high densities of ponderosa

pine, usually in excess of 120 basal area. The

Swinging and Newman Sales were treated about 10

to 12 years ago with a relatively light cut. While

Table 12. Composite Stand Hazard Rating Value.

Location Ponderosa Average Stand Composite

(Compartment Pine DBH Basal Area Stand Hazard

Number) Percent (inches) (ft2/ac) Values Rating

335 3 2.5 3 8.5 High

336 3 2.25 2.25 7.5 Moderate

344 3 2 2.55 7.55 Moderate

345 3 2 2.8 7.8 Moderate

354 3 2.17 2.33 7.5 Moderate

368 3 2.4 2.6 8.0 High

Total 3 2.22 2.59 7.8 Moderate
72 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

helping reduce overall density somewhat, there are

still extensive areas of high density pine stands

present. The Woody area to the west has not been

treated for at least 20 years.

Recent past projects adjacent to the Kachina Village

Project area are the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale and tree removal within the easement

fences of Highway 89A. The northern part of the

project area was recently logged in the Pumphouse

Timber Sale in 1998/99. This sale harvested

selected trees 5-inches dbh and greater, and was a

relatively light cut, thinning from below. Some of

the units had precommercial thinning (cutting

selected trees between 1 and 5-inches dbh) associated with them. A total (both pre-commercial and

commercial thinning) of 1,359 acres were treated

under the Pumphouse Timber Sale.

The Kachina Village Project adds to the above

mentioned projects to lessen the possibility of

landscape scale mortality from insects and disease.

The effect of reduced crown closures and subsequent increase in herbaceous vegetation is additive

to the same effect in the above mentioned projects.

This increase is fairly slight for all areas. The faster

increase in diameter growth over time due to thinning will add to a similar effect in the above

mentioned projects, and offset the lack of large trees

in untreated areas.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

The potential for bark beetle outbreaks is additive to

the same potential in dense stands that occur within

portions of the surrounding landscape.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives C and D

Cumulative effects are similar to Alternative A.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E will help in reducing bark beetle

susceptibility over a larger area, but not as much as

Alternative A (Proposed Action). The stand densities

and canopy closures will grow back more quickly

than other action alternatives and, in conjunction

with adjoining areas, will still present a relatively

dense pine structure and closed canopy conditions

across a large area if no other actions are taken.

Few openings will be created, so there is little

increase in herbaceous vegetation.

Soil and Water Quality

Affected Environment

The Kachina Fuels Reduction Project is located in

the Oak Creek 5th code watershed acres. The project

area is also located in two 6th code watersheds: Fry

Canyon (618 project acres) and Pumphouse Wash

(7,097 project acres). Major drainages within the

area include Fry Canyon, Pumphouse Wash, James

Canyon, and Kelly Canyon. All of these drainages

are ancillary to Oak Creek. Elevations range from

approximately 6,800 feet in the northern portion of

the project area to approximately 6,300 feet in the

far western portion of the project area.

The majority of runoff occurs during the fall and

winter months (October to April). Snowmelt from

late February to mid-May produces most of the

runoff. Occasional winter frontal storms also

produce runoff from heavy or prolonged rain events.

Very little runoff occurs during the months of midMay to October.

Fourteen terrestrial ecosystem survey map units

exist within the project area. Each unit describes an

area with similar slope, vegetation, climate, and

physical soil properties. The survey contains

predictions and limitations of soil and vegetation

behavior for selected land uses. It also highlights

hazards or capabilities inherent in the soil and the

impact of selected uses on the environment. For

example, erosion hazard is predicted based on

relative susceptibility of the soil to erosion when

vegetation and litter are removed. A slight rating

indicates that all vegetative ground cover (vegetation

basal area and litter) could be removed from the site

and resulting soil loss will not exceed tolerance soil

loss rates. A moderate rating indicates that predicted rates of soil loss would result in a reduction

of site productivity if left unchecked. Reasonable

mitigation measures can be applied to reduce or

eliminate soil loss. A severe rating indicates that

predicted rates of soil loss have a high probability of

reducing site productivity (USDA Forest Service

1992). Following is a brief description of the map

units located within the project.

• Map Unit 53: Landform - Valley Plains (63

acres). This component is unsuited for

timber production but is well suited to

forage production. Soil condition is

impaired, resulting from historic livestock

grazing and current elk grazing.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 73

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Map Unit 55: Landform - Valley Plains (16

acres). This component is unsuited for

timber production but is well suited to

forage production. Soil condition is unsatisfactory, resulting from historic livestock

grazing and current elk grazing.

• Map Unit 60: Landform - Valley Plains (59

acres). This component occurs in the

lower portion of Fry Canyon and is the

riparian flood plain.

• Map Unit 471: Landform - Sandstone/

Limestone Escarpments (65 acres). Steep

slopes and surface rock fragments limit

most management activities. Soil condition is inherently unstable and erosion

hazard is severe.

• Map Unit 536: Landform - Elevated Plain

(198 acres). This component has a moderate erosion hazard. Maintenance of

vegetative ground cover is essential to

prevent sheet and rill erosion. Natural

regeneration and re-vegetation potentials

are high.

• Map Unit 546: Landform - Elevated Plain

(1,290 acres). This component has a slight

erosion hazard. Natural regeneration and

re-vegetation potentials are high. Potential

productivity is higher than expected due to

higher than normal precipitation.

• Map Unit 550: Landform - Elevated Plain

(241 acres). This component has a moderate erosion hazard. Maintenance of

vegetative ground cover is essential to

prevent sheet and rill erosion.

• Map Unit 555: Landform - Escarpments

(1,261 acres). Due to its northern aspect

and cooler, moister conditions, this component supports a mixed conifer climax

community. This component has a moderate erosion hazard. Maintenance of

vegetative ground cover is essential to

prevent sheet and rill erosion.

• Map Unit 570: Landform - Elevated Plain

(816 acres). This component has a slight

erosion hazard and is well suited to timber

productivity.

• Map Unit 575: Landform - Escarpment (7

acres). This component has a severe

erosion hazard. Maintenance of vegetative

ground cover is essential to prevent sheet

and rill erosion.

• Map Unit 578: Landform - Elevated Plain

(196 acres). This component has a slight

erosion hazard. Upon removal of overstory, juniper and oak may offer

considerable plant competition.

• Map Unit 582: Landform - Elevated Plain

(2,887 acres). This component has a slight

erosion hazard. Natural regeneration and

re-vegetation potentials are high.

• Map Unit 584: Landform - Hills-Scarp

Slopes of Plains (683 acres). This component has a moderate to severe erosion

hazard depending on slope. Maintenance

of vegetative ground cover is essential to

prevent sheet and rill erosion.

• Map Unit 585: Landform - Elevated Plains

(353 acres). Shallow soils and surface rock

fragments limit most management activities.

Forest roads affect site productivity in the roadbed

and log landing area by removing and displacing

topsoil, altering soil properties (compaction), changing microclimate, and accelerating erosion. Forest

roads take land out of production by removing trees

and displacing soil or removing soil during building

and maintaining. Currently, approximately 36 miles

of classified forest road and 37 miles of private road

exist within the project area. At an average width of

20 feet, the road network covers an estimated 177

acres, or 1.7 percent of the 10,417-acre project area.

Unproductive national forest land due to roads is 87

acres, or 1.1 percent of forest land within the area.

Most of these roads will require some degree of

maintenance for project activities. This total is low

enough as to not affect overall watershed health.

Site-specific instances of erosion occur in some

places of the road system.

Compacted forest road surfaces tend to intercept

precipitation from rainfall and runoff from adjacent

areas, concentrating flow and essentially increasing

drainage efficiency and runoff quantity. Depending

on the landscape position of forest roads, surface

erosion from road surfaces and ditches may have

the effect of introducing above background sediment

input to streams. Roads adjacent to, or frequently

crossing stream channels, have a higher likelihood

of introducing sediment to stream channels than

those located on ridgetops or mid-slopes. At least in

the Northwest, it is believed that most of the sediment from timber harvest activities is related to

roads and road building. With the exception of the

canyons, the Kachina Village Forest Health Project
74 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

area is relatively flat and not

prone to mass soil failure, as is

documented in the Northwest.

The basalt soils in the project

area are fairly resistant to erosion

and produce little sediment from

the road system, even though

many of the roads are poorly

maintained. There are very few

road crossings of perennial

streams in the Kachina Village

Project and few crossings of

ephemeral streams.

The Kachina Village Forest

Health Project area occurs within

the Oak Creek 5th code watershed. This watershed is

ultimately tributary to the Verde

River. The watershed is further

broken down into the Fry Canyon

and Pumphouse 6th code watersheds. Table 13 is a summary of

the number of total acres within

the Oak Creek 5th code and Fry

and Pumphouse 6th code and the

percent of the analysis area

within the watersheds.

The Department of Environmental Quality water quality

assessment report referred to as the “1998 305(b)

Report” is a description of the status of water quality

in Arizona. The report was prepared to fulfill

triennial reporting requirements contained in the

Clean Water Act. Table 14 is a summary of the

water quality status of stream courses affected by

this project area from this report.

Explanation of Best Management Practices

and Guidance Practices

The Non-point Source Intergovernmental Agreement

signed by the Forest Service (Region 3) and the

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality states

that the Forest Service will endeavor to minimize

and mitigate all potential non-point source pollution

activities. As agreed upon by the State of Arizona

and the Forest Service, the most practical and

effective means of controlling potential non-point

pollutants from forests and rangelands is through

the development of preventative or mitigating land

management practices, generally referred to as Best

Management Practices (BMP’s), or in the case of

Arizona’s process, Guidance Practices (GP’s). The

purpose of this agreement is to meet objectives

defined by the United States Congress in the Federal

Water Pollution Control Act (as amended in 1987).

These objectives are to restore and maintain the

chemical, physical, and biological integrity of

Arizona’s waters by complying with water quality

standards identified for designated uses in downstream perennial waters.

BMP’s or GP’s were developed for the project area

and will apply to all treatment alternatives. These

BMP’s/GP’s are designed to protect soil and water

quality (PRD 137c).

Direct Effects of Alternative A

In Alternative A, 19 thinning acres (0.4 percent)

occur on soils with severe erosion hazard, 883

thinning acres (18 percent) occur on soils with

moderate erosion hazard, and 3,900 acres (81

percent) occur on soils with slight erosion hazard.

The most important direct effect on soil condition

will be from mechanical activities (machine piling,

feller-buncher, skidder). Ground cover will be

disturbed through mechanical actions. Some

Table 14. Summary of the Water Quality Status of Stream Courses

Affected by the Kachina Village Project Area.

Waterbody Name

Location Reach or Designated Use Assessment

Lake Number Uses Support Comments

Oak Creek A&Wc, FC, FBC, Full Turbidity based on

15060202-020 Agl, Agl1 2 samples in 1993

1 ADEQ = Arizona Department of Environmental Quality, AGFD = Arizona Game and Fish

Department, A&Wc = Aquatic and Wildlife (cold water fish), A&Ww = Aquatic and Wildlife

(warm water fish), FBC = Full Body Contact, FC = Fish Consumption, Agl = Agriculture

Irrigation, AgL = Agriculture Livestock Watering, DWC = Domestic Water Source.

Table 13. Total Acres within the Oak Creek 5th Code, Fry and

Pumphouse 6th Code, and the Percent of the Analysis Area within

the watersheds.

Kachina Percent of Analysis

Watershed (acres) (acres) Area Within Watershed

Oak Creek 5th Code Watershed, 10,416 3.5

298,097 acres

Fry Canyon 6th Code Watershed, 617 3.2

19,453 acres

Pumphouse 6th code Watershed, 9,799 31

31,641 acres
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 75

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

compaction from skidding equipment will occur in

all treatment areas where machines are used

(roughly 4,721 mechanical treatment acres). No

skidding compaction or ground cover disturbance

will occur where hand thinning is done (roughly 81

hand treatment acres). Skid trails will tend to cause

compaction and, in some cases, the channeling of

water. The expected duration of effects is less than

10 years. This is estimated to occur in less than 10

percent of the areas that are mechanically treated.

Some onsite soil loss will occur on soils with moderate erosion hazard where machines are used (799

acres). Soil loss effects on moderately erosive soils

are small in relation to the surrounding landscape

and do not contribute to negative soil and water

effects overall. Undesirable effects from the proposed activities can be mitigated through the

implementation of BMP’s. Recommended BMP’s are

described in PRD 137c. There will be only minor

impacts to onsite soil quality and productivity.

Alternative A proposes to manage dispersed recreation along FR 237. Currently, there are substantial

areas of bare, compacted soil due to unmanaged

camping sites and the social roads associated with

the sites. Designating sites for camping will help

limit soil disturbance and protect the riparian area

in Pumphouse Wash. Some of the compacted areas

will be rehabilitated by scarification and seeding.

The proposed management changes in the Mexican

Pocket area will allow for rehabilitation of roads and

camping sites in the mountain meadow adjacent to

Highway 89A. Trail management proposals should

provide for better maintenance and definition of the

trail system. The trailhead at FR 237 and

Pumphouse Wash will help to eliminate damage to

riparian vegetation from uncontrolled parking. All

the recreation management activities reverse deleterious effects from the current condition.

Table 15. Thinning Treatment Acres for Alternative A

Thin 40-100 Thin Thin Thin

BA 25 40 to 9-inch 9-inch

Map Percent 120 or less or Less Erosion

Unit OG1 Defer BA Owl By Hand GH2 WL3 Total Hazard

53 2 3 12 0 1 0 0 17 Slight

55 0 0 5 0 12 0 0 17 Slight

60 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Slight

471 0 4 15 0 0 0 0 19 Severe

536 0 0 69 0 0 0 0 69 Moderate

546 96 433 67 228 0 103 10 937 Slight

550 2 0 66 0 42 0 0 110 Moderate

555 8 111 35 99 0 9 63 325 Moderate

570 0 0 662 0 26 0 0 688 Slight

575 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Severe

578 0 165 0 30 0 0 0 195 Slight

582 218 723 816 36 0 0 70 1863 Slight

584 42 108 173 56 0 0 0 379 Moderate

585 51 109 6 6 0 11 0 183 Slight

Total 419 1,656 1,926 455 81 123 143 4,802

1 Improving Old Tree Longevity and Gambel Oak Habitat (Variable thinning around old trees and Gambel oak)

2 Dense Canopy Retention for Improving Forest Resiliency of Goshawk Habitat (Variable thinning to average of 80 BA with openings created)

3 Wildlife Movement Corridor
76 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Broadcast burning will have the effect of reducing

litter accumulations and, most likely, promoting

herbaceous vegetation. Short-term reductions in

ground cover will result where litter is totally consumed. Litter and/or vegetation cover bare soil in 1

to 2 years on this forest (Lindenmuth 1960; Davis

and others 1968; Sackett and others 1993). Total

consumption of ground cover will be patchy and will

not adversely affect overall ground cover. Low

severity fires burning only surface fuels do not

considerably heat the soil surface. Soil temperatures

do not rise substantially where repeated coolburning fires are used to reduce fuel buildup

(Debano et al. 1998).

Pile burning thinning slash may cause small patches

of soil heating to the point where soil characteristics

are changed. These patches are small in relation to

the project area.

Alternative A intends to rehabilitate 17.65 miles of

existing roadway by closing, scarifying, and revegetating, approximately 56 percent of the Forest

Service roads in the project area. These areas will

not likely return to full productivity for many years,

but will become stable after only a few years. The

area of rehabilitated roadway amounts to 43 acres.

This reduction in amount of roadway improves on

the current condition and lessens site-specific

erosion related to roads.

Under Alternative A, an additional 5.75 miles of road

will be re-opened for temporary haul roads. Temporary roads are defined as roads associated with a

timber harvest contract, not intended to be a part of

the forest development transportation system, and

not necessary for resource management (FSM 77-

5.7/27/94). Roughly 90 percent of these temporary

roads have been constructed, used, and rehabilitated through previous harvest entries. Some new

construction will be required to relocate or substitute for undesirable existing temporary road

locations. Temporary roads have fewer adverse

effects than permanent roads, as they will be

decommissioned shortly after use. These previously

used roads are stable in terms of soil movement but

are relatively unproductive compared to undisturbed

forest land. These additional roads amount to 14

acres of unproductive forestland. The temporary

addition of these acres does not affect overall

watershed health. Onsite soil quality effects from

temporary roads are minimal and BMP’s will mitigate onsite effects.

Roads also contribute to the invasion of exotic (nonnative) plant species dispersed by wind, water,

vehicles, and other human activities, as the disturbed areas serve as an avenue for establishment of

exotic species into a new landscape. Invasion by

exotic species may have unwanted biological and

ecological effects if those species are able to displace

natives or disrupt the structure and function of an

ecosystem. The overall roadway reduction will

lessen potential spread of invasive and noxious

weeds via roads on the project area. Temporary

roads will cause a short-term increase in the potential spread of invasive and noxious weeds.

Mitigation measures will be applied to limit spread of

invasive and noxious weeds.

The current road system is fairly well designed so as

to reduce road-related surface erosion at the scale of

individual road segments. The open road network

described under Alternative A incorporated key

factors such as road location, particularly layout

relative to stream systems, road drainage, surfacing,

and cut slope and fill slope treatments. Surfacing

materials reduce the yield of fine sediment from road

surfaces. Drainage structures will be maintained in

all roads as appropriate to assigned maintenance

levels. Proper drainage will reduce the off-site

transport of sediment.

There are no direct effects to soil and water quality

from the fence and structure removal at Kelly Seep.

Direct Effects of Alternative B

There are no direct effects to soil quality from the No

Action Alternative.

The No Action Alternative does not produce new

roads and, therefore, results in no change.

Direct Effects of Alternative C

The direct effects for Alternative C are similar to

Alternative A.

Direct Effects of Alternative D

The direct effects for Alternative D are similar to

Alternative A.

Direct Effects of Alternative E

Alternative E will require 2.5 miles of temporary

road, or 6 acres of unproductive forest land. This is

roughly half the number of miles of temporary road

required under Alternatives A, C and D. Because

soil effects are minimal due to BMP’s, the difference

between the alternatives is not extensive. (See Table

16.)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 77

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

In Alternative E, treatment acres and

erosion hazard are the same as the

other alternatives. The difference in

this alternative is that only 2,330 acres

will be mechanically treated (a little

over half of the other alternatives).

Consequently, we can expect approximately half of the impacts to soil

quality and productivity described for

Alternative A to occur. Some compaction from skidding equipment will

occur in all treatment areas where

machines are used (roughly 1,890

mechanical treatment acres). No

skidding compaction or ground cover

disturbance will occur where hand

thinning is done (roughly 2,326 hand

treatment acres). Some onsite soil loss

will occur on soils with moderate

erosion hazard (405 acres). Because

the mitigation measures described in

the soil and water mitigation section

will be followed, there will be only

minor impacts to onsite soil quality and

productivity from any of the action

alternatives. The effects from Alternative E will be slightly less due to limited

equipment use south of Kelly Canyon.

Indirect Effects of

Alternative A

The combination of thinning to open

the stand and burning will likely result

in the promotion of herbaceous vegetation over litter as the major component of ground

cover. Protection against erosion occurs the same

whether the forest floor is covered with needlecast

and woody material or herbaceous ground cover. So

there is no difference between the alternatives from

a soil and water quality perspective related to the

number of openings. The benefit of herbaceous

ground cover is nutrient cycling into the soil that

maintains and enhances future herbaceous growth.

Stand canopy conditions and fuel loading will be

reduced so that the potential effects of intense

wildfire are reduced. The effects of wildfire are

discussed in more detail under Alternative A.

Table 16. Comparison of the Miles or Equivalent Acres of Temporary

Road, Road Maintenance, and Rehabilitated Roads for Each

Alternative.

Temporary Road Road Maintenance Rehabilitated

Alternative Miles Acres Miles Acres Miles Acres

A, C and D 5.75 14 36 87 17.65 43

B 0 0 0 000

E 2.5 6 36 87 17.65 43

Table 17. Thinning treatment acres for Alternative E1 .

Thin Thin

Thin 9-inch dbh by

60 to Tree and Hand;

Map 120 Less by No Erosion

Unit Intensive2 BA Hand Roads Total Hazard

53 6 3 0 5 14 Slight

55 4 0 0 13 17 Slight

60 0 0 0 0 0 Slight

471 0 15 4 0 19 Severe

536 20 15 0 34 69 Moderate

546 12 264 661 1 938 Slight

550 45 18 0 48 111 Moderate

555 0 113 210 2 325 Moderate

570 273 200 0 215 688 Slight

575 0 0 0 0 0 Severe

578 0 0 196 0 196 Slight

582 48 1,056 721 0 1,825 Slight

584 32 162 164 21 379 Moderate

585 0 44 153 24 221 Slight

Total 440 1,890 2113 363 4,803

1 The old tree longevity, wildlife movement corridor and dense canopy retention for

goshawk are not shown in this table because they are the same as under Alternative

A.

2 Intensive Zone Thinning – Adjacent to Private Land (variable thinning 40 to 50 BA).
78 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Some negative potential off-site15 effects associated

with the Kachina Village Forest Health Project

include sedimentation from ground-disturbing

activities and potential short-term increases in

runoff from disturbed surfaces. Adequate buffers

have been developed on all major drainages in the

area. Only a small portion of anticipated soil loss

will travel off-site and enter ephemeral stream

channels. Most of this sediment will remain in

storage rather than move downstream into Oak

Creek.

There are no indirect effects to soil and water from

rehabilitation activities at Kelly Seep.

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

Alternative B will perpetuate stand conditions that

are conducive to the occurrence of intense wildfire.

On- and off-site impacts on hydrologic function

resulting from severe fire include:

• Precipitation flowing on the surface of the

soil rather than infiltrating it;

• Excessive erosion during precipitation

events;

• Rapid stream flow response from precipitation; and

• A reduction in base flow between storms.

As forest canopy and protective organic matter is

consumed by severe fire, interception is reduced and

soil erosion is increased.

Changes in forest canopy cover can affect snow

accumulation and melt patterns by creating large

openings. Consequently, the timing, quantity, and

quality of runoff from severely burned watersheds

are altered. Changes in soil and watershed conditions become more considerable as fire size and

intensity increase.

Wildfire can have major effects on vegetation,

ground cover, and soil properties, resulting in

reduced infiltration and increased overland flow.

Intense wildfire can reduce soil surface resistance to

erosion, resulting in accelerated soil erosion particularly because of heavy summer precipitation. Peak

discharges are likely to increase because of wildfire,

and water quality is likely to decrease due to increased sediment loads.

The degree to which soil is heated depends on a

variety of factors, including soil moisture, fuel

loading, fuel moisture, fuel distribution, soil texture,

and others. The peak temperature and duration of

heating greatly influences subsurface soil temperature. The amount of change in soil properties is

largely dependent on the amount of energy radiated

downward into the underlying duff and mineral soil.

The amount of heat radiated downward increases as

fire severity increases. If a wildfire burns hot, then

negative impacts to soil could occur from soil

heating. Soil heating may cause changes in soil

properties, such as reduction of structure and

porosity and changes in soil color. Burning reduces

soil organic matter and soil plant and litter cover. In

most cases, soil erosion by wind and water is

increased. The severity and duration of accelerated

erosion depends on slope, soil texture, recovery of

plant material, severity and extent of burning, and

post-fire precipitation timing and intensity. The

duration of the fire effects on soil structure depend

on the severity of the fire and rate of recovery. The

duration may last from 1 year to many decades

(Wells et al. 1979).

High degrees of soil heating can destroy soil structure, thus affecting soil pore size distribution and

overall porosity. This reduces infiltration rates and

increases overland flow. Soil water repellency is

increased as organic matter is heated. The more

severe the fire, the deeper the water repellant layer,

unless heating is so intense that surface organic

matter is destroyed.

Alternative B will produce no dispersed camping

management, trail management, or road management. Deleterious trends will continue in the

site-specific locations that are currently receiving

heavy dispersed camping use. The current level of

landscape dedicated to roadways (and not vegetation) will continue.

Indirect Effects of Alternative C

The indirect effects of Alternative C are similar to

Alternative A.

Indirect Effects of Alternative D

The indirect effects of Alternative D are similar to

Alternative A.

15 Off-site means an effect that occurs downstream from the treatment area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 79

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects of Alternative E

Stand canopy conditions and fuel loading are

reduced but not as much as in Alternatives A, C,

and D. Risk of fire is higher than Alternatives A, C,

and D in the areas south of Kelly Canyon. The

combined thinning and burning will promote herbaceous vegetation over litter more than B but less

than A, C, and D. Off-site effects are less than A, C,

and D because potential for short-term runoff from

disturbed areas is less because of fewer acres with

mechanical treatment. Under Alternatives A, C, and

D only a small portion of anticipated soil loss will

travel off-site and enter ephemeral stream channels.

Most of this sediment will remain in storage rather

than move downstream into Oak Creek. Therefore,

the difference between Alternative E and the other

action alternatives is negligible.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, C, and D

An appropriate area to consider cumulative effects is

the Pumphouse 6th code watershed. The few acres

associated with the Fry Canyon watershed are

located at the bottom of the canyon at the

confluence with Pumphouse Wash. Pumphouse

Wash is a tributary to Oak Creek and is, therefore,

subject to the same stringent water quality standards as Oak Creek.

Actions considered for this section are those activities that occurred in the Pumphouse 6th code

watershed in the past 10 years. Activities are

described at the beginning of this chapter. Impacts

from activities that occurred more than 10 years ago

are unlikely to be evident today.

The cumulative effects of land-disturbing activities

can be seen on site or downstream of the activity.

Onsite effects include changes to soil characteristics, vegetation, and nutrient cycling.

There are no grazing effects associated with the

Kachina Village Project and, therefore, no cumulative effect added to grazing activities on existing

allotments within the watershed.

The minor effects to soil quality of machinery use in

thinned stands can be considered cumulative with

similar activities in the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale (approximately 776 acres) and the State

Trust Land Section 26 (1/2) where a pulpwood sale

of less than 12-inch diameter trees occurred 5 years

ago. Currently slash piles exist on this section of

state land. Future planned activities on Section 26

are to re-pile and burn the existing slash piles, and

conduct pre-commercial thinning. The effects to soil

and water quality from Alternative A are minor and

do not add cumulatively to surrounding projects in a

way that causes a negative overall effect.

Recreational use in the Pumphouse watershed is

moderate to high. Recreation uses will probably

increase in the future. Individuals and groups use

the area. Activities include hiking, horseback riding,

bicycling, jeep driving, off-highway vehicle driving,

dispersed camping, and camping in developed

campgrounds. In some places throughout the

watershed, recreation use causes one or more of the

following effects: loss of vegetative ground cover,

soil compaction, localized erosion, increased runoff

and biological pollution. The effects to soil quality of

recreation management activities are positive and do

not combine with activities in other areas in a way

that causes a negative cumulative effect. The effects

to soil quality of recreation management activities

under Alternative A are positive and will serve to

offset, to some extent, the negative impacts in the

remainder of the Pumphouse watershed. It is

difficult to speculate where campers displaced from

areas in the Kachina Village Project will go. There

may be increased dispersed camping and subsequent impacts on the west side of Highway 89A

along FR 545. Some campers may continue into

Flagstaff. Because the campers in this area do not

travel very far off of paved roads, it may be that

many of them seek out other paved road forest

access that lies outside of the Pumphouse 6th code

watershed.

The effects of broadcast burning are negative for the

short-term, or 1-2 years until herbaceous ground

cover or needlecast is re-established. After this, the

effect of broadcast burning on soil quality is beneficial. Other broadcast burning projects occurring in

the Pumphouse 6th code watershed include a portion

of the Airport Project (of the 1,000 acres in this

project, approximately 200 are in the Pumphouse 6th

code watershed). The timing of these burns is

regulated through the ADEQ permitting process for

air quality. Therefore, the number of acres burned

at one time in the watershed is not enough to cause

a cumulative negative effect.

Under Alternative A, only a small portion of anticipated soil loss will travel off-site and enter

ephemeral stream channels. Most of this sediment

will remain in storage rather than move downstream

into Oak Creek. Therefore, there is very little added

effect to off-site effects when combined with other

activities in the Pumphouse 6th code watershed.
80 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative A reduces the overall amount of landscape taken up by roadway and, therefore, has a

beneficial effect when added to other areas in the

watershed. This same beneficial trend is occurring

on other areas within the Pumphouse 6th code

watershed. The objective for managing the road

system on the Coconino National Forest within these

watersheds is to limit overall road densities to 2

miles per square mile. With the exception of private

land development few, if any, new roads need to be

constructed for activities proposed in the

Pumphouse watershed. Some roads have been

closed or obliterated recently and additional closures

and obliterations are expected in the future. Existing open National Forest System roads will be

maintained at levels suited to their uses and locations. As timber sales continue to decline, so will

the periodic road maintenance associated with sales.

Funding appropriated for maintenance of forest

system roads is also declining. Some funds have and

will be invested in road closures, obliteration, and

drainage maintenance.

Alternative A creates 5.75 miles of temporary road.

One other project used temporary roads within the

Pumphouse 6th code watershed: the Pumphouse

Multiproduct Sale had an estimated 2 miles of

temporary road. The Airport Fuels Reduction

Project does not have temporary roads. When added

together, these projects do cause a significant

cumulative effect related to temporary roads.

In conclusion, it appears that the Proposed Action

will not pose a significant cumulative effect in

association with other activities in the watershed.

Assuming soil and water mitigation measures are

employed, the harvest burning treatments proposed

in Alternative A would have little incremental

cumulative effect when considered with the effects of

past and future projects. These treatments will have

little direct or indirect effect on soil condition and

water quality. Treatments in Alternative A are

designed to reduce the likelihood of landscape level

wildfire and the watershed disturbing effects associated with such a fire. Improvements in road and

recreation management would improve soil condition

in the long-term and consequently have a positive

effect on soil condition and, perhaps, downstream

water quality.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

Alternative B (No Action) with wildfire could result in

the greatest impact to soil condition and water

quality and, therefore, the greatest cumulative effect.

A severe crown fire would result in large increases in

soil movement and runoff for at least a few years.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

The cumulative effects for Alternative E are similar

to Alternative A, except that canopy closures will be

somewhat higher south of Kelly Canyon and risk of

catastrophic wildfire in that area will be greater than

Alternatives A, C, and D and less than Alternative B.

Alternative E creates 2.5 miles of temporary road,

which is a smaller addition to the effects to temporary roads in other areas within the Pumphouse 6th

code watershed.

Alternative E has less potential off-site effects

because fewer acres receive mechanical treatment.

The addition of off-site effects to other projects in the

6th code watershed is less than Alternative A.

Recreation Setting and Opportunity

Affected Environment

The project area provides many year-round recreation opportunities because of its close proximity to

Flagstaff and Oak Creek Canyon, and because of its

diverse landscape of pine forest and canyon country.

Local residents of Kachina Village, Forest Highlands,

and Pine Del use the areas north of Kelly Canyon,

east of Pumphouse Wash, in the Griffiths Spring

area, and Kelly pit on a daily basis for walking,

hiking, mountain biking, OHV riding, rock climbing,

exercising pets, wildlife viewing, target practice,

firewood gathering, and winter recreation activities.

A considerable amount of use by non-local

recreationists occurs along Highway 89A, including

camping, hiking, driving for pleasure, and viewing

wildlife and scenery.

Recreation setting characteristics and recreation

opportunities for the affected area have evolved over

the last century from primitive settings with only

rare evidence of human presence to a mostly natural

appearing area with moderate evidence of human

activity, mostly roads. Primary access from outside

the project area is from I-17 and Highway 89A via

FR’s 237, 631, 253 and the non-numbered road into

Mexican Pocket. Additional primitive roads have

developed over time as people have passed over the

natural ground in vehicles with enough frequency
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 81

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

for a road to develop. Recreation setting objectives

defined in the Forest Plan for the area include

Roaded Natural16 for areas adjacent to primary

roads; and Semi-Primitive Motorized17 for areas

accessible only by primitive roads.

Several popular areas provide dispersed camping

opportunities in the ponderosa pine forest and in

campsites with scenic views of the canyons. Most

camps are located along main Forest Service roads,

via a single 2-track road. Popular camping sites are

along FR’s 237 and 535, Kelly Canyon exit, Mexican

Pocket, and Sterling Canyon. Over the last several

years, dispersed camping in this area has progressed from nice scenic campsites overlooking Oak

Creek Canyon to unsightly campsites with no

ground vegetation, chopped up green trees, multiple

fire rings, litter, toilet paper, and scattered human

waste. As the current dispersed campsites are

occupied—especially during weekends and holidays—new user-created, 2-track roads are created

with new campsites established every year.

This project area has seen an increase in camping

use over the last several years. The greatest increase in use and resource impacts is along the

Highway 89A corridor that encompasses 1/2 mile on

either side of the highway. As a result of the limited

number of camping sites in Oak Creek Canyon,

recreationists have found Highway 89A north of Oak

Creek Vista a good place to camp. As a result of this

increased use, the Forest Service has seen an

increase in human-caused fires and resource

damage in this area. This area receives the highest

use during weekends and holidays, where it isn’t

uncommon to see groups of 50 or more people

camping along FR 237 and in Sterling Canyon.

There are approximately 544 dispersed campsites in

the project area that have been inventoried, identified with GPS coordinates, and placed in our GIS

system. An additional 100 dispersed campsites have

not been inventoried. Primary season of use for

these areas is the summer months from May

through September with some fall use during

hunting season. It is estimated that during a busy

summer weekend many of the sites are in use. The

exact number of people using these campsites has

not been calculated.

There are two non-motorized Forest Service system

trails in the project area: Griffiths Spring (1-mile

long interpretive loop trail) and at Oak Creek Vista (a

short .2-mile paved trail).

The other trails in the area are user-created (nonmotorized and motorized) from area residents who

live in Kachina Village, Forest Highlands, and Pine

Del and access the forest on a daily basis. Residents

access the forest from their backyards, from two

main access points off Toho Trail Road, and near the

water treatment plant in Kachina Village. The area

west of Kachina Village along Pumphouse Wash is

closed to motorized vehicles. The old roads that

have been closed to motorized use in Pumphouse

are now used on a daily basis for hiking and jogging,

and are not part of an official Forest Service trail

system.

In addition to the numerous user-created trails near

the residential areas, users also like to explore the

canyons. There are three main canyons in the

project area: Pumphouse Wash, Kelly Canyon, and

James Canyon. These canyons are popular for

canyoneering, hiking, photography, wildlife viewing,

and rock climbing.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, C, D, and E

The effects described in the “Aesthetics” section

earlier in this chapter will result in more esthetically

pleasing recreation settings throughout the project

area. These alternatives are identical in how they

treat system and non-system roads in the area, and

in how they differ from the existing condition. These

alternatives will not affect the total area of vehicular

access but will decrease road densities in some of

the more heavily roaded areas; thereby increasing

opportunities for solitude and ability to get away

from the sights and sounds of other people that

contribute to the overall “primitiveness” of forest

settings. In general, some arterial and secondary

roads will remain open, allowing access to most

areas that are now accessible by vehicle. The

Mexican Pocket area will be closed to vehicles.

There will be more administrative presence in the

form of signing and patrols to enforce restrictions,

which will tend to create a less primitive setting.

16 RN - easy vehicle access, sight and sound of other people common, moderate to low opportunity for solitude and “challenge and risk,”

moderate scenic integrity.

17 SPM - primitive roads, sights/sounds of others uncommon, moderate/high opportunities for solitude and “challenge and risk,” high scenic

integrity.
82 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

All action alternatives would provide opportunities

for dispersed camping in designated dispersed

campsites. Campfires would be allowed only in

designated dispersed campsites and would substantially reduce the probability of escaped campfires.

Campsites in designated areas would allow contact

that is more frequent with Forest Service personnel

and improve compliance. This alternative may

restrict recreational pursuits and may cause a loss

of perceived freedom by reducing campsite locations.

The number of traditionally used dispersed campsites will be reduced for management purposes. It is

estimated that camping opportunities along the

Highway 89A corridor will be reduced by at least half

over time. The total amount of people this will affect

is not calculated. A likely result will be competition

for the designated dispersed campsites and the

possibility for the creation of new dispersed sites

outside of the closure area. This alternative, while

environmentally beneficial, has the potential for

social conflicts.

The trail and trailhead improvements proposed are

the same for all action alternatives and would

directly affect and improve recreational resources

and values. The access and safety of users would be

improved and the trail system would be maintained

on a scheduled basis. Additionally, the measures

would provide protection to the local environment

from resource damage. The action alternatives

would add approximately 9 miles of new trail to the

Forest Service trail system.

The designated trail systems south of Kachina

Village, south of Griffith Springs, and in the Mexican

Pocket area will be located using existing usercreated trails and roads where appropriate. Based

on site-specific analysis, the trails would be located

through non-sensitive areas and/or in areas previously disturbed. The trails would be constructed,

maintained, and signed to Forest Service standards

for safety and to minimize soil, water, wildlife,

cultural, and vegetation impacts. It is estimated

that over half of the new trail will be on existing

closed roads or social trails thus limiting new

construction.

The construction of a trailhead would directly

impact the soil through grading and construction

activities. The trailheads would be graveled, thereby

converting the soils onsite into an impermeable

surface capable of withstanding concentrated visitor

use. The trailheads would be clearly delineated to

deter users from dispersed parking to prevent

trampling and damage to sensitive plant communities.

All action alternatives contain thinning and burning,

therefore affecting the view from trails and temporarily affecting the quality of some recreation

activities. Stands may be noticeably less dense and

slash piles, skid trails, or log landings may be visible

for a short time during the activity and after it

ceases. There could be short-term disruptions for

recreationists while the work is being completed.

These disruptions would include noise, traffic, and

rehabilitation activities on the trails. These disruptions would be minor and short term.

Timber cutting activities could potentially affect trail

and trailhead locations. Alternatives will incorporate mitigation measures requiring the purchaser to

obtain approval from the Forest Service for log

landing, skid trail locations, or slash piles.

There are no effects to recreation from the riparian

rehabilitation project at Kelly Seep.

Direct Effects of Alternative B

The No Action Alternative will have no direct effect

on existing recreation settings or opportunities

within the project area.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, C, D, and E

Recreation settings will become more esthetically

pleasing (see “Aesthetics” earlier in this chapter)

with these alternatives than with the No Action

Alternative. This will likely increase recreation use

compared with use resulting from the No Action

Alternative, although total use is likely to remain low

in the SPM areas (areas accessed via primitive roads)

with any alternative.

An indirect effect of the action alternatives would be

the possible temporary displacement of

recreationists while the activities are completed.

Recreationists using facilities both within and

outside the project area that are not affected by this

alternative could notice more use, which could

negatively affect their recreation experience. This

type of displacement could occur during harvest,

rehabilitation, and broadcast burning. However, the

effect would be minor, as all of the activities would

be scheduled over a number of years.

The proposed trail plan and trailheads for Alternatives A, C, D, and E will benefit the long-term

recreational trail resource in the project area. The

combined actions would provide substantial improvements to a heavily-used social trail network,
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 83

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

prevent further resource damage due to an

unmanaged trail system, and rehabilitate areas

damaged by overuse.

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

Recreation settings in the project area will either

retain existing landscape character trends, or will

assume characteristics of fire-altered landscapes if

wildfires occur. Over time, as the scenic quality of

recreation settings across the project area decreases

(see aesthetics section) and differences in vegetative

pattern become more apparent, other local areas

receiving different management are likely to become

more attractive to many people. Opportunities for

solitude and escape from the sights and sounds of

other people will continue to diminish as nonregulated recreation use continues to increase.

Volunteer or user-created roads will increase and

will cause additional visual impacts. The extent of

the area meeting Roaded Natural ROS setting will

continue to expand at the expense of the more

primitive Semi-Primitive areas.

Dispersed camping under Alternative B (No Action)

would allow camping to continue as it is today and

provides the greatest amount of freedom because

there would be fewer restrictions where people could

choose to camp. It is expected that in the future

more dispersed camping areas would become

established and result in greater resource and

sanitation problems. The potential for escaped

campfires from campers as well as partygoers would

likely increase as the population grows around

Flagstaff and tourism increases. Perceived threats

to private property would likely increase as would

complaints concerning activities associated with

dispersed camping.

Alternative B (No Action) would have the greatest

potential for a large, catastrophic fire that could

substantially damage recreation resources and user

experience in the project area. An indirect effect of a

No Action Alternative would be a continuation of the

trend toward increasing forest fuels and fire risk.

Alternative B would also essentially leave the usercreated trail system as it is today with the potential

for the user-created trails to grow as residents and

visitors attempt to avoid crowded areas. Adverse

effects include soil erosion, habitat fragmentation,

and the spread of noxious and invasive weeds. This

area is heavily used for recreation, and users could

be displaced to other areas which would put additional pressure on other nearby areas and facilities.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, C, D, and E

The actions considered in this discussion are those

that have occurred in the recent past (10 years).

Management activities that occurred prior to this

time helped create the current condition described

under the affected environment section. The people

that recreate in the Kachina Village area are primarily: 1) adjacent landowners; 2) weekend campers or

day-use recreationists coming up from Oak Creek

Canyon; and 3) local residents enjoying primarily

daytime activities such as climbing and mountain

biking. Since people can range far and wide in

search of recreation interests, it is difficult to choose

an area for considering cumulative effects. For this

discussion, actions to consider are those that occur

in areas immediately within or adjacent to the

project area. These are:

• Griffiths Spring parking area and trail

development.

• Ongoing use of the Oak Creek Vista

Overlook.

• Ongoing use of the Fort Tuthill Campground and Day Use Picnic Areas.

• Ongoing dispersed recreation on lands

surrounding the Kachina Village Project.

• The Fort Tuthill to Kachina Village Trail (in

the planning stages).

• Ongoing social trail use adjacent to communities such as Pine Del, Mountain Dell,

and Mountainaire.

The continuation and enhancement of Semi-Primitive Motorized recreation settings will add to the

presence of that setting in the surrounding landscape. Surrounding areas are also likely to

maintain and enhance some Semi-Primitive settings.

The exact amount is unknown.

The positive effects of changing to designated

dispersed camping along the Highway 89A corridor

will offset deleterious effects of heavy dispersed

camping in adjacent areas.

Although it is difficult to estimate where displaced

campers may go, we estimate that major forest roads

outside of the Kachina Village area may see increased use. In addition, more people may travel to

Flagstaff and use the Fort Tuthill or private campgrounds. Displaced campers will not affect Oak

Creek Canyon because strict camping rules are in
84 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

place for that area. Displaced campers may add to

current camping impacts in adjacent areas causing

a slight increase in resource impacts.

A new Forest Service trail proposed will add to

existing trail opportunities at Griffiths Spring and

Fort Tuthill. The Fort Tuthill to Kachina Village

Trail will add a link between communities and to the

Flagstaff Urban Trail System. No other trails are

currently planned in the remainder of adjacent

areas.

Better design and signing of Forest Service trails will

offset deleterious trends of poorly located usercreated trails in surrounding areas.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

Roaded Natural settings may increase over time and

Semi-Primitive settings may decrease. This would

offset other areas where Semi-Primitive settings are

likely to increase due to road and vegetation management.

Continuation of resource impacts due to high levels

of dispersed camping will add to deleterious trends

in adjacent areas.

Continuation of resource impacts due to poorly

located social trails will add to similar effects in

adjacent areas.

Cumulative effects for Alternative B (No Action)

resulting in a wildfire would be visible throughout

the area. The trails and general areas that were

once used for recreational activities would be less

attractive, thus affecting the setting and user’s

experience. The area would be closed until it was

safe to re-enter and all rehabilitation work was

completed. Should high intensity crown fire occur,

many recreation activities might be displaced to the

surrounding landscape, adding impacts to surrounding lands and increasing competition and

possibly conflict between users.

Wildlife Habitat - General

Coconino Forest Plan Direction

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for managing wildlife habitat were developed to meet the

needs of MIS, threatened, endangered and sensitive

species on the Coconino National Forest. The

Kachina Village Forest Health Project (FHP) meets

standards and guidelines in the Forest Plan and

meets all monitoring requirements. Habitat quality

index modeling was conducted for MIS species.

Threatened and endangered species were addressed

through consultation with the USFWS. Sensitive

species are managed in accordance to existing

management plans for priority species.

Not all desired conditions in the Forest Plan can be

achieved with a single action. Often many actions

are necessary over time that progress toward desired

conditions as outlined by standards or guidelines.

Since the Forest Plan is a permissive document, if

an action progresses toward, but does not preclude

nor deviate from Forest Plan direction, then the

action meets the intent of the Forest Plan. An

example of this is vegetative structural stage (VSS)

distribution described in the northern goshawk

section of the Forest Plan. The amount and distribution of thinning activities planned is focused on

reducing fire hazard by removing trees that facilitate

the movement of fire from ground level up into the

crowns. The forest canopy would be broken up with

some small openings that will result in some increase in herbaceous vegetation and pine tree

seedlings. This project will also facilitate the growth

of larger trees, thus progressing toward that component of goshawk habitat. At this time, treatments

are not designed to facilitate the establishment of

pine seedlings (regeneration). Although these

thinning actions make progress toward the desired

VSS distribution that the goshawk guidelines

indicate, this entry will not focus on increasing VSS

2 (pine seedlings and saplings). Future thinning18

entries could maintain openings, begin regeneration

treatments, and maintain the forest structure with

low fire hazard.

Species viability analysis as required in NFMA is

appropriately addressed at the Forest Plan level.

The Forest Plan requires monitoring for all MIS

through habitat capability modeling. As specified in

the Forest Plan, some species require field surveys

to determine population numbers, which the Arizona

Game and Fish Department collects. Monitoring for

threatened, endangered, and sensitive (TE&S)

species is planned to address those species on a

priority basis. The USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

assists in tracking populations of threatened and

endangered species.

18 Future actions will occur based on future NEPA decisions.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 85

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

 Area

Alts A&D Alt C Alt E Alt B

Canopy Closure by Alternative

No Action and Action Alternatives Immediately 

Following Treatment

Grassy areas

Open Canopy

Mod-dense Canopy

Dense Canopy

Vegetative Structural

Stages and Canopy Cover

Vegetative structural stage (VSS)

data, an important component in

describing habitat, was used to

analyze the effects for the northern

goshawk, MIS species, and oldgrowth. VSS data is provided

below for three time periods:

immediately following treatment,

and years 20 and 50 following

proposed treatments. Each table

and graph illustrates VSS class

and canopy closure for all action

alternatives and No Action for the

three time periods. VSS data was collected for the

project area prior to planning. VSS post-treatment

data modeling was calculated with the aid of Forest

Vegetation Simulator modeling (PRD 130).

VSS Immediately Following Treatment and

Under No Action

Alternatives A and D would exhibit VSS distribution

that would more closely approximate desired conditions than the other alternatives, including the No

Action Alternative. Alternative C closely approximates Alternatives A and D. To account for the

creation of grassy openings, 10 percent of 3,891

acres (as described in the Proposed Action) were

included in VSS 1 class for Alternatives A and D; 5

percent of 3891 acres for Alternative C; and 10

percent of 439 acres from the intensive treatment

zone for Alternative E. Based on the professional

opinion of Forest Service specialists, creation of

grassy openings would be difficult to achieve in

many of the treated stands for Alternative C, and it

would be very difficult to create any grassy openings

under Alternative E. This estimation for grassy

openings included here is for VSS class comparison

in relation to northern goshawk guidelines and is for

representative purposes. (See Table 18.)

Canopy Closure Immediately Following

Treatment and Under No Action

Canopy closure is defined as open (<40 percent

canopy cover), moderately dense (40 to 60 percent

canopy cover), and dense (>60 percent canopy

cover). To account for the creation of grassy openings, 10 percent of 3,891 acres were included in VSS

1 class for Alternatives A and D, 5 percent of 3,891

acres for Alternative C; and 10 percent of 439 acres

from the intensive treatment zone for Alternative E.

Under the action alternatives, the overall canopy of

the forest would change from one that is dense to

one that is moderately dense. Canopy closure for

Alternatives A and D would be the same,

and Alternative C would be very similar to

Alternatives A and D. Alternatives A, C,

and D would reduce dense canopies in the

project area more than Alternative E. There

would be no change under Alternative B.

Alternatives B and E would have the effect

of allowing the potential of a large wildfire

to remain high (see fire effects analysis

section). Alternatives A and D would

decrease wildfire potential, specifically

potential for a crown fire, the greatest due

to the greater reduction of dense canopies

and the creation of more open, grassy

areas. Similarly Alternative C would

decrease wildfire potential, although slightly

less than Alternatives A and D due to the

lesser amount of grassy openings created.

Table 18. Percent Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) Immediately

Following Treatment for Each Alternative.

Percent VSS VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Existing Conditions 0.5 5 61.5 24 6 3

(Alt. B - No Action)

Alternatives A and D 5.5 3.5 26 52 10 3

Alternative C 3 3.5 26 54.5 10 3

Alternative E 1 4 40 43.5 8.5 3

Desired from 10 10 20 20 20 20

Forest Plan

Figure 23. Canopy Closure Immediately Following Treatment

for Each Alternative.
86 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Area

Alts A&D Yr 20 Alt C Yr 20 Alt E Yr 20 Alt B Yr 20

Canopy Closure by Alternative

No Action and Action Alternatives Post-Treatment at 

Year 20

Grassy Areas

Open Canopy

Mod-dense Canopy

Dense Canopy

closure with most of the forest being composed of

moderately dense canopy (approximately 61 percent). Under Alternative E, the forest would be

composed of approximately 58 percent dense

canopy. Under Alternative B, approximately 80

percent of the forest would be mostly composed of

dense canopies. The potential for a large wildfire

event would remain high under Alternatives B and

E. (See Figure 24.)

VSS 50 Years Post-treatment and Under No

Action

Alternatives A, C, and D would be similar in VSS

composition 50 years post-treatment. There would

be an overabundance in VSS 4 class and a small

excess in the VSS 5 class compared

to desired conditions. All other

VSS classes would show shortages,

with no sites falling into the VSS 2

class. Without further treatment

after initially treating stands, in 50

years there would be decreases in

the VSS 2 and VSS 3 classes. VSS

4 showed an increase at 20 years

but in 50 years, VSS 4 would

decrease to be only slightly more

than at the time of initial treatment. There would be an increase

in VSS 5 class that would meet and

exceed the desired condition. VSS

6, old-growth designation, would

show a minor increase. VSS 1 was

held constant from current condition in the analysis.

VSS 20 Years Post-treatment

and Under No Action

The 20-year post-treatment would

be similar in VSS composition for

all action alternatives. Each action

alternative shows VSS 3 meeting

the desired condition, an overabundance of VSS 4, and a shortage in

the remaining VSS classes. Primarily there would be a gain of sites in

the VSS 4 class, and decreases in

the VSS 3 and VSS 5 classes under

all action alternatives. There would

also be a slight decrease in VSS 2.

VSS 6 would be unchanged as

compared to initial time. Even with

broadcast burning occurring, some

pine seedlings will likely establish

within openings over time. Seedlings may be patchy depending on

the schedule and intensity of

broadcast burning. VSS 1 was, therefore, held

constant from current condition for this analysis.

Alternative B (No Action) would continue to show an

overabundance in the VSS 3 and VSS 4 classes with

some trees shifting into the VSS 4 class. There

would be a slight decrease in the VSS 2 class. The

remaining VSS classes under Alternative B would be

unchanged and continue to show shortages. (See

Table 19.)

Canopy Closure Year 20

Analysis of canopy closure at 20 years post-treatment shows that the forest under Alternatives A, C,

and D would be relatively the same in canopy

Table 19. Percent Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) at Year 20 for

Each Alternative.

Percent VSS VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Alt. B (No Action) 0.5 3 53 34.5 6 3

from existing conditions

Alternatives A and D 5.5 3 20 67.5 6 3

(post treatment)

Alternative C 3 3 20 68 5.5 3

(post treatment)

Alternative E 1 3 20.5 67.5 5.5 3

(post treatment)

Desired from 10 10 20 20 20 20

Forest Plan

Figure 24. Canopy Closure at Year 20 for Each Alternative.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 87

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Area

Alts A&D Yr 50 Alt C Yr 50 Alt E Yr 50 Alt B Yr 50

Canopy Closure by Alternative

No Action and Action Alternatives Post-Treatment

at Year 50

Grassy

Areas

Open

Canopy

Mod-dense

Canopy

Dense

Canopy

Figure 25. Canopy Closure at Year 50 for Each Alternative.

Alternative E, 50 years posttreatment, would show an

overabundance in VSS 4 and

shortages in the remaining classes.

VSS 2 and 3 would decrease, with

no sites in VSS 2. Number of sites

in VSS 4 and 5 would increase.

VSS 6 would remain unchanged.

VSS 1 was held constant to current

condition in the analysis.

Alternative B (No Action), would

continue to show overabundances

in the VSS 3 and VSS 4 classes

with some trees shifting into the

VSS 4 class. VSS 2 would decrease to zero. The remaining VSS

classes under Alternative B would

be unchanged and continue to

show shortages. (See Table 20.)

Canopy Closure Year 50

After 50 years post-treatment and under no action,

and with no further treatments in the project area,

analysis of canopy closure shows that the forest

under all alternatives would be relatively the same.

Barring any wildfire events, approximately 91 to 94

percent of the forest would be composed of dense

canopies. There would be no or very little open

areas. (See Figure 25.)

Forest Fragmentation

Affected Environment

Forest fragmentation is described as a patch of

forest within a sea of non-forested land, often

surrounded by urban development or rural farms

(Gladen 1999). The forest in the project area is

currently dominated by VSS 3 class (62 percent),

trees 5 to 11.9 inches in diameter. Most of the

project area (50 percent) has canopy closure greater

than 60 percent (C canopy) followed by a substantial

amount of B canopy (40 to 60 percent closure; 43

percent of the area). The forest is contiguous across

the project area with a few openings (0.5 percent)

distributed throughout the area. The forest is not

fragmented.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, C, D,

and E

Alternatives A and D would

modify most of the sites

into the VSS 4 class

project-wide (52 percent)

due to the removal of trees

mostly smaller than 12

inches in diameter. Canopy

closure would become

predominantly B canopy (49

percent of the area). Some

openings would be created

(approximately an estimated 400 acres),

increasing openings to 5.5

percent of the area. There

would be some patches of

trees, but overall the

Table 20. Percent Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) at Year 50 for

Each Alternative.

Percent VSS VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

Alt. B (No Action) 0.5 0 33 57.5 6 3

from existing conditions

Alternatives A and D 5.5 0 12 55.5 27.5 4.5

(post treatment)

Alternative C 3 0 12 55 28 4.5

(post treatment)

Alternative E 1 0 12.5 74 10 3

(post treatment)

Desired from 10 10 20 20 20 20

Forest Plan
88 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

patchiness is with the openings. Overall there

would be a relatively contiguous forest canopy with

variability in the level of canopy closure. The forest

would not become fragmented.

Alternative C would be similar to Alternatives A and

D. VSS 4 class would dominate post-treatment

(54.5 percent). Canopy closure would also be

dominated by B canopy (52 percent). Some openings would be created, approximately 200 acres

estimated, increasing openings to 3 percent of the

area. There would be some patches of trees, but

overall the patchiness is with the openings. Overall

there would be a relatively contiguous forest canopy

with variability in the level of canopy closure. The

forest would not become fragmented.

Alternative E would modify the overall VSS class

distribution into one almost equally dominated by

VSS 3 (40 percent) and VSS 4 (43.5 percent).

Canopy closure would become predominately a B

canopy (56.5 percent) with the retention of a substantial amount of C canopy (31 percent). There

would be a slight increase in the amount of openings

(approximately an estimated 44 acres) to 1 percent

of the area. The forest canopy would remain contiguous across the project area, with some variability

in the level of canopy closure north of Kelly Canyon.

The forest would not become fragmented.

There would be no change under Alternative B (No

Action). There is no additional forest fragmentation.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D and E

There are no indirect effects to species because there

is no forest fragmentation effect.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D and E

The forest would not become fragmented under any

of the alternatives. Therefore, there is no added

effect to forest fragmentation in the surrounding

landscape. There is no cumulative effect regarding

forest fragmentation.

Effects of Snag and Log Creation

This section describes the effects of the action to

create snags and logs under Alternatives A and D.

The Forest Plan does not provide standards and

guidelines for creating log and snag structures. The

Forest Plan does provide standards and guidelines

for desired densities of snags and logs on the

landscape. The Forest Plan states that within 10K

blocks, at least 50 percent of the forested land meet

the following criteria for snags: “At a minimum,

snags are maintained at an average of 200 snags per

100 acres.” Snag species will represent the tree

species composition of the stand.

Under Alternatives A and D, snags will be created

from some of the 16 inch and/or 18-inch blackbarked trees. The creation of snags and logs will be

guided by biological and watershed needs. Blackbarked trees that are snags don’t stand as long as

snags created from old, yellow pine trees. The

creation of snags from black-barked ponderosa pine

has not been studied and the results of this activity

are uncertain. The value of black-barked logs is

unknown. Therefore, the Forest Service is approaching this application conservatively. The

creation of snags and logs will be accomplished on

the ground during layout; therefore, the actual

number of snags and logs created is undeterminable

at present.

Affected Environment

The mean number of snags per acre currently in

ponderosa pine forests within the project area is 0.4,

with standard deviation of 0.7 and range of 0 to 3.9

snags per acre. The mean number of logs per acre is

2, with standard deviation of 2 and range of 0-9.6

logs per acre. These averages are below the standards for both snags and logs, but more so for

snags.

An analysis was completed October 2001 (PRD 120)

to determine which sites have the conditions to

allow for snag and log recruitment. Sites analyzed

are located south of Kelly Canyon where wildlife use

is higher. Conditions that allow for snag and log

recruitment are based on two fundamental questions: 1) is there a need for snags and logs within a

site, and 2) are there 16-inch or larger, black-barked

trees within the site that could be converted to

snags and/or logs. Analysis indicates that 28 sites

in the area analyzed might be suitable for snag and

log recruitment.

Losses of snags and logs from prescribed burning

does occur and is estimated to be 20 percent loss of

snags and 50 percent loss of logs (Randall-Parker

and Miller 1999), although many will be protected

using appropriate ignition and piling techniques,

and lining of most snags. Randall-Parker and Miller

(1999) also found that snags would continue to fall

and provide new logs on the forest floor at a rate of 2

logs per 25 acres per year.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 89

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects of Alternatives A, C, D, and E

Under Alternative A, snag and log recruitment would

contribute to meeting the standards and guidelines,

although the average number of snags and logs

post-implementation might still be below standards.

Additionally, with the retention of yellow pine trees

and recruitment old-growth stands, some trees

would in time naturally convert to snags, and the

natural conversion of snags to logs would contribute

to additional numbers of snags and logs on forests.

Any created snags and logs will be monitored for use

by wildlife species.

Alternative C would not include the component of

creating snags and logs. There is little value of

smaller (<16-inch diameter) snags and logs, therefore, efforts to create such smaller snags and logs is

not feasible.

Alternative D would create snags and logs only from

the 16 to 17.9-inch diameter class, thus fewer snags

and logs would be created compared to Alternative

A. This may not be a considerable difference. Any

created snags and logs will be monitored for use by

wildlife species.

Alternative E also will not include the component of

creating snags and logs due to the 16-inch and 9-

inch diameter limits outside the intensive treatment

zone next to private property. There is little value of

smaller (<16-inch diameter) snags and logs, therefore, efforts to create such smaller snags and logs is

not feasible. There will be no snags or logs created

within the “Intensive Zone”.

There will be no snag or log creation under Alternative B (No Action).

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Snags created under Alternatives A and D would

hopefully benefit cavity-nesting species, burrowing

species and species that use snags as perches. Logs

created under these alternatives would hopefully

benefit small mammals, burrowing species and

species that prey on small mammals.

There would be no indirect effects under Alternative

C.

The high fire hazard potential would persist under

Alternative B project-wide and under Alternative E

south of Kelly Canyon. In the advent of a large

wildfire, existing snags and logs would be lost.

Wildfire would create snags by killing live trees, and

these snags would eventually fall and become logs.

Only snags and logs near edges of forested areas

would be useful to wildlife because other necessary

habitat components that support wildlife species

would be lost in a large wildfire.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D and E.

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvest of

large diameter trees. This created the limited

number large, old trees currently across the landscape, which in turn has limited the number of

snags and logs that currently exist across the

landscape. It was the large, old trees that naturally

developed into snags, and the snags eventually

became logs.

The broadcast burn effects on snags and logs are

additive to similar effects in broadcast burning that

have or will occur in the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale area, the Airport Fuels Reduction

broadcast burn, and the Oak Creek Canyon Fuels

Reduction Project. Burning occurs over time in

these areas and does not impact large acreages at

any one time. As in the Kachina Village FHP, large

old trees will continue to replace snags slowly over

time. Since efforts to retain snags through lining

and burning techniques occur on all of the abovementioned projects, the cumulative effect is not

considerable.

Old-Growth

Affected Environment

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines for oldgrowth are that a minimum of 20 percent of

ecosystem management areas be allocated to oldgrowth (page 70-1). In the Kachina Village FHP area

there are 48 sites designated as existing or developing old-growth. There are 877 acres currently

designated as existing old-growth, 11.4 percent of

national forest lands. An additional 1,401 acres are

designated as developing old-growth, 18.1 percent of

national forest lands. Both groups total 2,268 acres

of sites19 managed for old-growth or 29.3 percent of

the project area (Figure 26; PRD 132b).

Existing old-growth is defined as sites that currently

display existing old-growth characteristics such as

large, old-growth trees, abundance of snags and

19 A site is a stand of trees usually of similar vegetation type and topography.
90 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

dead and down material. These sites meet or closely

meet the old-growth definition of the Forest Plan.

Existing old-growth sites were selected based on

information obtained from field site reviews and

surveys, databases from RMRIS and ArcView, and

aerial photograph examinations. Most sites included under existing old-growth are those located

in canyons, Mexican spotted owl PAC’s (protected

activity centers), the northern goshawk PFA (postfledging family area), and the wildlife movement

corridor.

Developing old-growth are those sites selected based

on existing large yellow-pine trees (greater than 16-

inches dbh) or large tree (greater than 18-inches

dbh) densities which had higher numbers of these

tree types compared to other sites within the project

area. Black-barked trees greater than 18-inches

dbh have the potential to develop into future oldgrowth trees sooner than smaller sized trees, and

areas with large numbers of trees 18-inches dbh

develop sooner into future old-growth stands than

other areas that do not have large numbers of such

trees.

Sites designated for old-growth management were

selected to provide for a variety of wildlife species

including Mexican spotted owl, northern goshawk,

black bear, turkey, and brown creeper. Functions

and interactions within old-growth areas, reproductive areas, feeding habitat, dispersal habitat, and

prey species habitat are provided for.

Allocations of old-growth sites identified in the

Kachina Village FHP EIS have been entered into the

stand database and GIS layers at the project level.

These allocations will be adjusted and official upon

final decision for the Kachina Village FHP and

entered into the forest level GIS layers.

Of the total acres of existing and developing oldgrowth in the project area, some are deferred from

treatment. Old-growth mixed conifer habitat, 135

acres, has been deferred from treatment across all

action alternatives. This existing old-growth habitat

is found within a Mexican spotted owl PAC. In

addition, 976 acres of ponderosa pine and pine-oak

habitat are deferred from treatment across all action

alternatives, consisting of 359 acres of existing oldgrowth and 617 acres of developing old-growth.

Direct Effects of Alternatives A, C and D

Alternatives A, C, and D would thin from below

1,157 acres of developing and existing old-growth;

373 acres of existing old-growth; and 784 acres of

developing old-growth, consisting of ponderosa pine

and pine-oak habitat. Thinning from below will

improve the health and growth of the old-growth tree

component and long-term health of the stand.

In existing old-growth sites, the thinning from below

methods would include:

Thinning from below to a basal area of 40 to 100 ft.2

per acre South of Kelly Canyon (37 acres) and

Mexican Pocket (46 acres) treatment areas:

• Thinning from below around old trees in

the Thinning from Below – Improving Old

Tree Longevity and Gambel Oak Habitat

(92 acres) treatment areas;

• Thinning from below in the Wildlife Movement Corridor (98 acres) treatment areas;

and

• Thinning from below trees no greater than

9 inches in diameter in the Thinning from

Below – Mexican Spotted Owl Protected

Activity Centers (100 acres) treatment

sites.

Thinning from below in developing old-growth sites

includes:

• South of Kelly Canyon (324 acres) treatment areas;

• Mexican Pocket (67 acres) treatment areas;

• Improving Old Tree Longevity and Gambel

Oak Habitat (176 acres) treatment areas;

• Dense Canopy Retention for Improving

Forest Resiliency of Goshawk Habitat (82

acres) treatment area; and

• Mexican Spotted Owl Protected Activity

Centers (135 acres) treatment sites.

All existing old-growth trees would be maintained

across all action alternatives. There are some 18-

inch, black-barked trees that would be removed

under Alternative A, but the removal of those trees

would not affect old-growth designation of sites. (See

Figure 26.)

There would be various densities in the forest

landscape with the different thinning prescriptions.

This is desirable for wildlife and would help diversify

species across the project area. Some species such

as brown creeper and northern goshawk would

benefit from denser ponderosa pine old-growth

habitat, and other species such as flammulated owl

would benefit from open, park-like ponderosa pine

old-growth.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 91

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 26. Old Growth Allocations within the Project Area Alternatives A,

B, C, D and E.
92 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct Effects of Alternative E

Under Alternative E 1,157 acres of developing and

existing old-growth would be thinned from below:

373 acres of existing old-growth and 784 acres of

developing old-growth, consisting of ponderosa pine

and pine-oak habitat. The thinning that would

occur will help improve the health and growth of the

old-growth tree component and long-term health of

stands, although not to the extent as the other

action alternatives. Under Alternative E there is a 9-

inch diameter limit on 737 acres of existing (184

acres) and developing (553 acres) old-growth stands.

Trees on these sites would have slower growth rates,

and the canopy would be denser compared to other

action alternatives. Old-growth trees on these sites

would be more susceptible to mortality due to

competition, insect infestation and diseases.

Thinning from below treatments in old-growth sites

under Alternative E include:

• Intensive thinning to 50 basal area in a

zone extending 660 feet out from private

property boundaries (43 acres);

• Variable thinning to 60 to 120 basal area

with a 16-inch diameter limit north of Kelly

Canyon outside the private property

intensive zone (377 acres);

• Thinning with a 9-inch diameter limit in

north of Kelly Canyon where there are no

roads (28 acres); and

• South of Kelly Canyon with a 9-inch

diameter limit (709 acres).

Under Alternative E, three sites designated as oldgrowth, existing or developing, fall into the 660-foot

wildland-urban interface zone, which is the zone of

intensive treatment. These are sites 336/11 (existing old-growth), 336/12 (developing old-growth) and

345/1 (developing old-growth). Removal of trees

within this “Intensive Zone” would not change the

designation of these sites as old-growth. In the

intensive treatment zone, more of the smaller

diameter size trees would be removed, leaving the

larger trees. Under Alternative E, the post-treatment designation of old-growth sites inside and

outside the 660-foot wildland-urban interface zone

would not differ from all other alternatives.

North of Kelly Canyon for Alternative E, effects

would be the same as Alternative C where no trees

greater than 16-inches diameter are cut. South of

Kelly Canyon has a 9-inch diameter limit for this

alternative, and old-growth stands south of Kelly

Canyon would remain dense. Wildlife species

distributions would differ from other action alternatives due to the dual forest structure pattern under

this alternative. North of Kelly Canyon would favor

species that require more open old-growth stands

such as flammulated owl. Stands south of Kelly

Canyon would favor species that benefit from denser

old-growth stands such as brown creeper.

The high fire hazard potential would persist under

Alternative E for old-growth stands south of Kelly

Canyon. In the event of a large wildfire, old-growth

sites would be compromised and trees would be lost,

thus affecting form and function of old-growth.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, C, and D

Modeling was completed for all action alternatives

comparing several thinning from below scenarios

and tree size in 50 years (PRD 130). In 50 years,

tree growth rate is greatest with the thinning to 50

basal area scenario, followed by the thinning to 80

basal area. The thinning with a 9-inch diameter

limit showed slightly greater growth in trees compared to the no thin scenario, yet these two

scenarios are similar to each other with both showing the slowest growth rates at 50 years with no

other thinning activities.

There is relatively no difference between Alternative

A (Proposed Action), C (16-inch diameter limit), and

D (18-inch diameter limit) in regard to future oldgrowth recruitment. Alternatives A, C, and D would

show the greatest recruitment for old-growth of trees

into the VSS 5 and 6 classes in 50 years. These

alternatives would thin out trees and reduce dense

canopies compared to Alternatives B and E, therefore reducing the risk of loosing old-growth trees due

to biological stresses or a crown wildfire event.

Alternatives A, C, and D would promote development

of old-growth habitat (see VSS tables above). Thinning improves health and vigor of trees and

improves the likelihood of stands reaching oldgrowth condition; trees would grow larger more

quickly. In 50 years post-treatment under Alternatives A, C, and D, there would be an increase of

approximately 175 to 180 percent in the VSS 5 class

and a 50 percent increase in the VSS 6 class.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 93

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effects of Alternative E

Under Alternative E trees would have smaller

diameters, on average, compared to trees under the

other action alternatives, and trees would have

slower growth rates. With limited treatment in sites

where trees less than 9-inches diameter are cut, oldgrowth recruitment areas would decline in health

and vigor, and some may never reach old-growth

condition due to dense stand conditions.

Dense stand conditions increase susceptibility to

insect infestation and diseases, and increase risk

from crown wildfire. The high fire hazard potential

would persist under Alternative E for old-growth

stands south of Kelly Canyon. In the event of a large

wildfire, old-growth sites would be compromised and

trees would be lost, thus affecting form and function

of old-growth. In 50 years post-treatment, there

would be little recruitment to old-growth condition

with an increase of 18 percent in the VSS 5 class

and no recruitment into the VSS 6 class.

Indirect Effects of Alternative B

Under Alternative B (No Action), there would be no

immediate change to old-growth trees or old-growth

stands. Under Alternative B the dense nature of

the forest would persist, thus trees are susceptible

to higher mortality rates due to competition, insect

infestations and diseases, and the forest is at risk of

a large wildfire event. Modeling shows that oldgrowth habitats primarily within Mexican spotted

owl PAC’s 040214, 040509, and 040539 and the

wildlife movement corridor are at most risk from a

wildfire (PRD 73).

Under Alternative B, old-growth tree mortality would

occur at a greater rate than in thinned stands due to

biological stresses such as competition, insect

infestation and diseases (PRD 130; see document

112 in the project record for the Fort Valley Ecosystem Restoration Project). Without treatment, many

old-growth recruitment areas would decline in

health and vigor, and some may never reach oldgrowth condition due to current dense stand

conditions that increase susceptibility to insect

infestation and diseases, and increase risk from

crown wildfire. This alternative would show greater

tree mortality rates. If a wildfire event occurred, the

result would be loss of old-growth trees and oldgrowth blocks, as 95 percent of developing and

existing old-growth sites have expected fire behavior

rated as high to extreme (PRD 73). In 50 years there

would be no recruitment into the VSS 5 and 6

classes.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, C and D

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This in effect

created conditions we have today: small sized trees

comprising the vast majority of the landscape (VSS

3), and a paucity of large, old trees that would be

recruitment old-growth and the old-growth component (VSS 5 and 6).

Old-growth analysis in the long term was addressed

at multiple scales during the analysis phase. Oldgrowth allocations to the west (Crater Sinks 10K and

Woody Ridge 10K), south (Ritter 10K), and east

(Newman 10K) were considered. North of the project

area, City of Flagstaff, did not offer flow and connectivity of old-growth. Old-growth allocations in the

Kachina Village FHP area tie to those associated

with Fry Canyon (Crater Sinks 10K), Woody Ridge

(Crater Sinks 10K), the Wilson Seep drainage system

that connects to Pumphouse Wash (Ritter 10K), the

Mortgage Spring drainage system that connects to

James Canyon (Ritter 10K), and James Canyon and

its tributaries east of I-17 (Newman 10K) (Figure 27).

In the Kachina Village FHP, existing old-growth trees

are maintained and add to the presence of existing

old-growth trees in the surrounding landscape.

Developing old-growth areas are enhanced, and will

add to the overall amount of old-growth on the

landscape when combined with the project areas

described above. The amount of national forest land

managed for old-growth is 29.3 percent, exceeding

the Forest Plan guideline of a minimum of 20

percent.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative E

Old-growth will develop more slowly than under

Alternatives A, C, and D and, therefore, the addition

of old-growth with old-growth in the surrounding

landscape occurs more slowly. Potential loss from

wildfire is higher than Alternatives A, C, and D and

lower than B. Loss of old-growth from high intensity

crown fire would subtract from the total amount of

old-growth in the surrounding landscape. The

designation of old-growth areas is the same as

Alternatives A, C, and D.

Cumulative Effects of Alternative B

There would be less old-growth over time as some

trees are unable to develop into old-growth due to

dense stand conditions. Tree mortality will be

higher. These factors combine to provide less old-
94 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 27. Old Growth Allocations Within and Adjacent to the Project

Area Alternatives A, B, C, D and E.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 95

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

growth trees to add to the surrounding landscape.

The designation of old-growth areas is the same as

Alternatives A, C, D, and E. The potential for loss of

old-growth to high intensity crown fire is high in this

alternative; this would subtract from the total

amount of old-growth in the surrounding landscape.

(See Figure 27.)

Threatened, Endangered, and

Sensitive Species

A narrative for the project area of the evaluation of

the threatened, endangered and sensitive species

that occur on the Mormon Lake Ranger District is

located in the project record (PRD 123). Four

species are evaluated in the biological assessment

and evaluation (BA&E) regarding the preferred

alternative for the project, as these species occur or

there is suitable habitat in the project area and

there are possible affects. These species are American peregrine falcon, northern goshawk, Flagstaff

beardtongue, and Flagstaff pennyroyal.

Consultation with the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

(USFWS) regarding threatened and endangered

species in the project area has already occurred

under the Wildland-Urban Interface Batch-Programmatic Environmental Assessment and Evaluation for

several projects in the Southwestern Region (USDA

Forest Service 2001a). A biological opinion was

issued by the USFWS in April 2001 (USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service 2001). Eight species found within or

near the project area, currently or historically, were

included in the analyses. The USFWS made determinations for species potentially affected by activities within the Kachina Village FHP area. They are

shown in Table 21.

Black-footed ferret and jaguar occurred historically

in the project area according to the USFWS. Currently there are no black-footed ferrets or suitable

habitat within the Kachina Village FHP area. The

jaguar is extirpated from the area. Gila trout

occurred historically in Oak Creek, downstream

from the project area.

There are no bald eagle nesting areas or known

winter roost areas in the project area; however, there

is one bald eagle potential winter roost area. There

are two Mexican spotted owl PAC’s that occur within

the project area and two that extend into the project

area. Critical habitat for the loach minnow, razorback sucker, and spikedace occurs in Oak Creek

and the Verde River downstream from the Kachina

Village FHP, with the watershed of these streams in

the project area. These five species are discussed

below.

Sensitive Species Analyzed

• Navajo Mountain Mexican vole, Microtus

mexicanus navaho

• American peregrine falcon, Falco

peregrinus anatum

• Northern goshawk, Accipiter gentilis

• Flagstaff beardtongue, Penstemon

nudiflorus

• Flagstaff pennyroyal, Hedeoma diffusum

Table 21. Threatened, Endangered or Sensitive Species Potentially Affected by Activities

Species Determination

Black-footed ferret, Mustela nigripes No effect; no critical habitat

Jaguar, Panthera onca arizonensis No effect; no critical habitat

Bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus May affect, not likely to adversely affect; no critical habitat

Mexican spotted owl, Strix occidentalis lucida May adversely affect; no critical habitat

Gila trout, Onchorhynchus gilae gilae No effect; no critical habitat

Loach minnow, Tiaroga cobitis No effect to the species; critical habitat call is may affect, not likely to

adversely affect

Razorback sucker, Xyrauchen taxanus May affect, not likely to adversely affect; critical habitat call is may affect, not

likely to adversely affect

Spikedace, Meda fulgida May affect, not likely to adversely affect; critical habitat call is may affect, not

likely to adversely affect
96 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Spotted skipperling, Piruna polingii

• Mountain silverspot butterfly, Speyeria

nokomis nitocris

• Blue-black silverspot butterfly, Speyeria

nokomis nokomis

Bald Eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus

(Threatened)

Affected Environment

There is one bald eagle potential winter roost site

approximately 34 acres in size south of Kelly Canyon. Wintering bald eagles occur in the project area,

primarily along Interstate 17, which is the eastern

boundary of the project area. Bald eagles feed on

road-killed animals along the highway. They forage

on animal carcasses forest-wide, and prey on

waterfowl and fish at lakes and tanks that support

these prey species. At night, small groups (usually 2

to 12) or individual eagles roost in groups of large

trees in protected locations such as drainages and

hillsides. Roost sites are ponderosa pine groups of

large trees (average size of 28.3 inches in diameter

and 93 feet tall), 5 to 40 acres in size (old-growth

groups 5 to 10 trees per acre), on slopes of 10 to 35

percent, with a canopy closure of 50 to 80 percent,

and are near food sources (Dargan 1991).

Consultation with the USFWS has already occurred

(USDA Forest Service 2001a) and the determination

in the biological opinion for the bald eagle in the

Kachina Village FHP and region-wide was “may

affect, not likely to adversely affect” (USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service 2001). Mitigation measures for

known roosting areas will be followed (see Chapter

2, “Project-Specific Mitigation”).

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, proposed mechanical

treatments and broadcast burning may cause visual

or auditory disturbance to foraging bald eagles. This

disturbance would be localized, of short duration

and low intensity, and may affect individual birds

but would not affect the overall distribution or

reproduction of the species.

Under all alternatives, recreation would continue

along Forest Road (FR) 631 in the vicinity of the

potential winter roost site. FR 631 would remain

open for approximately 2 miles, and recreation

activities are expected to continue at current levels

along this stretch of road under all alternatives. The

greatest impact currently occurs along the first mile

of FR 631 and the potential winter roost site is

located along this stretch. Impacts to individual

birds may occur from recreation activities between

October 15 and April 15 because this site is in close

proximity to the Kelly Canyon interchange on I-17

and this area of the forest may be accessible at

times during the winter months, however, throughout much of the winter the area would be

inaccessible due to snowpacked roads.

Recreation activities would continue in other areas

within the project boundary. Under all action

alternatives, recreation activities would be regulated

and the number of impact areas would be reduced,

therefore providing a benefit to bald eagle. Under

Alternative B, recreation activities would continue at

current levels. Recreation activities in the project

area would not considerably affect the overall

distribution, reproduction or winter roosting of the

bald eagle as recreation activities are reduced during

winter months when bald eagles are present.

There are no direct effects to bald eagles from

Alternative B (No Action).

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Indirect effects to the bald eagle include affects to

eagle habitat, eagle prey species, or prey species

habitat. There are no anticipated adverse effects to

prey species or prey species habitat.

The main effects are more likely to occur when

project treatments modify the number of trees in a

group of suitable roost trees, as eagles prefer to

roost in large trees within close proximity to other

large trees.

Thinning would improve old tree longevity in the

potential winter roost site and any other unknown

winter roost sites by reducing competition for light,

moisture, and nutrients and reducing the risk of

insect infestation and disease. Under Alternative A

there would be recruitment of trees into developing

and existing old-growth stands, which may be used

as future winter roost sites for bald eagles.

Although treatment prescriptions call for retaining

large trees, Alternative A may thin approximately 2.8

black-barked, 18-inch diameter trees per acre from

site 345/34, of which approximately the southern

and southwestern 12 acres is part of the potential

winter roost site. Some black-barked, 18-inch

diameter trees would be removed from the northeastern portion of the potential winter roost site.

This may reduce the quality of roosting potential for
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 97

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

this portion—35 percent of the potential winter roost

site—by possibly reducing canopy closure to less

than or equal to 45 percent in the 12-acre portion.

The remaining 22 acres of the potential winter roost

site would not be affected. Site 345/34 is designated as existing old-growth, and the designation

would not be affected by the removal of less than or

equal to 2.8 black-barked, 18-inch diameter trees.

(See Chapter 2, “Wildlife and Sensitive Species

Habitat Protection” for mitigation measures regarding the bald eagle.)

Under Alternatives C and D, canopy closure would

remain within the limits of the preferred 50 to 80

percent. There would be no adverse indirect effects

to the potential bald eagle roost site or any other

unknown roost sites. Under Alternatives C and D

there would be recruitment of trees into developing

and existing old-growth stands, which may be used

as future winter roost sites for bald eagles.

Under Alternative E all trees 9 inches in diameter

and larger would be retained in roughly the southern half of the project area. The potential winter

roost site would not be adversely affected under

Alternative E from thinning activities. However,

under Alternative E tree density would remain high

and the adverse effects to trees from competition

coupled with the continued risk of insect infestation

and disease would persist. Under Alternative E

there would be very little or no recruitment of trees

into developing or existing old-growth, thus there

would be relatively no benefit to wintering bald

eagles. Additionally, the high fire hazard potential

south of Kelly Canyon would persist. In the event of

a large wildfire, the potential winter roost site and

old-growth sites may be destroyed.

Under Alternative B (No Action), there are no treatment effects. However due to the continued high

tree density, adverse effects to trees from competition coupled with the continued risk of insect

infestation and disease would persist. Alternative B

would not promote recruitment of trees into developing or existing old-growth, thus there would be no

benefit to wintering bald eagles. Additionally under

Alternative B, there is high fire hazard potential in

the project area. In the event of a large wildfire, the

potential winter roost site, any other unknown

roosts, and old-growth sites may be destroyed.

Proposed treatments under all action alternatives

would not affect the numbers, distribution or

reproduction of the bald eagle, but may at times

disturb foraging birds on a short-term basis. Recreation activities under all alternatives would not

adversely affect the bald eagle.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Historical silvicultural practices of removing large

sized trees and suppression of fires on national

forest and state lands created a forest of existing

conditions composed primarily of dense canopy

stands of 5 to 12-inch diameter trees. This condition is not beneficial to wintering bald eagles.

However, recent past silvicultural practices have

created more suitable habitat for the bald eagle by

leaving large trees and thinning from below, which

enhances tree growth and vigor.

Under the action alternatives, there is no effect to

the numbers, distribution or reproduction of the

bald eagle so there is no added effect. Recreation

management activities and recreation have little

affect on wintering bald eagles so there is little

added affect. Short-term disturbance to foraging or

roosting bald eagles during thinning and broadcast

burning activities may cause eagles to forage and

roost in nearby areas for the duration of the activity.

Short-term smoke impacts can be considered

cumulatively with similar impacts in the Pumphouse

Multiproduct Timber Sale area and the Airport Fuels

Reduction Project Broadcast Burn, however, implementation of these burns are not likely to occur

simultaneously and do not combine to cause a

negative effect.

Mexican Spotted Owl, Strix occidentalis

lucida (Threatened)

Affected Environment

There are two Mexican spotted owl protected activity

centers (PAC’s) that occur within the project area

(040509 and 040539) and two that extend into the

project area (040214 and 040512). There is one PAC

adjacent to the southwest boundary of the project

area (040215). Mexican spotted owl habitat typically

consists of mixed conifer and/or ponderosa pineGambel oak vegetation types in steep canyons, on

mountainsides and on ridges. In the Kachina

Village FHP, owl PAC’s are associated with canyons.

Outside of PAC’s there are 160 acres of steep slope

protected, 2,060 acres of restricted habitat and 219

acres of restricted habitat identified as target/

threshold within the project area boundary. The

breeding season is from March 1 to August 31.

Surveys done to Forest Service Region 3 protocol

were conducted within the project boundary and

1/2 mile outside the project boundary in 2000 with

positive results. Owls were located in PAC 040215
98 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

(single response), 040509 (pair response), 040512

(pair response), and 040539 (single response). No

nests were located. No Mexican spotted owls were

located in PAC 040214, and none were located

outside PAC’s.

PAC’s were monitored during 2001 with positive

results. Owls were located in PAC 040215 (single

response), 040509 (pair response), 040512 (single

female response) and 040539 (pair response). No

nests were located. No Mexican spotted owls were

located in PAC 040214.

Within the project boundary, only two Mexican

spotted owl PAC’s would be treated. PAC 040509

would have 294 acres and PAC 040539 would have

162 acres thinned from below with trees no greater

than 9 inches in diameter removed. These acres

would also be broadcast burned along with other

acreage outside of the canyons. There is no planned

broadcast burning within canyons or within 300 feet

of the canyon rims.

Consultation with the USFWS has already occurred

(USDA Forest Service 2001a) and the determination

in the Biological Opinion for the Mexican spotted owl

in the Kachina Village FHP was “may adversely

affect” (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001).

Furthermore, on a region-wide basis it is the biological opinion of the USFWS that “implementation of

the Proposed Action, as necessary to reduce the risk

of catastrophic wildfire, is not likely to jeopardize the

continued existence of the Mexican spotted owl”

(USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 2001, page 101).

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives there would be no

direct effects from thinning from below activities as

the canyons, where spotted owls are primarily

found, are deferred from treatment.

Under all action alternatives, direct effects to Mexican spotted owl would be from smoke created from

broadcast burning. Smoke would tend to settle into

the canyons and low-lying areas during nighttime,

and could potentially affect spotted owls. Smoke

may drift into PAC’s from burning that occurs in

other portions of the Kachina FHP area. Smoke

effects could occur in the spring within the breeding

seasons. Smoke effects would be short term.

Mexican spotted owls are known to return to PAC’s

or to areas near PAC’s after fires and smoke events

have ceased. Short-term impacts from smoke would

be reduced by coordination of timing and type of

burning with wind direction, topography, time of

year, and distance to PAC’s. There is no lighting of

broadcast fires allowed on acres within PAC’s during

the breeding season.

There are no direct effects from Alternative B.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, there would be minimal effects from thinning and piling in owl habitat

as thinning treatments are outside of the canyons

away from the activity centers. Treatments in owl

habitat will be conducted in compliance with the

Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service 1995)

and Forest Plan standards and guidelines. It is

estimated there could be up to 20 percent loss of

snags and 50 percent loss of downed logs during

broadcast burning (Randall-Parker and Miller 1999)

although many will be protected using appropriate

ignition and piling techniques, and lining of most

snags. Microhabitat monitoring will be conducted

according to Region 3 Microhabitat Monitoring

Protocol. Broadcast burning occurs within a portion

of each PAC. Effects to prey species are minimal

because snags and logs are maintained in the

unburned portion of each PAC.

Under Alternatives A, C, and D the fire hazard

potential is reduced. Thinning from below in sites

adjacent to owl PAC’s, in addition to thinning from

below trees no greater than 9-inches diameter in

certain sites within owl PAC’s, would give added

protection to owl habitat from a large wildfire event.

Under Alternative E dense forest conditions would

still occur and the high fire hazard potential would

persist. Under Alternative B the high fire hazard

potential in the project area will persist. A large

wildfire event may result in the loss of Mexican

spotted owl habitat and possibly individual owls.

Under all action alternatives, road closures and

increased management of camping and recreation

opportunities would be beneficial to Mexican spotted

owl by regulating access and reducing human

impacts to owl PAC’s and individual owls.

Rehabilitation activities at Kelly Seep will not affect

owl habitat.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

The projects in the general area considered for this

analysis are those listed in the introduction to this

chapter.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 99

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This, in effect,

created conditions we have today that create the

high fire hazard potential in the project area.

Under all alternatives there would be no direct

effects to Mexican spotted owl PAC’s and, therefore,

no cumulative effect to other PAC’s in the area.

Treatments in owl habitat will be conducted in

compliance with the Recovery Plan (USDI Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995) and Forest Plan standards

and guidelines. This results in minimal direct

effects and, therefore, no cumulative effect. Broadcast burning occurs within a portion of each PAC.

Effects to prey species are minimal because snags

and logs are maintained in the unburned portion of

each PAC. This effect is additive to similar impacts

on the adjacent Airport Fuels Reduction Project

(approximately 1,000 acres of broadcast burning).

The combined effect is minimal.

Should Mexican spotted owl habitat be lost due to

high intensity crown fire, the owl populations in the

general area would be affected.

Fishes

Affected Environment

Three threatened and endangered species occur

downstream from the Kachina Village FHP area in

Oak Creek and Verde River: loach minnow, Tiaroga

cobitis (threatened), razorback sucker, Xyrauchen

taxanus (endangered), and spikedace, Meda fulgida

(threatened). Critical habitat for the loach minnow

occurs in Oak Creek and the Verde River over 15

miles downstream from the project. Critical habitat

for the razorback sucker occurs in the Verde River

54 miles downstream from the project. Critical

habitat for spikedace occurs in Oak Creek and Verde

River over 15 miles downstream from the project.

Although these fishes do not occur within the

project area, the watersheds of Oak Creek and the

Verde River do.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

For all action alternatives there would be no direct

effects to these species from project activities.

There are no direct effects from Alternative B.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Indirect effects to fishes would be from the possibility of sedimentation during treatments and

re-opening of temporary roads in the project area.

Under all action alternatives, Best Management

Practices would be implemented (See PRD 137c) and

any effects would be minimized.

Under Alternatives A, C, and D there would be

minimal effects to fish species habitat, with no

adverse effects expected. Any sedimentation that

may occur from project activities would be short

term with expected soil stabilization and the establishment of an herbaceous vegetation understory.

Adequate buffers have been developed on all major

drainages. Most sediment will remain in storage

rather than move downstream into Oak Creek, with

a small portion of anticipated soil loss expected to

occur and enter ephemeral stream channels (see soil

and water effects section). Road closures would

reduce sedimentation loads. Alternatives A, C, and

D would reduce the risk of a large wildfire the most,

thus the potential risk of sedimentation and affects

to fishes downstream from such an event would be

reduced.

Under Alternative E effects would be less than the

other action alternatives due to less mechanical

disturbance in the project area. Road closures

would reduce sedimentation loads. Alternative E

would not reduce the risk of a large wildfire event

due to a continuation of a dense forest canopy. Fire

hazard potential would remain high, and with the

advent of a large wildfire event, soil sedimentation

would occur and may adversely affect fishes downstream of the project area.

Under Alternative B (No Action), there would be no

change in soil conditions and no new soil disturbances. There would be no road closures under this

alternative, which would continue current sedimentation loads into drainages. This continued level of

sedimentation from the existing road system and

social roads may have negative effects to fish species

habitat in the long term compared to all action

alternatives. Under this alternative fire hazard

potential would remain high, and with the advent of

a large wildfire event, soil sedimentation would be

great and may adversely affect fishes downstream of

the project area.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

There are no direct effects that would cause a

cumulative effect when added to other activities in

and around the Kachina FHP. There are no adverse

indirect effects expected and, therefore, no cumulative effect.
100 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Should high intensity wildfire occur, then downstream effects could cause impacts to fish and fish

habitat. The potential for high intensity wildfire is

greatest under Alternative B.

Navajo Mountain Mexican Vole, Microtus

mexicanus Navaho (Sensitive)

Affected Environment

There are no documented populations or sightings of

voles in the project area; however, some suitable

habitat exists within the area. Voles occupy meadows and riparian areas above the Mogollon Rim

associated with ponderosa pine or other coniferous

forests. They also occur within the forested areas

where tree densities are low. They rely on grasses

and other herbaceous vegetation for food and cover.

Suitable habitat within the project area is currently

7 percent of the project area.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Direct effects would be similar between Alternatives

A, C and D for this species. Disturbance during

thinning and broadcast burning activities may occur

to individual voles; some individuals may be lost.

Burning removes cover and food. Such activities

would occur across the project area at different

times; therefore, activities would be temporally and

spatially separated. Effects would be short term.

There would be no effects to population viability of

the voles.

Under Alternative E, effects would be similar but to

a lesser extent compared to the other action alternatives. Disturbance activities would be reduced.

Roughly half of the project area would be thinned

similarly to Alternative C, the northern part of the

project, where short-term disturbance would be the

greatest under this alternative. Roughly the southern half would retain a dense canopy structure due

to the 9-inch diameter limit, where short-term

disturbance would be the least.

Recreation effects under all action alternatives

would be reduced due to establishment of designated camping areas, reduction in disbursed

camping sites, and closing social trails. Road

closures under all action alternatives would be

beneficial to this species. Under all action alternatives, construction of new segments of a trail system

and temporary roads may impact the Navajo Mountain Mexican vole due to construction activities and

loss of habitat. Areas where trail construction

would occur are limited within the project area.

Benefits to the vole would be realized under all

action alternatives with regulated recreation activities and road closures. Temporary roads will be

closed after treatments are completed, and in time

voles could use these areas.

There would be no disturbance under Alternative B.

Currently 62 percent of the project area is in dense

conditions. Dense forest stands provide low quality

habitat for the Navajo Mountain Mexican vole.

Recreation activities would not change under this

alternative, and no road closures would occur.

Activities from recreation and road travel at current

levels would continue to pose an adverse affect to

voles due to soil and vegetation disturbance and soil

compaction.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Benefits to voles would occur due to the reduction of

the dense forest canopy and increased growth in

herbaceous vegetation on the forest floor projectwide for all action alternatives, although Alternative

E would have a lesser positive effect compared to the

other action alternatives. Alternative E would be

less beneficial to the vole due to the continuance of

a dense canopy overall. Grassy openings and

meadows and open canopy areas would increase by

approximately 400 percent under Alternatives A and

D, increase by 357 percent under Alternative C, and

increase 79 percent under Alternative E. Alternative

B will continue to limit habitat for this species.

The high fire hazard potential would persist under

Alternatives B and E, and a large wildfire event

would have the potential to affect many individuals.

In 20 years post-treatment compared to current

existing habitat of 7 percent, grassy openings and

meadows and open canopy areas would decrease by

approximately 36 percent under Alternatives A, C

and D, decrease by 43 percent under Alternative E,

and decrease by 50 percent under Alternative B.

In 50 years post-treatment, with no further treatments and compared to current existing habitat of 7

percent, grassy openings and meadows and open

canopy areas would decrease by approximately 93

percent under all alternatives.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This in effect

created the dense forest condition we have today in
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 101

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the project area that is unfavorable to Navajo

Mountain Mexican vole.

Projects reviewed for this discussion are those listed

at the beginning of this chapter.

Direct effects of disturbance during implementation

of thinning, broadcast burning and recreation

trailhead and trail construction activities are additive to similar disturbances in other projects. The

timing of implementation is such that all projects

will not occur simultaneously. Adverse cumulative

effects are not expected.

The direct effect of improved habitat due to recreation and road management activities adds to

similar improvements in the Griffiths Spring area

and the Fort Tuthill to Kachina Trail area.

The indirect effects of lower canopy closure and the

beneficial increase in understory vegetation adds to

the same effects in the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale area, the Airport Fuels Reduction

broadcast burn, thinning on State Section 26, and

the Oak Creek Fuels Reduction Project.

Infill of private land has the greatest potential

impact to vole habitat. There are no undeveloped

parcels of private land in the project area.

American Peregrine Falcon, Falco

peregrinus anatum (Sensitive)

Affected Environment

Peregrine falcons occur statewide as migrant,

transient, and/or wintering individuals. The subspecies anatum breeds on selected isolated cliff

ledges and is a permanent resident on the Coconino

National Forest. The peregrine breeding season is

from March 1 to August 31. Peregrine falcons do

not typically hunt within forested stands but are

aerial predators. Peregrines prey mainly on birds

found in wetlands, riparian areas, open areas,

canyons, and mountain slopes within a 10 to 20-

mile radius from the nest site. Prey items also

include bats and mammals. The peregrine falcon

was removed from the Federal List of Endangered

and Threatened Wildlife in August 1999 (USDI Fish

and Wildlife Service 1999) and is now a Forest

Service Sensitive species.

There is one known breeding area associated with

the project. Falcons are known to occupy this site;

nesting status is unknown. There is other potential

habitat within the project area.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Falcon nesting habitat is located in Pumphouse

Wash within 1/4 mile of sites selected for treatment.

Under all action alternatives there is potential for

disturbance during treatments, therefore, timing

restrictions during the breeding season would be

implemented to avoid potential negative effects to

falcons (see Chapter 2, “Wildlife and Sensitive

Species Habitat Protection”).

Under Alternative B (No Action), there would be no

direct effects.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under Alternatives A, C, and D the forest would be

opened up and provide better sight distances for

hunting, therefore benefiting falcons. Prey species

base may shift to species that favor more open

habitats than currently exist due to a change in

forest structure.

Alternative E would open the forest to a lesser extent

compared to other action alternatives. Prey species

would continue to be present, with species favoring

more dense forests. There would be minimal improvement of sight distances for hunting.

There would be no change to the prey species base

under Alternative B, and no change in falcon hunting patterns associated with forest structure. This

is not a negative effect.

Under Alternatives B and E high fire hazard potential would persist. With the advent of a large

wildfire, falcons may be adversely affected. Smoke

from fires would settle into the canyon during

nighttime, although this would be short term.

Additionally, there would be the possibility that

spotting from a wildfire may occur and cause a fire

to start in the canyon near falcons. Under this

scenario, prey species habitat may be destroyed and

individual falcons may be harmed. However, population viability would not be affected because there

is only one eyrie in the project area.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This, in effect,

created the dense forest condition we have today in

the project area. A shift in prey base species that

favor dense forest conditions would have occurred.

This does not contribute to a cumulative effect to

peregrine falcon.
102 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Potential negative direct effects are mitigated with

timing restrictions on implementation of activities in

the vicinity of nesting habitat; therefore, there is no

added effect when considered with other projects in

and surrounding the Kachina FHP.

The beneficial indirect effect of increased sight

distances for hunting is additive to similar effects

where they occur in the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale and the Oak Creek Canyon Fuels

Reduction Project.

Northern Goshawk, Accipiter gentilis

Affected Environment

The principle forest types occupied by northern

goshawk in the Southwest are ponderosa pine,

mixed species, and spruce-fir. The goshawk is a

forest habitat generalist that uses a wide variety of

forest stages. Three components of a goshawk’s

nesting home range are identified as nest area, postfledging family area, and foraging area. It prefers

stands of intermediate canopy cover for nesting,

while more open areas are used for foraging.

The northern goshawk is opportunistic and a

generalist, not relying on one certain prey item or

habitat type for foraging. There are over 50 vertebrate species known in the diets of nesting northern

goshawks from various locations in North America

(Reynolds et al. 1992). Seventeen species are

highlighted as selected prey of the northern goshawk

(Reynolds et al. 1992). The species most frequently

taken by northern goshawk in Arizona and New

Mexico are cottontail rabbit, pigeon, golden-mantled

ground squirrel, northern flicker, American robin,

Abert squirrel, and least chipmunk. It is anticipated

that with some places becoming more open and

others remaining dense under action alternatives,

prey diversity will increase. More open areas will

result in increased populations of cottontail rabbit,

robins, mourning doves, golden-mantled ground

squirrels, and chipmunks.

Only one northern goshawk post-fledging family area

(PFA) (040515) is located within the project boundary, and one PFA is adjacent to the northeast edge of

the project boundary (040507). The remainder of

the project area is foraging habitat for northern

goshawk. The project area and 1/2 mile beyond the

boundary were surveyed for northern goshawks in

year 2000 according to Forest Service Region 3

protocol. No goshawks were found during that

survey period.

PFA 040515 was established about 1992 shortly

after the publication of “Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern

United States” (Reynolds et al. 1992) and prior to the

“Record of Decision for Amendment of Forest Plans”

(Forest Plan Amendment 11, 1996). The PFA was

established based on a number of sightings of

goshawks in the general area between 1989 and

1992, and a large unoccupied stick nest was located

in 1992. Nest searches conducted in 1992 yielded

negative results. Monitoring during the nesting and

fledgling period in 1993 likewise yielded negative

results. Surveys were conducted in 1991, 1992 and

2000 according to regional protocol with negative

results. A revisit to the stick nest in 2001 indicated

that the stick nest was no longer in existence and no

goshawks were seen or heard within the PFA during

this visit. However, there were goshawk sightings

within the project boundary during the summer of

2001.

The Forest Plan calls for the establishment of a PFA

for known nest sites, old nest sites, areas where

historical data indicates goshawks have nested there

in the past and where goshawks have been repeatedly sighted over a 2-year or greater time period.

Nests were located but confirmed nesting of goshawks has not been documented for PFA 040515,

nor have goshawks been sighted for at least 2

consecutive years in the same area. Even in view of

these facts, there is a lack of information for years

1994 through 1999. Year 2000 was a drought year

and year 2001 indicated nesting of goshawks on the

forest was limited, proving to hinder verification of

nesting in this PFA. Therefore, we have decided to

continue analysis of this PFA.

PFA 040515 overlaps Mexican spotted owl PAC

040539, and the spotted owl standards and guidelines will take precedence over the northern

goshawk standards and guidelines in overlapping

sites. Conformance with the Mexican spotted owl

standards and guidelines and the northern goshawk

standards and guidelines will not adversely affect

other threatened, endangered, or sensitive species,

and does not conflict with other established recovery

plans or conservation agreements.

The Forest Plan standards and guidelines state that

the general desired distribution across vegetative

structural stage (VSS) classes, within and outside

PFA’s, is 10 percent, 10 percent, 20 percent, 20

percent, 20 percent and 20 percent for VSS 1

through 6 consecutively. Northern goshawk use of

grassy openings is well documented in the Manage-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 103

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

ment Recommendations in the Southwestern U.S.

for the Northern Goshawk (Reynolds et al. 1992).

Desired canopy cover in ponderosa pine habitat

outside PFA’s, per Forest Plan standards and

guidelines, is 40+ percent on average for VSS 4

through VSS 6 classes. Desired canopy cover in

ponderosa pine habitat within PFA’s is, on average,

50+ percent (2/3) and 60+ percent (1/3) for VSS 4

class and 50+ percent for VSS 5 and 6 classes.

Stands preferred for nesting habitat are in VSS 5B

through 6 classes (Reynolds et al. 1992). An “A”

canopy is <40 percent cover, “B” is 40 to 60 percent

cover and “C” is >60 percent cover. There are

somewhat different standards for mixed conifer

habitat, however mixed conifer habitat is deferred

from treatment within the project area and will not

be analyzed herein. The Forest Plan standards and

guidelines for canopy cover and the northern goshawk apply to VSS 4, 5, and 6 classes only.

Proposed treatments within the PFA, 614 acres in

size, would occur in 5 of the 13 sites. Approximately

304 acres would be treated within the PFA. Only

one of the VSS 4 sites would be treated. There are

no VSS 5 or 6 sites within the PFA. Sites with

nesting stands are deferred from treatment. Human

activities in or near nest stands will be limited

during the breeding season, March 1 through

September 30, so that goshawk reproductive success is not negatively affected.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, smoke effects from

broadcast burning may disturb individual birds,

although this would be short term and would not

adversely affect goshawks. Timing of broadcast

burning may reduce any smoke impacts.

It is estimated there may be up to 20 percent loss of

snags and 50 percent loss of downed logs during

broadcast burning (Randall-Parker and Miller 1999)

although many will be protected using appropriate

ignition and piling techniques, and lining of most

snags. In addition, a small number of snags may be

created from experimental efforts to create snags

under Alternatives A and D.

There are no direct effects under Alternative B, No

Action.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Reduction of snags and logs would have a negative

impact on numbers of prey items, thus prey availability, for northern goshawk. The impact of this

effect is expected to lessen in the short term as

snags fall and become logs. The number of snags

would continue to be in short supply, due to a

current shortage of snags. Number of snags is

expected to increase in the future as other trees

grow, age, and die.

Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS)

Outside the PFA Alternatives A and D would alter

the VSS class distribution, changing the forest

project area from one dominated by VSS 3 more

toward the desired condition, although still lacking

the desired condition (Table 22). Because the

majority of the forest within the project boundary is

within the VSS 3 class, modifications to current

sites would cause the sites to fall primarily into the

VSS 4 class. Some openings (VSS 1) would be

created. Some stands would be converted into the

VSS 5 class. Post-treatment effects would be an

overabundance of VSS 3 and VSS 4, and a shortage

in the remaining VSS classes. The post-treatment

lack of sites in the VSS 5 and 6 classes is due to a

current lack of sites in these classes. However, over

time trees in the VSS 4 class would grow and shift

into the VSS 5 class, and later age into the VSS 6

class (see Tables 19 and 20, depicting VSS in 20

years and in 50 years).

Under Alternatives A and D, the PFA would remain

dominated by VSS 3 class (Table 23). Treatments

would modify some of the sites from VSS 3 class to

VSS 4 class. Some openings (VSS 1) would also be

created. Post-treatment effects would be an overabundance of VSS 2 through 4, and shortages of

VSS 1, VSS 5, and VSS 6 classes within the northern goshawk PFA. The shortages of VSS 1, 5, and 6

classes are due to current conditions lacking such

sites.

Alternative C would be very similar to Alternatives A

and D, with the only difference that fewer grassy

openings (VSS 1) would be created. The effects

analysis is the same as under Alternatives A and D.

Under Alternatives A, C, and D forest conditions

conducive to goshawk nesting would be improved,

although there would continue to be a lack of

appropriate nesting stands. Improvement would be

short term and long term due to increasing number

of tree stands shifting into the VSS 5 and 6 classes.

Northern goshawks are expected to continue to

forage in the project area. Thinning would increase

vigor and growth of remaining trees. Understory

herbaceous vegetation would be enhanced from a
104 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

more open forest canopy, as sunlight and moisture

would be more available. Understory herbaceous

vegetation would also be enhanced from broadcast

burning as a result of nutrient cycling. These last

effects benefit prey species that inhabit more open

areas, thus benefit goshawks. Prey species that

inhabit denser forests would still be available to

northern goshawk. The increase in prey species

diversity is very beneficial to northern goshawk; for

example, when environmental conditions oscillate,

different species of prey will be more abundant,

always offering a food resource to northern goshawk.

Under Alternatives A, C, and D there would be a

reduction in fire hazard potential, thus a reduction

in the risk of habitat loss. Treatments would aid the

development of recruitment PFA’s.

Alternative E would alter the VSS class distribution

outside the PFA from a forest dominated by VSS 3 to

one dominated more by VSS 4 (Table 22). There

would be no change within the goshawk PFA (Table

23). Because the majority of the forest outside the

PFA is within the VSS 3 class, modifications to

current sites would cause the sites to fall primarily

into the VSS 4 class. A few stands would be converted into the VSS 5 class, and very few openings

Table 22. Existing VSS Class Percentages of Total Project Area Acreage, Anticipated Post-treatment VSS for All

Action Alternatives, and General Desired VSS Condition outside the PFA.

 GENERAL (Does not include PFA)

Existing

Conditions Alternatives Alternative Alternative Recommended

Alternative B A and D C E Standards

VSS* Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

1 42 0.6 401 5.5 221 3 86 1 710 10

2 267 4 166 2.5 166 2 166 2 710 10

3 4,412 62 1,711 24 1,711 24 2,756 39 1,420 20

4 1,720 24 3,854 54 4,033 57 3,218 45 1,420 20

5 449 6.4 758 11 759 11 662 9 1,420 20

6 210 3 210 3 210 3 210 3 1,420 20

* VSS classes 1=unstocked opening, 2=<5 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (4.5 feet); 3=5 to 11.9 inches dbh; 4=12 to 17.9 inches dbh;

5=18+ inches dbh; and 6=old-growth.

Table 23. Existing VSS Class Percentages of Total Project Area Acreage, Anticipated Post-treatment VSS for All

Action Alternatives, and General Desired VSS Condition within the PFA.

 PFA

Existing

Conditions Alternatives Alternative Alternative Recommended

Alternative B A and D C E Standards

VSS* Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

1 0 0 30 5 15 3 0 0 61.4 10

2 118 19 118 19 118 19 118 19 61.4 10

3 349 57 278 45 287 47 349 57 122.8 20

4 147 24 188 31 193 31 147 24 122.8 20

5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122.8 20

6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 122.8 20

* VSS classes 1=unstocked opening, 2=<5 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) (4.5 feet); 3=5 to 11.9 inches dbh; 4=12 to 17.9 inches dbh;

5=18+ inches dbh; and 6=old-growth.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 105

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

would be created. Post-treatment effects would be

an overabundance of VSS 3 and VSS 4, and a

shortage in the remaining VSS classes. The posttreatment lack of sites in the VSS 5 and 6 classes is

due to a current lack of sites in these classes. Over

time a few stands in the VSS 3 and 4 classes would

grow and shift into the VSS 4 and 5 classes, respectively, and none would age into the VSS 6 class (see

Tables 19 and 20 depicting VSS in 20 years and in

50 years and within PFA in Table 25).

Under Alternative E there would be no improvement

in the condition of the PFA. Alternative E treatments would improve habitat conditions conducive

for goshawk nesting north of Kelly Canyon outside

the urban-interface zone and outside the PFA due to

an increase in the VSS 5 class, although there would

continue to be a lack of appropriate nesting stands.

Little improvement toward nesting habitat would

occur south of Kelly Canyon. Northern goshawks

are expected to continue to forage in the project

area, with prey species diversity increasing north of

Kelly Canyon. Thinning would increase vigor and

growth of remaining trees, and understory herbaceous vegetation would be enhanced, although not

to the extent as the other action alternatives. There

would not be a reduction in the high fire hazard

potential under Alternative E.

Under all action alternatives, all yellow pine trees

will be deferred from treatment and retained across

the project area. Yellow pines are important for

goshawk nest areas. Thinning from below of smaller

trees around yellow pines would occur to improve

tree longevity. Under Alternative E thinning around

yellow pines may be less than that of the other

action alternatives due to a 9-inch diameter limit for

many sites. Sites would also be managed in efforts

to retain snags, logs and woody debris, which is

habitat for prey species.

Under Alternative B, the dense forest canopy would

persist and the forest structure would continue to be

dominated by VSS 3 class. Over time a few stands

would shift into the VSS 4 class (see Tables 19 and

20 depicting VSS in 20 years and in 50 years).

There would continue to be a severe lack of nesting

stands (VSS 5 and 6 classes). There would be no

improvement in habitat conditions for northern

goshawk. However, goshawks are expected to

continue to forage in the project area.

Under Alternatives B and E, the high fire hazard

potential would persist and devastation of goshawk

habitat may occur in the event of a large wildfire.

* VSS classes: 4=12 to 17.9 inches dbh; 5=18+ inches dbh; and 6=old-growth. A=<40 percent canopy cover, B=40 to 60 percent canopy cover,

C=>60 percent canopy cover.

Table 24. Canopy Cover Distribution Outside of the Northern Goshawk PFA.

 GENERAL (Does not include PFA)

Existing Recommended

Conditions Alternatives Alternative Alternative Standards for

Alternative B A and D C E Ponderosa Pine

VSS* Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

4A 170 10 557 42 560 39 318 21

4B 941 55 737 55 839 58 845 56

4C 609 35 38 3 38 3 355 23

Sum 1,720 1,332 1,437 1,518

5A 185 41 227 33 222 33 235 37

5B 185 41 387 56 381 56 315 50

5C 79 18 79 11 79 11 79 13

Sum 449 693 682 629

6A 0 0 00 0 0

6B 210 100 210 100 210 100 210 100

6C 0 0 00 0 0

Sum 210 210 210 210

VSS 5 average

canopy cover

40+ percent

VSS 6 average

canopy cover

40+ percent

VSS 4 average

canopy cover

40+ percent
106 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

* VSS classes: 4=12 to 17.9 inches dbh; 5=18+ inches dbh; and 6=old-growth. A=<40 percent canopy cover, B=40 to 60 percent canopy cover,

C=>60 percent canopy cover.

Table 25. Canopy Cover Distribution Within the Northern Goshawk PFA.

Existing Recommended

Conditions Alternatives Alternative Alternative Standards for

Alternative B A and D C E Ponderosa Pine

VSS* Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent

4A 0 0 0 00 0 00

4B 108 74 100 72 104 73 108 74

4C 39 26 39 28 39 27 39 26

Sum 147 139 143 147

5A 0 00 0

5B 0 00 0

5C 0 00 0

Sum 0 00 0

6A 0 00 0

6B 0 00 0

6C 0 00 0

Sum 0 00 0

VSS 5 average

canopy cover

50+ percent

VSS 6 average

canopy cover

50+ percent

VSS 4 average

canopy cover 60+

percent (1/3) and

50+ percent (2/3)

Table 26. Sites within the Northern Goshawk PFA Showing Future Conditions in 20 Years and 50 Years

Post-treatment for All Action Alternatives compared to Alternative B, No Action, Kachina Village Forest

Health Project, Coconino National Forest, Arizona. Treated stands are shaded.

Alternative B Alternatives A & D Alternative C Alternative E

Location Site Current 20 Yrs. 50 Yrs. 20 Yrs. 50 Yrs. 20 Yrs. 50 Yrs. 20 Yrs. 50 Yrs.

345 12 3C 3C 4C 4B 4C 4B 4C 4B 4C

345 13 3C 3C 3C 4B 5C 4B 5C 4C 4C

345 16 4B 4B 4C 4B 4C 4B 4C 4B 4C

345 17 2C 2C 3C 2C 3C 2C 3C 2C 3C

345 20 3C 3C 3C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C

345 21 3B 3C 3C 4B 4C 4B 4C 3C 3C

345 22 2C 2C 3C 2C 3C 2C 3C 2C 3C

345 25 3B 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C

345 40 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C

345 41 3B 3B 3C 3B 3C 3B 3C 3B 3C

354 2 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C 4C

354 3 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C 3C

354 35 4B 4C 4C 4B 5C 4B 5C 4C 4C
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 107

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Canopy Cover Associated with VSS Class

Canopy cover standards would be met under all

alternatives outside the PFA (Table 24). Posttreatment canopy cover distribution for VSS 4 within

the PFA would show a slight shortage for the 60+

percent class (C canopy cover); the desired condition

is 33 percent. This result is attributed to current

conditions. There are no sites that are in the VSS 5

and VSS 6 classes within the PFA, therefore, there is

an acute lack of optimal nesting stands within the

PFA.

In the long term under Alternatives A, C and D, a

few sites within the PFA would grow and age into

stands that would provide favorable nest stand

conditions (Table 25). Alternatives B and E would

have slower tree growth and would not offer optimal

nest stands (VSS 5B-6) in the future, although

Alternative E would show some improvement in tree

growth over Alternative B.

Roads and Recreation in

Northern Goshawk PFA

Recreation activities within the PFA may hinder

goshawk reproduction. Currently there are roads

and social trails that allow access to or traverse

nesting areas within the PFA. Disturbance in

nesting areas during the breeding season may cause

goshawks to abandon the nest and possibly abandon future use of the nesting area. Under all action

alternatives, social trails through nesting areas

would be closed, thus benefiting northern goshawks.

Road closures would also benefit northern goshawk

by reducing disturbance. Under Alternative B, No

Action, closure of social trails and some roads would

not occur allowing continued access to nesting

stands. Therefore, recreational activities would

continue to hinder nesting use of affected stands

and may adversely affect northern goshawk.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Historical silvicultural practices of removing large

sized trees and suppression of fires created a forest

of existing conditions seen today.

The direct short-term effects of smoke disturbance

to individual birds adds to similar effects in the

Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale area, the

Airport Fuels Reduction Project broadcast burn, the

Oak Creek Fuels Reduction Project area and State

Section 26 burning. However, because ADEQ

regulates burning, it is unlikely that these burns

would occur simultaneously or even consecutively.

In addition, there is enough unburned landscape

surrounding these areas that birds can avoid burn

areas, returning when smoke subsides.

The decrease in the number of snags and logs and

subsequent impact on numbers of prey items adds

to a similar effect in the above-mentioned projects

where broadcast burning may occur. The cumulative decrease in snags does not result in significant

cumulative effect, because other types of prey are

available in all areas.

There is a shift toward the desired distribution of

VSS classes and canopy cover. Changes in VSS

distribution have occurred slightly in the

Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale area. The

increase in prey species diversity due to an increase

in herbaceous understory is additive to similar

effects on the projects mentioned above. When

combined, there is a positive trend toward Forest

Plan desired conditions.

Improvement to nesting habitat forest conditions

(Alternatives A, C, and D only) adds to similar

improvements of the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale where nesting habitat is also improved.

The closure of social trails in PFA’s offsets the effects

of social trails in other areas. The decrease in

human disturbance from road and trail management

activities offsets human disturbance that may occur

in the surrounding landscape. The decrease in

human disturbance is additive to similar decreases

from trail and parking location in the Griffiths

Spring area.

No undeveloped parcels of private land remain in the

project area.

Cumulative effects are not expected to result in

reduction of population viability or a negative trend

for listing this species.

Sensitive Native Plant Species

Two sensitive plant species are included in the

analysis herein: Flagstaff beardtongue, Penstemon

nudiflorus and Flagstaff pennyroyal, Hedeoma

diffusum.

Affected Environment

Flagstaff beardtongue grows in dry pine forests in

north-central Arizona from 4,500 to 7,000 feet,

flowering from June to August. It occurs on dry

slopes with ponderosa pine in mountainous or hilly

regions south of the Grand Canyon, in openings and
108 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

often along edges of openings and forested areas. It

may occur on light, dry neutral soils in eroded or

mountainous areas. It has been documented to

occur near Anderson Mesa, Lake Mary, Luke Mountain, Mormon Lake, Stoneman Lake, and along

Schnebly Hill Road and Oak Creek. Surveys for this

plant species were conducted in 2001. Although

there were no populations of this penstemon found

during survey efforts, suitable habitat exists within

the project area.

Flagstaff pennyroyal, a perennial herb, is restricted

to scattered limestone and sandstone outcroppings

of relatively undisturbed habitats. Habitat for this

species consists of rock pavement, cliffs, limestone

and sandstone in the ponderosa pine vegetation

type, with canopy coverage from 0 percent to 86

percent, and between 4,500 to 7,000 feet elevation.

Flagstaff pennyroyal flowers from May through

September. The species is found in many areas on

the Mormon Lake Ranger District. Surveys were

conducted in 2001 and one population of Flagstaff

pennyroyal was found within the project area,

however, suitable habitat exists throughout most of

the project area.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, disturbance from

mechanical activities and broadcast burning may

impact individual plants. Alternative E would have

a lesser impact due to fewer mechanical activities

south of Kelly Canyon. For both species, spring

prescribed burning will cause little damage to

individual plants if plants are still dormant. Treatment activities would occur across the project area

at different times; activities would be temporally and

spatially separated. Effects would be short term.

Population viability would not be impacted from

treatment activities.

There would be no direct effects under Alternative B,

No Action.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, the creation of grassy

openings and reduction in the dense tree canopy in

some areas would be beneficial to both species as

both species inhabit more open areas or edges.

Nutrient cycling from broadcast burning would be

beneficial to plants. Any populations of these

sensitive species are expected to rebound quickly

following broadcast burning, and become larger and

more robust with less litter and shade and increased

availability of nutrients.

Under Alternative B, distribution of these plant

species will be limited due to the dense nature of the

forest in the project area. These species thrive in

more open habitat conditions than currently exist.

Under Alternatives B and E the high fire hazard

potential will persist. With the advent of a large

wildfire, plant species would be impacted and

populations may be lost due to large expanses of the

forest burning at one time and areas would burn

hot. Hot fires kill beneficial mycorrhizae in the soil

(DeBano 1990, Wright 1996) and volatilize nutrients

(Covington and Sackett 1984, 1990; DeBano 1990).

Any nutrients that remain in ash may be lost due to

erosion. Plants eliminated due to a large, hotburning wildfire may take years to re-establish.

Prescribed fires, which are low intensity fires,

typically burn cooler than wildfires (DeBano 1990).

Recreation activities may impact plant species by

crushing, trampling and dislodging plants. Impacts

occur from hiking and biking due to creation of

social trails through habitat and recreational

activities such as rock climbing within habitat for

these plant species. Off-road driving may crush

plants. Under all action alternatives, management

of recreation activities by closing social trails and

roads would reduce impacts to sensitive plant

species. The population of Flagstaff pennyroyal

found during survey efforts is located at an access

point to James Canyon where a social trail traverses

this area. The road leading to this point would also

be closed under all action alternatives, thus limiting

access to this point and protecting the population.

Under Alternative B, individual plants and plant

populations of these sensitive species would continue to be at risk from limited favorable habitat and

recreation activities.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This, in effect,

created the dense forest condition we have today in

the project area that is unfavorable to these sensitive plant species that favor more open habitats.

Impacts to individual plants from implementation of

thinning, broadcast burning and trail and trailhead

construction is additive to similar effects in similar

projects in and surrounding the Kachina FHP.

However, project design includes avoiding known

plant populations where possible, so this cumulative

effect is not great. No undeveloped parcels of private

land occur in the project area. Flagstaff beardtongue may have an additional cumulative effect
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 109

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

from reseeding efforts along highways and roadways.

Like most penstemons, P. nudiflorus hybridizes

easily. Seed mixes containing other penstemon

species, like P. strictus, threaten this species genetically.

Plant response to broadcast burning (larger and

more robust) is additive to similar effects that have

or may occur in the Pumphouse Multiproduct

Timber Sale, the Airport Fuels Reduction Project

broadcast burn and the Oak Creek Fuels Reduction

Project.

Creation of grassy openings and a decrease in

canopy cover is additive to similar effects in

Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale, the State

Section 26 thinning and the Oak Creek Fuels

Reduction Project.

Reduction of impacts from recreation and road

management activities add to similar effects in the

Griffiths Spring and Fort Tuthill to Kachina Village

Trail Projects.

Invertebrates

Affected Environment

Three sensitive species of invertebrates are analyzed

herein. They are spotted skipperling (Piruna

polingii), mountain silverspot butterfly (Speyeria

nokomis nitocris) and blue-black silverspot butterfly

(Speyeria nokomis nokomis). These three butterfly

species inhabit moist meadows, seeps, springs and

streams within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer

vegetation types and, in some cases, other habitat

types with riparian areas. The two silverspot

butterfly species have specific life cycle requirements

where they use Viola species: adults feed on thistles.

There are no documented populations of these

butterfly species within the project area, however,

suitable habitat does exist in the canyons and at

Lindberg Spring, Griffiths Spring and Kelly Seep.

The canyons are deferred from treatment; therefore,

those associated riparian areas would be unaffected.

A survey for invertebrate species was conducted in

the summer of 2000.

A rehabilitation project would be implemented at

Kelly Seep under all action alternatives that includes

removal of old dilapidated fencing and debris and

installing new fencing around Kelly Seep to improve

riparian habitat conditions.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, thinning would occur

near the springs and seep. The springs and seep

and meadows around them would be protected,

however some individuals may be impacted from

treatment activities, including rehabilitation efforts

at Kelly Seep. These effects would be minimal and

short term.

Alternative B (No Action) would not directly impact

these species.

Off-road driving across meadows and other recreation activities, such as hiking and biking, may

impact habitat and harm eggs, individual adults, or

larvae. Butterfly collecting would have a negative

effect.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Improvement to Kelly Seep under all action alternatives will be beneficial to these butterfly species.

Reducing the canopy closure, checking tree encroachment and removing trees in and at edges of

meadows would be beneficial for these species.

Under Alternative B Kelly Seep would not be rehabilitated, thus there would not be any benefits to

these species. Favorable habitat would decrease

over time as conifers encroach meadows and canopy

closure increases.

The high fire hazard potential would persist under

Alternatives B and E. A large wildfire event may

destroy some habitat and eggs laid by these species,

and kill or harm individual adults or larvae, thus

adversely impacting these butterfly species.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

The Griffiths Spring Parking and Interpretive Trail

affects these species. Other projects do not specifically affect springs, seeps or meadows.

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This, in effect,

created the dense forest condition we have today in

the project area. A dense forest canopy hinders

growth of vegetation on the forest floor. This, in

turn, limits food availability and habitat substrate

necessary for the life cycles of these species.
110 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Impacts to individuals during implementation of

thinning near springs and seeps, and implementation of the rehabilitation of Kelly Seep adds to

similar impacts during the construction of the

Griffiths Spring Trail and parking area. Other

habitats in the area are not affected, and population

viability is maintained.

Improved habitat resulting from rehabilitation of

Kelly Seep adds to similar improvements at the

Griffiths Spring site.

Improved habitat resulting from rehabilitation of

Kelly Seep, reduction of canopy closure, and more

and larger openings, offsets the lack of these habitat

components in other areas of the landscape, and

maintains habitat while there is a loss of habitat

from development of private land.

Invasive and Noxious Weeds

The ponderosa pine forest on the Coconino National

Forest has been greatly disturbed by logging, livestock grazing, roads, recreation, and the recent

expansion of cities, towns and summer homes.

Studies of the 1996 wildfires around Flagstaff

revealed a nonnative flora of over 30 invasive,

noxious plants such as Russian thistle (Salsola kali),

cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), Dalmatian toadflax

(Linaria dalmatica), bull thistle (Cirsium vulgare) and

other species (Crawford et al. 2000; Griffis et al.

2001). Noxious weeds in the project area include

cheatgrass, Dalmatian toadflax, bull thistle and

diffuse knapweed (Centaurea diffusum).

Nonnative plant species often out compete native

species and may become established in disturbed

areas before native species. Replacement of native

plant species with invasive, noxious weeds may

impact herbivore populations (reducing the number

of individuals) that are prey species for other sensitive wildlife species.

A weed risk assessment will be completed for the

preferred alternative for this project. Best management practices for weeds, integrated weed

management practices for the Coconino, Kaibab and

Prescott National Forests (Phillips et al. 2001), will

be implemented. Many species of noxious weeds are

anticipated to be less in 20 years due to the implementation of this project. The intent of this project

is to help restore a healthy, functioning ecosystem

that will contain a diversity of native species that

would check or reduce competition of nonnative and

noxious plants. Cheatgrass and Dalmatian toadflax

may increase over time. The forest will continue to

implement best management practices to contain

and control noxious weeds.

Management Indicator Species

The National Forest Management Act of 1982

requires that the effects of each alternative on fish

and wildlife be estimated and that “certain vertebrate and/or invertebrate species present in the

area be identified and selected as management

indicator species” (36 CFR 219.19(a)(1)). Management indicator species were identified and selected

for the forest, as noted in the Forest Plan (USDA

Forest Service 1996). Management indicator species

affected by this project are discussed below.

Affected Environment

Forest indicator species predominately occur in midaged and mature stands, and do not indicate overall

use patterns in the community or those of species of

special concern. Passerine20 bird use is highest in

mature and especially old-growth stands. Passerine

use by canopy density is evenly distributed with a

slight preference for moderate canopies. Vegetative

structural stage use by wildlife (Patton 1995, Benoit

1996) is fairly evenly distributed with slightly higher

use in mature and old-growth forests and moderate

and dense canopy stands. Young stands and open

canopies are used the least. Large mammals follow

an opposing pattern, with higher use occurring in

openings, seedlings, and saplings than in mature or

old-growth areas.

Existing human use in the Kachina Village FHP area

is high. Road density is high, and there are many

miles of social trails. High human use, combined

with high road and trail densities, have the potential

to impact all of the forest’s MIS species and especially raptors, elk, passerine birds, turkey, and the

northern goshawk in various ways. Human disturbance can cause raptors to abandon nests and move

home ranges (Andersen, Rongstad and Mytton 1990,

Vincenty 1974). Road use and recreation can cause

elk and deer to draw within the woods to more quiet

and undisturbed areas, with deer being more

vulnerable to disturbance (Edge and Marcum 1991).

The greatest impact area is 1/4 to 1/2 mile out from

roads (Lyon et al. 1990, J.T. Thomas ed. 1979).

Lack of wildlife cover and screening along roads

exacerbates disturbance from road use (Gruell et al.

20 A bird of the order passerineformes, examples are sparrows and bluebirds.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 111

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

1976). Road use, off-road driving and trail use

adversely impact turkeys; home ranges may be

shifted and nests abandoned (Bailey and Rinell

1968, Holbrook and Vaughan 1985, Lindezey 1967).

Jones and Barsch (1992) found that illegal take of

wild turkey was high in northern Arizona, and that

high road density is facilitating the illegal take of

turkey. Some passerine birds are negatively affected

from human presence, and other species are not

(Garton et al. 1977, Van der Zande et al. 1984).

The following management indicator species are

located within the project boundary and may potentially be affected from the project: Abert squirrel,

elk, hairy woodpecker, mule deer, northern goshawk, pygmy nuthatch, and turkey.

Abert Squirrel

Abert squirrels are indicators of early seral stages of

ponderosa pine forests (young to mid-age forests,

VSS 3 and 4). The population of Abert squirrel on

the Coconino National Forest is considered to be

stable from 1998 through 2001 (Dodd 2002). Squirrels favor scattered large trees and multi-storied

stands mixed with poles. The project area currently

exhibits good quality habitat for Abert squirrel.

According to research conducted by Dodd, et al.

(1998), Abert squirrels exhibit better recruitment

and fitness in the ponderosa pine forest with tree

groups of ≥ 5 interlocking canopy trees per clump, 9

groups per acre, and basal area of 150 sq. ft. per

acre. They also recommend maintenance of ≥ 8

trees per acre that are 18+ inches in diameter. They

showed that interlocking canopy trees are positively

related to squirrel recruitment, and basal area is

positively related to squirrel fitness.

Elk

Elk are indicators of early seral stages of conifer

forests. Overall, elk are considered to be stable

statewide (AGFD 2001b) and stable on the Coconino

National Forest (USDA Forest Service 1999, 2001d).

Productivity tends to be high and herds are located

in all habitat types, even outside of ponderosa pine.

The objective of the Arizona Game and Fish Department is to maintain a stable to gradually declining

population over time, with specific objectives for

specific areas (AGFD 2001a). Elk are found

throughout the project area.

Hairy Woodpecker

This species is an indicator of snags in conifer

forests for suitable nesting and feeding habitat.

According to Latta et al. (1999), hairy woodpeckers

are uncommon throughout their range yet common

in their preferred habitat in Arizona. Their breeding

distribution encompasses 51 to 75 percent of North

America, including Mexico, and 26 to 50 percent of

Arizona. This species is experiencing loss of suitable

breeding habitat in the form of snags both rangewide and in Arizona. Arizona is considered to be of

very low importance to this species since it represents < 1 percent of the species total breeding

distribution. Breeding Bird Survey data shows

declines in Mogollon Rim province, Colorado Plateau

province, and the state (USDA Forest Service 1999).

Mule Deer

This species is an indicator of early seral stages of

aspen/shrub and conifer forests. Statewide the

mule deer population is declining (AGFD 2001b).

Populations on Coconino National Forest are considered to be stable to declining, depending on location

(USDA Forest Service 1999, 2001d). Mule deer are

uncommon in the project area. Mule deer have the

narrowest diet range of any North American ungulate. That is to say there is a limited number of

plants they can use to their maximum dietary

benefit. Deer tend to feed on forbs and browse with

grasses in the spring and fall and, therefore, overlap

somewhat with the other ungulates in the area.

Deer are more cover dependent than elk. Excessive

browse utilization has a relatively greater impact on

deer compared to other species because it is a

primary food item for them. Also, if other species

(such as elk or domestic livestock) use browse before

them, the larger twigs are not as easy to feed on or

digest.

Northern Goshawk

This species is an indicator of late seral stages of

conifer forests. Population trends are difficult to

determine, but there is no hard evidence of a considerable decline; however, it is probably declining in

some areas due to habitat alteration (The Nature

Conservancy 1999). On the Coconino National

Forest, northern goshawk territories have been

monitored every year since 1989, with an average of

43 territories monitored from 1991 to 2001. The

occupancy rate of territories has declined over these

last 11 years; however, this does not signify a

corresponding trend in population numbers. It is

likely that nonbreeding goshawks would not be

observed. During the later years of this time period,

precipitation amounts have been below average.

Climate may very well play an important role in

whether or not northern goshawks breed in a given

year, and would also influence nesting success of
112 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

northern goshawks. On Coconino National Forest,

the population status is considered to be stable to

declining. The northern goshawk is included in the

Threatened, Endangered, and Sensitive Species

section. Habitat capability modeling for northern

goshawk is presented in this section.

Pygmy Nuthatch

Pygmy nuthatches are indicators of late seral stages

of ponderosa pine. They are considered common

throughout their range in North America, Mexico

and Arizona. Moderate threats exist on breeding

and wintering grounds both in Arizona and North

America, defined as habitat loss. Arizona is considered to be of low importance to this species,

representing 1 to 10 percent of the species’ total

breeding and wintering distribution (Latta et al.

1999). According to breeding bird survey data, the

population was stable up to 1996. On the south end

of the Coconino National Forest, the population

crashed in 1996 and is slowly recovering (USDA

Forest Service 1999).

Turkey

Turkey is an indicator of late seral stages of conifer

forests, based on roost habitat requirements.

Turkey population trends vary depending on location. In the project area, populations are stable to

increasing, with a stable to slight decline in GMU 6B

(USDA Forest Service 1999, 2001d).

Habitat Capability Modeling Description

The Habitat Quality Index (HQI) model was used for

habitat capability modeling. Modeling was completed for seven management indicator species that

would potentially be affected under the project:

Abert squirrel, elk, hairy woodpecker, northern

goshawk, mule deer, pygmy nuthatch, and turkey.

HQI modeling is based on the value of forage and

cover for vegetation type and structure and season

of use. Forage includes any habitat that provides

food for a species; vegetation for herbivores or prey

for predators. Cover includes hiding, thermal, nests,

or dens as habitat. The indices from HQI modeling

for this project are used for relative comparisons

between alternatives.

Action alternatives meet Forest Plan habitat capability desired conditions. Desired limits and acceptable

changes regarding wildlife habitat capability are

described in the monitoring plan section of the

Forest Plan on pages 210 through 216.

Summary of Direct Effects for All Species

for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under all action alternatives, disturbance to species

would be reduced with management of recreation

activities and road closures. Under all action

alternatives, smoke effects from broadcast burning

may disturb individual animals, although this would

be short term and would not adversely affect any

species.

Through time, based on estimated future VSS class

distribution (see beginning of wildlife analysis

section), Alternatives A, C and D would be more

beneficial for late seral species due to greater

increases in VSS 5 and 6 over the other alternatives.

All alternatives would provide the same limited

benefit to early seral species. Habitat would be

provided for mid-seral species under all alternatives.

Under Alternative B elk, mule deer, northern goshawk, and turkey would be negatively affected by

disturbance from recreation activities and road

traffic; animals may move home ranges and may

abandon nesting areas.

Indirect Effects for All MIS Species for

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E (Habitat

Quality Index)

Under Alternative B, due to no change in current

conditions, the high fire hazard potential would persist. Alternative E would present the same high fire

hazard potential as Alternative B (refer to Fire Effects section). In the advent of a large wildfire under

these two alternatives, forest habitat would be destroyed and population viability of forest-dependent

species would be adversely affected. Alternatives A,

C and D would reduce the threat of a wildfire event.

Abert squirrel Habitat Quality Index

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, cover would decline

and forage would improve compared to existing

conditions. The project area would be dominated by

high quality forage (68.5 percent) and moderate

quality cover (41.5 percent). High quality cover

would occur over 24.3 percent of the project area.

There are some areas that would not offer any forage

value (16 percent) or cover value (16 percent).

Under Alternative E, cover would also decline and

forage would also improve, but not to the same

degree as under the other action alternatives due to

the lesser amount of thinning south of Kelly Canyon.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 113

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Elk HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Abert Squirrel HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Figure 28. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for

Abert Squirrel

The project area would be dominated by high quality

forage (63.5 percent) and moderate quality cover

(43.6 percent). High quality cover would occur over

29.3 percent of the project area. There are some

areas that would not offer any forage value (17.7

percent) or cover value (17.7 percent).

Under Alternative B, No Action, the project area is

dominated by high quality forage (65.2 percent) and

high quality cover (45.9 percent). Moderate quality

cover occurs over 32 percent of the project area.

There are some areas that do not offer any forage

value (13.8 percent) or cover value (13.8 percent).

The Forest Plan requires to manage for at least

20 percent of potential habitat capability for

Abert squirrel in 10K blocks as determined by

the forest habitat capability model (page 125).

All alternatives provide greater than 20 percent

forage and cover habitat.

Considering cover and forage together, Alternative B offers the best quality habitat for Abert

squirrel. On the other hand, the action

alternatives would not greatly impact Abert

squirrel, and would enhance habitat by

creating uneven-age stand structure with tree

clumping and edge effects. Edge effects are

important for feeding opportunities (Dodd et al.

1998); squirrels could visit trees that produce

more cones as the trees would be released from

competition due to thinning treatments. With

the modest estimated change in HQI from

existing conditions, the action alternatives may

not have a detectable effect on the population

trend of Abert squirrel on the Coconino

National Forest. Additional population monitoring may occur as a result of proposed research

and monitoring submitted by Arizona Game and

Fish Department (see Chapter 2, “Monitoring”).

Elk Habitat Quality Index

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, cover would

decline and forage would improve compared to

existing conditions. The project area would be

dominated by moderate quality forage (65.4

percent) and moderate quality cover (51.5

percent). High quality forage (7.4 percent) and

high quality cover (16 percent) would occur but

would be limited. There are some areas that

would not offer any forage value (24.5 percent)

or cover value (30.9 percent).

Under Alternative E, cover would also decline

but not to the same degree as under the other

action alternatives due to the denser condition

of the forest in areas where a 9-inch diameter limit

is imposed. Forage value would remain the same as

under Alternative B, No Action. The project area

would be dominated by moderate quality forage

(64.9 percent) and moderate quality cover (55.3

percent). High quality forage (2.7 percent) and high

quality cover (19.2 percent) would occur but would

be limited. There are some areas that would not

offer any forage value (28.2 percent) or cover value

(23.9 percent).

Under Alternative B (No Action), the project area is

dominated by moderate quality (44.7 percent) to low

quality forage (16.5 percent). High quality forage is

Figure 29. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Elk
114 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Hairy Woodpecker HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Figure 30. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Hairy

Woodpecker

only represented by 2.1 percent of the project area.

High quality cover occurs over 44.2 percent of the

project area. There are some areas that do not offer

any forage value (36.7 percent) or cover value (16.5

percent).

There would be adequate cover under all alternatives. Best foraging opportunities would occur

under Alternatives A, C and D. Considering cover

and forage together, all action alternatives would

improve habitat quality for elk, with Alternatives A,

C and D offering better habitat quality. The creation

and/or expansion of openings and broadcast burning will stimulate understory plant growth. This

would provide more forage for elk. Thermal and

hiding cover will continue to be provided. With the

modest estimated change in HQI from existing

conditions, the project may not have a detectable

effect on the population trend of elk on the Coconino

National Forest.

However, elk population numbers are affected by

hunting regulations governed by the Arizona Game

and Fish Department and the number of elk permits

issued. The goal of the Arizona Game and Fish

Department is to decrease the number of elk on the

forest with specified goals associated with specific

Game Management Units (GMU’s) (AGFD 2001a).

The Kachina Village FHP falls into GMU’s 6A, 6B

and 7M (this is a metro unit created from parts of

5B, 6A and 7 in 2001). The goal of Arizona Game

and Fish is to continue reductions of elk in the

project area (AGFD 2001a).

Hairy Woodpecker Habitat Quality Index

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, cover and forage

would improve compared to existing conditions. The

project area would be dominated by high quality

forage (55.2 percent) and high quality cover (59.6

percent). There are some areas that would not offer

any forage value (18 percent) or cover value (31.1

percent).

Under Alternative E, cover would also improve but

not to the same degree as under the other action

alternatives. Forage value would remain the same

as existing conditions. The project area would be

dominated by high quality forage (51.4 percent) and

high quality cover (45.9 percent). There are some

areas that would not offer any forage value (20.2

percent) or cover value (42.1 percent).

Under Alternative B (No Action), the project area is

dominated by high quality forage (54.1 percent).

High quality cover occurs over 30.1 percent of the

project area, with low quality cover over 31.7 percent

of the project area. There are some areas that do

not offer any forage value (15.9 percent) or cover

value (38.2 percent).

Considering cover and forage together, Alternatives

A, C, and D would offer better habitat quality. The

greatest increase in VSS 5 class would occur under

these three alternatives. This class contains large

trees which are recruitment trees for snags. With

the modest estimated change in HQI from existing

conditions, the project may not have a detectable

effect on the population trend of hairy woodpecker on the Coconino National Forest.

Additional population monitoring may occur

as a result of proposed research and monitoring submitted by the Arizona Game and Fish

Department and Ecological Research Institute

in cooperation with Northern Arizona Audubon

Society (see Chapter 2, “Monitoring”).

Northern Goshawk

Habitat Quality Index

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, cover would

improve and forage value would remain the

same compared to existing conditions. The

project area would be dominated by high

quality forage (66.7 percent) and high quality

cover (37.7 percent). There are some areas

that would not offer any forage value (15.3

percent) or cover value (34.4 percent).

Under Alternative E, cover would also improve

but not to the same degree as under the other

action alternatives. Forage value would
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 115

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mule Deer HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Northern Goshawk HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

decline compared to existing conditions. The

project area would be dominated by high

quality forage (55.2 percent) and high quality

cover (42.1 percent). There are some areas

that would not offer any forage value (16.9

percent) or cover value (47 percent).

Under Alternative B (No Action), the project

area is dominated by high quality forage

(62.3 percent). High quality cover occurs

over 27.9 percent of the project area, with

low quality cover over 24.6 percent of the

project area. There are some areas that do

not offer any forage value (10.9 percent) or

cover value (45.3 percent).

Considering cover and forage together,

Alternatives A, C, and D would offer better

habitat quality. With the modest estimated

change in HQI from existing conditions, the

project may not have a detectable effect on

the population trend of northern goshawk on

the Coconino National Forest. (See Figure

31.)

Mule Deer Habitat Quality Index

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, cover would decline

and forage would improve compared to existing

conditions. The project area would be dominated by

moderate quality forage (44.1 percent) and high

quality cover (40.4 percent). High quality forage

would occur over 28.7 percent of the project area.

There are some areas that would not offer any forage

value (24.5 percent) or cover value (17.6 percent).

Under Alternative E, cover would also decline and

forage would also improve but not to the same

degree as under the other action alternatives due to

the lesser amount of thinning south of Kelly Canyon.

The project area would be dominated by moderate

quality forage (56.4 percent) and high quality cover

(50 percent). High quality forage would be limited

and occur over 11.2 percent of the project area.

There are some areas that would not offer any forage

value (28.2 percent) or cover value (19.1 percent).

Under Alternative B (No Action), the project area is

dominated by moderate quality forage (37.2 percent)

and high quality cover (68.1 percent). High

quality forage is limited and occurs over

9.6 percent of the project area. There are

some areas that do not offer any forage

value (36.7 percent) or cover value (13.3

percent).

Considering cover and forage together,

Alternatives A, C, and D offer the best

quality habitat for mule deer. Thinning of

stands, creation and/or expansion of

openings, and broadcast burning will

stimulate understory plant growth. This

would provide more forbs and browse for

mule deer. Thermal and hiding cover will

continue to be provided. With the modest

estimated change in HQI from existing

conditions, the project may not have a

detectable effect on the population trend of

mule deer on the Coconino National Forest.

Figure 32. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Mule Deer.

Figure 31. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Northern

Goshawk.
116 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Pygmy Nuthatch HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Additionally, mule deer is hunted in Arizona

and populations are affected by hunting

pressures. The goal of the Arizona Game

and Fish Department is to increase the

number of mule deer (AGFD 2001b). Additional population monitoring may occur as a

result of proposed research and monitoring

submitted by the Arizona Game and Fish

Department (see Chapter 2, “Monitoring”).

Pygmy Nuthatch Habitat Quality

Index

Under Alternatives A, C, and D, forage and

cover values would improve. The project

area would be dominated by high quality

forage and cover (58.5 percent for both).

Low quality forage and cover would occur

over 25.7 percent of the project area. There

are some areas that would not offer any

forage or cover value (15.8 percent for both).

There would be no moderate quality forage

or cover.

Under Alternative E, forage and cover values would

improve the same degree as under the other action

alternatives. The project area would be dominated

by high quality forage and cover (44.8 percent for

both). Low quality forage and cover would occur

over 37.7 percent of the project area. There are

some areas that would not offer any forage or cover

value (17.5 percent for both). There would be no

moderate quality forage or cover.

Under Alternative B (No Action), the project area is

dominated by low quality forage and cover (57.4

percent for both). High quality forage and cover

occur over 28.9 percent of the project area. There

are some areas that do not offer any forage or cover

value (13.7 percent for both). There is no moderate

quality forage or cover.

Considering cover and forage together, Alternatives

A, C and D offer the best quality habitat for pygmy

nuthatch. These three alternatives would increase

the percentage of late seral stages of the forest the

most. With the modest estimated change in HQI

from existing conditions, the project may not have a

detectable effect on the population trend of pygmy

nuthatch on the Coconino National Forest. Additional population monitoring may occur as a result

of proposed research and monitoring submitted by

the Arizona Game and Fish Department and Ecological Research Institute in cooperation with Northern

Arizona Audubon Society (see Chapter 2, “Monitoring”).

Turkey Habitat Quality Index

Under Alternatives A, C and D, summer forage and

cover and winter cover values would decline compared to existing conditions. Winter forage value

would improve. High quality summer forage and

summer cover would be limited and occur over 20.2

percent of the project area. Moderate quality

summer forage and cover habitat would be dominant

and occur over 43.7 percent of the project area.

Fifteen percent of the project area would not offer

any summer forage or cover. Winter habitat would

be dominated by high quality forage (38.2 percent)

and moderate quality cover (42.6 percent). Moderate

quality winter forage habitat would occur over 37.2

percent of the project area. High quality winter

cover would be limited (14.2 percent). There would

be some areas that would not offer any winter forage

or cover value (16.4 percent for both).

Under Alternative E, summer forage and cover and

winter cover values would decline. Winter forage

value would improve compared to existing conditions. Moderate quality summer habitat would be

dominant and occur over 53 percent of the project

area. High quality summer forage and summer

cover would be limited and occur over 22.4 percent

of the project area. There would be some areas that

would not offer any summer forage or cover value

(16.9 percent for both). Winter habitat would be

dominated by moderate quality forage (47.5 percent)

and moderate quality cover (59 percent). High

quality winter forage and winter cover would be

limited (23 percent and 14.2 percent, respectively).

Figure 33. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Pygmy

Nuthatch
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 117

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Turkey Summer HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Turkey Winter HQI Indices

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Forage

Cover

Index Value

Alt B, No Action

Alt A,C & D

Alt E

Some areas would not offer any winter forage or

cover value (18 percent for both).

Under Alternative B, No Action, summer forage and

cover habitat is dominated by moderate quality

habitat (54.6 percent for both). High summer forage

and cover habitat covers 27.9 percent of the project

area. Some areas do not offer any summer forage or

cover value (10.9 percent for both). Winter habitat

is dominated by moderate quality forage (42.1

percent) and moderate quality cover (48.6 percent).

High quality winter forage is limited (17.5 percent).

High quality winter cover occurs over 32.3 percent of

the project area. There are some areas that do not

offer any winter forage or cover value (12 percent for

both).

There is a mix in habitat values across alternatives.

The HQI values may not adequately represent

conditions for turkey. The other species analyzed

herein have year-round habitat, while turkey have

distinct summer and winter ranges. Turkeys forage

and nest on the ground in openings or at edges and

roost in large, old trees. Alternatives A, C and D

would offer the most foraging and nesting habitat

based on more created openings. Openings would

promote greater amounts and vigor of growth of the

understory vegetation and offer more edge effect.

These three action alternatives would also offer the

most roosting habitat due to an increase in VSS 5

class (refer to Tables 18, 19, and 20 at the beginning

of the wildlife habitat section). With the modest

estimated change in HQI from existing conditions,

the project may not have a detectable effect on the

population trend of turkey on the Coconino National

Forest.

Additionally, turkey is a game species in Arizona and

populations are affected by hunting pressures. The

goal of the Arizona Game and Fish Department is to

increase the number of turkey (AGFD 2001b).

Additional population monitoring may occur as a

result of proposed research and monitoring submitted by the Arizona Game and Fish Department and

Ecological Research Institute in cooperation with

Northern Arizona Audubon Society (see Chapter 2,

“Monitoring”).

Cumulative Effects for All MIS Species

for Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Projects considered for the discussion that follows

are those listed in the introduction of this chapter.

Historical silvicultural practices of removing largesized trees and suppression of fires created a forest

of existing conditions seen today. This current

condition is not beneficial to most management

indicator species.

In the long term, the development of forests that

exhibit a mosaic of habitats creates a positive

cumulative effect as treatments in this project and

other areas produce a forest structure that would

benefit many management indicator species.

The short-term effects of implementation activities

associated with thinning, recreation and road

management and rehabilitation of Kelly Seep are in

addition to similar implementation of the other

projects. However, the timing of implementation

varies so that most of these projects will not be

occurring simultaneously.

Figure 34. Results of Habitat Capability Modeling for Turkey
118 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The direct short-term effects of

smoke disturbance to individuals

adds to similar effects in the

Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber

Sale area, the Airport Fuels

Reduction Project broadcast

burn, the Oak Creek Fuels

Reduction Project area and State

Section 26 burning. However,

because ADEQ regulates burning, it is unlikely that these

burns would occur simultaneously or even consecutively.

These effects are short term and

would not adversely affect any

species.

The reduction of human disturbance through recreation and

road management activities is

additive to similar effects in the

Griffiths Spring and Fort Tuthill to Kachina Trail

Projects. This reduction in human disturbance

offsets other instances of disturbance in other areas.

However, this cumulative effect is not great.

The changes in the amount and distribution of cover

and forage for management indicator species is

additive to similar affects which have or will occur in

the Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale, the Oak

Creek Fuels Reduction Project and State Section 26.

However, for all species there is a modest change in

HQI from existing conditions that may not have a

detectable effect on population trends, so there is no

added effect to population trends from this project.

Neotropical Migratory Birds

Affected Environment

Following is a listing of priority migratory bird

species by habitat type (Latta et al. 1999) that are,

or have the potential to be, found within the project

area. Northern goshawk and Mexican spotted owl

are discussed in the early pages of this document.

Mixed conifer habitat is found within the canyons

and is deferred from treatment.

Olive-sided flycatcher is associated with forest

openings and edges with numerous dead trees and

live mature pines. This flycatcher is a rare cowbird

host.

Cordilleran flycatcher is associated with mid- to latesuccessional stages with dense canopy closure and

drainages that create a cool microclimate. This

flycatcher is a rare cowbird host.

Purple martin is associated with open canopy, open

mid-story and open understory cover, and high snag

density.

Swainson’s hawk is uncommon during June, July

and during migration and prefers larger openings

than found on the project.

Ferruginous hawk is a migrant or uncommon during

the winter, using openings much larger than in this

project.

Table 27. Listing of Priority Migratory Bird Species, by Habitat Type,

(Latta et al. 1999) That Are or Have the Potential to be Found within

the Kachina Village Forest Health Project Area.

Ponderosa High High

Mixed Pine, Pine- Elevation Elevation

Bird Species Conifer Oak Grassland Riparian

Northern goshawk X X

Mexican spotted owl X X

Olive-sided flycatcher X X

Cordilleran flycatcher X

Purple martin X

Ferruginous hawk X

Swainson’s hawk X

MacGillivray’s Warbler X

Red-faced Warbler X

Table 28. Special Factors for Mixed Conifer

Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999).

Priority Species Special Factors

Olive-sided Dietary: flying insects, esp. bees and

Flycatcher wasps. Highly territorial on breeding

and wintering grounds. High degree

of foraging specialization only

sallies for insects no gleaning from

leaves or ground. Strong site fidelity

in both breeding and wintering

grounds. Declines may also be

related to destruction of wintering

habitat (from high site fidelity). Need

snags higher than surrounding

canopy. Rare cowbird host.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 119

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

MacGillivray’s warbler is associated with dense

understory and riparian habitat at edges of conifer

and deciduous forests. Red-faced warbler is associated with mid-story and dense stands, not

necessarily tied to dense understory, and is found

mostly in steep canyons. Both species are associated with the canyons in the project area.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

There would be no direct effects to migratory bird

species discussed here.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Under Alternatives A, C and D, effects from thinning

and broadcast burning treatments would benefit the

olive-sided flycatcher and purple martin due to the

creation of openings and the retention of snags and

large trees. These three alternatives offer the least

amount of dense forest canopy favored by the

Cordilleran flycatcher. However, the small number

of snags across the project area would limit the

distribution of the purple martin. There would be

little to no benefit for Swainson’s hawk or ferruginous hawk because of the lack of large open lands.

Canyons are deferred from treatment; therefore,

there would be no affect to MacGillivray’s warbler or

red-faced warbler.

Alternative E would benefit olive-sided flycatcher

and purple martin north of Kelly Canyon due to the

creation of some openings. However, the small

number of snags across the project area would limit

the distribution of the purple martin. This alternative would retain dense stands south of Kelly

Canyon and would favor cordilleran flycatcher.

There would be no affect to Swainson’s hawk,

ferruginous hawk, MacGillivray’s warbler or redfaced warbler. Additionally, Alternative E would not

reduce the high fire hazard potential south of Kelly

Canyon due to the 9-inch diameter limit.

Alternative B would retain dense stands and would

favor cordilleran flycatcher. Additionally under

Alternative B, the high fire hazard potential would

persist. In the advent of a large wildfire, habitat for

all species, except Swainson’s hawk and ferruginous

hawk, would be destroyed.

Table 29. Special Factors for Ponderosa Pine

and Ponderosa Pine-Gambel Oak Priority

Species (Latta et al. 1999).

Priority Species Special Factors

Olive-sided Same as for mixed conifer.

Flycatcher

Cordilleran Need snags and downed trees for

Flycatcher nesting. Rare cowbird host.

Purple Martin Often prefers habitat near open

water. Prefers tall snags adjacent

to open areas.

Table 30. Special Factors for High Elevation

Grassland Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999).

Priority Species Special Factors

Ferruginous Hawk Occur where larger populations of

prairie dogs, ground squirrels,

rabbits and pocket gophers exist.

High sensitivity to human

disturbance around nests.

Swainson’s Hawk Eat grasshoppers during migration

and on wintering grounds. Have a

wider variety of food sources than

Ferruginous hawks: i.e., lizards,

snakes, birds, ground squirrels, voles,

and pocket gophers. Non-breeders

hunt communally and eat primarily

insects. Not as sensitive to human

disturbance as Ferruginous Hawks.

Table 31. Special Factors for High Elevation

Riparian Priority Species (Latta et al. 1999).

Priority Species Special Factors

MacGillivray’s Obligate understory (dense) nester.

Warbler Primarily breed in the White

Mountains and locally above the

Mogollon Rim, in a relatively small

geographic area.

Red-faced Warbler Ground nester.
120 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Past silvicultural practices targeted the harvesting of

large trees and suppression of fires. This, in effect,

created the dense forest condition we have today in

the project area that favors the cordilleran flycatcher.

Other projects considered are those described in the

introduction of this chapter.

There are no direct effects from any of the alternatives and, therefore, no added affect when combined

with other projects in and surrounding the Kachina

FHP.

The indirect effect of creation of openings and

retention of snags (Alternatives A, C and D) adds to

similar effects that have or will occur in the

Pumphouse Multiproduct Timber Sale, the Oak

Creek Fuels Reduction Project and State Section 26.

Cultural Resources

Affected Environment

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project area

contains a variety of non-renewable historic and

prehistoric archaeological sites that reflect past land

uses.

Archaeological evidence indicates that prehistoric

use was focused on seasonal hunting, gathering,

and food processing activities. Potential water

sources in the area, such as precipitation runoff

catchments and springs, probably attracted game

and supported a diverse vegetative community that,

in turn, attracted prehistoric people to the area to

exploit these subsistence resources. Known prehistoric sites within the project area consist of limited

activity lithic scatters, probably representing temporary camps. These sites probably range from

Archaic to Proto-historic in age.

The project area is located at a relatively high

elevation and contains several historic archaeological sites, including cabins, homesteads, and a

historic cabin.

The project area may have been traditionally used by

many Native American tribes, and the area has

potential for continued, current use.

Direct Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Potential direct effects to cultural resources as a

result of implementation of the alternatives include

hand and mechanical thinning; lopping and scattering, piling, and windrowing slash; and pile,

broadcast, and maintenance broadcast burning.

Specific nonground-disturbing treatments may be

allowed within prehistoric and historic archaeological sites that will contribute to the accomplishment

of project objectives (reducing fuel loading and the

risk of catastrophic wildfire) without affecting major

qualities of the sites.

The archaeological clearance for the project documents the archaeological inventory, results of

consultations with the tribes, and the determination

of no adverse effect in compliance with the National

Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. The

clearance report contains site-specific protection

measures for implementation and monitoring

requirements.

Consultations with tribes resulted in no specific

concerns about the effect of the proposal. Tribal

access will not be affected by the proposed project.

There are no direct effects from Alternative B.

Indirect Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Reducing fuel loads using methods that are

nonground disturbing on and around archaeological

sites is the most effective management tool for

reducing the severity of potential wildfire damage

and associated indirect effects such as erosion,

enhanced visibility, and fire suppression damage to

these nonrenewable resources.

Cumulative Effects of

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E

Since there is not an adverse effect to cultural

resources because of the project activities, there is

no added effect as a result of this project.

Economics

Economic analysis was conducted using techniques

and methods developed by Dr. Debra Larson of

Northern Arizona University. The analysis focused

on the economic question of how 16 inch and
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 121

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

greater diameter trees would contribute to total

return estimates. Modeling runs were conducted

using two product mixes and two logging systems

reflecting local markets. Alternative B (No Action)

could potentially result in a loss of over 1 billion

dollars if Forest Highlands Subdivision were impacted severely by a large catastrophic fire event

(Jim Pond, Highlands Fire Department personal

communication). The cost to fight such a fire was

estimated at 3 million dollars. Long-term impacts to

Oak Creek Canyon, wildlife habitat and T&E habitat

would be significant. Alternative A without a 16-

inch diameter limit would result in a positive 5 to 10

percent change per CCF when compared to Alternative C. The estimated value of the 7,000 trees

thinned using Alternative C is approximately

$175,000 based on an estimated value per CCF,

which is taken from Larson, D. 2000 (in press).

However, given the poor tree form expected of the

16-inch diameter trees removed, the grade of these

trees may not be realized in the market.

Table 33 shows the estimated present net value of

each of the individual projects, and the alternative

as a whole.

Direct and Indirect Effects

A brief financial cost analysis utilizing professional

experience and knowledge and information and cost

analysis for thinning activities provided by Dr. Debra

Larson of Northern Arizona University was found to

be the best fit, as economics was not identified as a

major issue or objective for this project. The cost

analysis conducted for thinning allowed us to look at

both local logging systems and available markets to

predict costs.

None of the alternatives result in a positive net

return. Alternative A is the least expensive to

implement. Of the action alternatives, Alternative A

is the least expensive to implement due to the value

of harvesting 16-inch plus trees and the total

volume harvested with the 50 basal area cuts

resulting in the higher returns. These values do not

represent total cost to the taxpayer, because both

volunteer labor and private funding may be used to

complete some of these projects.

Alternative C has a cutting limit of 16-inches

diameter. Trees larger than 16 inches in diameter

left uncut by a cap can have an effect on the ecoTable 32. Comparison of Cost Per Thousand Cubic Feet (CCF), Number of Trees Removed Greater than

16 inches dbh, and Estimated Value for All Action Alternatives.

Economic Alternative

Evaluation A C D E

Number of 16 and greater 5,000 (16.1 to 17.9) 0 5,000 (16.1 to 17.9) 0

diameter trees removed 2,000 (18 +)

Estimated Value of 16" $498,000 0 $373,500 0

and greater diameter trees

Table 33. Estimated Present Net Value of Each Project and Alternative

 Alternative

Project A C D E

Thinning +510,090 +238,886 +402,045 670,975

Road Closures, Road Obliteration 10,500 10,500 10,500 10,500

Broadcast Burn 1,245,800 1,245,800 1,245,800 1,245,800

Riparian Restoration 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

Snag and Log Creation 50,000 0 25,000 0

Trails and Dispersed 175,000 175,000 175,000 175,00

Total Cost 981,210 1,202,414 1,064,255 2,112,275
122 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Chapter 3 • Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

nomics of this project. A report done by Debra

Larson summarizes the economic impacts to operators if a 16-inch dbh cutting limit had been imposed

over the Fort Valley Research and Demonstration

Projects (PRD Fort Valley 309.). She found that in

absence of a pulpwood market, that two to three 16-

inch dbh plus trees per acre harvested can have a

positive economic value.

Economic impacts of thinning trees less than 16

inches (Alternative C) have been transcribed from

the Larson report and are included below.

“The cost to conduct a forest thinning program to

reduce the risk of catastrophic fire and restore forest

ecosystem health is substantial.

Establishing a cap, which prohibits the cutting of

16-inches dbh and greater trees, has a negative

effect on the economics of a forest thinning project.

Though the number of 16 to 21.9-inch dbh trees

available for cutting in Fort Valley represents only a

small percentage of the standing large trees, these

trees represent a disproportionately large percent of

the total volume to be cut, with profound effects on

project economics. Larson’s report only referenced

the R and D plots, but the same effect applies to the

entire Fort Valley project.

Economic effect of the 16-inch cap is related to the

health of the Regional wood fiber market. A healthy

market could support a restoration program, even

with a cap. The current weak, subsistence market,

probably cannot support the operators, if a cap is

imposed.”

Using Larson’s calculation of a net loss to the

operator of approximately $83 per tree if a 16-inch

diameter limit is in place, 16-inch trees represent an

approximate value of $498,000 in Alternative A and

$373,500 in Alternative D.

The Forest Service has received comments that it

failed to consider such indirect impacts as externalized economic costs of logging, such economic value

on existing uses and functions of the area including:

hiking, camping, mountain biking, horseback riding,

cross country skiing, snowmobiling, sight seeing and

use of outfitter/guide services, flood control, pest

control, carbon sequestering, and many other

“ecosystem services.” In addition, these comments

assert that our economic analysis fails to consider a

wide range of costs that will be incurred by the

public through loss of these “ecosystem services”

and other externalized costs such as increased

flooding, increased risk of death, injury, and property damage from logging operations, and increased

fire risk.

The Forest Service has not received any comments

from recreational users and/or outfitter/guide

operators that Alternative A will impact their experience financially. Flood and other watershed

questions are addressed in other effects discussion.

This analysis considered loss of “ecosystem services,” and the other externalized cost mentioned

above and found either no impact, or at an inappropriate level of analysis for the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project.

Cumulative Effects

The Flagstaff economy is very diverse. The forestry

or logging sector makes up only a small percentage

of the overall local economy. Jobs created by these

activities include the continued development of

markets for utilization of products in northern

Arizona. New market development across the Southwest is very important in continuing treatments to

reduce wildfire potential and improve forest health.

This project may result in cumulative benefits to the

employment and creation of new markets in the

region.

Environmental Justice

The issue of environmental equity and justice in

natural resource allocation and decision making is

receiving increasing political and social attention.

Following President Clinton’s Executive Order 12898

(Federal Register, February 1994) all Federal land

management agencies have been mandated to

address environmental justice in nonwhite and/or

low-income populations, with the goal of achieving

environmental protection for all communities

regardless of their racial and economic composition.

Alternatives A, B, C, D, and E do not result in

disproportionate impacts to low-income populations,

nor do they impact minority populations. As stated

in the economics section above, the overall economy

of the Flagstaff area, including its low income and

minority populations, is diverse. The Flagstaff

economy is strongly tied to the tourism industry,

with forest products a very small percentage of the

overall economy. Tourists are often traveling to

destination points such as Flagstaff, the Grand

Canyon, Oak Creek Canyon, or Sedona. Although

tourists traveling on I-17 and Highway 89A appreciate the forest view, they would likely still travel to

their destinations regardless of changes in that view.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 123

4 • List of Preparers 4 • List of Preparers

Relevant

Position/ Years of

Name Organization Contribution Education Experience

Beard, James Forest Landscape Architect, ROS and Visual B.S Landscape Architect 27

Coconino National Forest Scenery Management

Brown, Alvin Environmental Coor- Staff and NEPA B.S. Forestry 26

dinator, Peaks and Mormon Consultation

Lake Ranger Districts,

Coconino National Forest

Denton, Lori Recreation Forester Recreation B.S. Recreation 11

Management

Geesey, Brenda GIS Coordinator, Peaks Spatial Analysis Maps B.S. Natural Resources 12

and Mormon Lake Ranger and M.S. Forestry

Districts, Coconino

National Forest

Hannemann, District Range Staff, Rangeland and B.S. Wildlife Biology 18

Michael Acting District Ranger, Vegetative Understory and M.S. Forestry

Peaks and Mormon Lake

Ranger Districts,

Coconino National Forest

Hink, Jeff Soil and Water Specialist, Soil/Water Analysis B.S. Natural Resource 26

Peaks Ranger District, Management

Coconino National Forest

Kill, Debbie NEPA Coordinator, NEPA Analysis B.S. Forestry 12

Peaks Ranger District,

Coconino National Forest

Maloney, Edward Archaeologist, Peaks and Heritage Resources B.A. Anthropology/Geology 2

Mormon Lake Ranger

Districts, Coconino

National Forest

McGuinn, Deb Wildlife Biologist, Wildlife Analyses B.S. Biology and 15

Peaks Ranger District, M.S. Biology

Coconino National Forest

Randall-Parker, Wildlife Biologist, IDT Leader B.S. Biology and 15

Tammy Environmental Coor- Wildlife Biologist B.S. Zoology

dination Group, Peaks

and Mormon Lake Ranger

Districts, Coconino

National Forest

Stahn, Richard Silviculturist, Silviculture B.S. Forestry/ 27

Mormon Lake Ranger Watershed Management

District, Coconino National

Forest
124 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

4 • List of Preparers

Relevant

Position/ Years of

Name Organization Contribution Education Experience

Standing, Paul District Engineer, Peaks Transportation 36

Ranger District, Coconino Planning and Roads

National Forest Analysis

Thornton, Bruce Center Fuels Specialist, Fuels and Fire Behavior B.S.B.A. Fire Behavior 27

Flagstaff Center, Coconino Air Quality/Smoke Analysis, Graduate of

National Forest Prescribed Fire

Management
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 125

5 • List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS are Sent 5 • List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to

Whom Copies of the DEIS are Sent

Federal Agencies

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Federal Highway Administration

USDA NRCS-SCS

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research

Station

State Agencies

SHPO Arizona State Parks

ADEQ

Arizona Department of Transportation

Arizona State Land Department

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Individuals

Roxanne George

John Murphy

Mary Sojourner

Joe Manterola

Wayne and Eloise Schmidt

Judy Sellers

Tom Hanson

Barbara Alexander

Peter Kloeber

Rich Metzner

Sharon Cherrix

Wally Blanchard

Ginger Jervey

Scott Swegle

Tom Armstrong

Sue Cardiff

John Dale

James Judoth

Rene and Matt Vorta

Adrien Elseroad

Pam Gesla

S. Bleich

County Agencies

Coconino County Planning

Coconino Rural Environmental Corp

Coconino Board of Supervisors

Colleges and Universities

NAU School of Forestry

NAU School of Engineering

NAU Ecological Restoration Institute

Local Governments/Agencies/

Businesses

Highlands Fire Department

Citizens Utilities

KNAZ TV 2

KNAU

City of Flagstaff Fire Department

Cocopai RC&D

RMRS

Flagstaff Chamber of Commerce

Arizona Public Service

Native Plant and Seed

Precision Pine and Timber

High Desert Investments

Windmill Ranch

Organizations

Society of American Foresters

Arboretum at Flagstaff

Forest Conservation Council

Forest Guardians

Plateau Group Sierra Club

Grand Canyon Trust

SW Forest Alliance

Center for Biological Diversity

N. Arizona Cattle Growers Assoc

National Forest Protection

The Nature Conservancy
126 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

5 • List of Agencies, Organizations, and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS are Sent
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 127

6 • Literature Cited 6 • Literature Cited

Agee, J.K., Bahro, B., Finney, M., Omi, P.N., Sapsis,

D.B., Skinner, C.N., van Wagtendonk, J. W.,

Weatherspoon, C.P. 2000. The Use of

Fuelbreaks in Landscape Fire Management.

Forest Ecology and Management 127:55-66.

Agee, J.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on

fire behavior. pp. 52-68 In Proceedings, 17th

Forest Vegetation Management Conference,

Redding, California.

AGFD. 2001a. Arizona Game and Fish Department

Regional Elk Operational Plan. December 3,

2001. 40 pp. www.azgfd.com.

AGFD. 2001b. Arizona Game and Fish Department

Wildlife 2006 Strategic Plan. January 22,

2001. 96 pp. www.azgfd.com.

Andersen, D.E., O.J. Rongstad and W.R. Mytton.

1990. Home range changes in raptors exposed

to increased human activity levels in southeastern Colorado. Wildl. Soc. Bull.

18(2):134-142.

Arno, S.F. 1996. The concept: restoring ecological

structure and process in ponderosa pine

forests, pp. 37-38, INT-GTR 341.

Bailey, R.W. and K.T. Rinell. 1968. History and

management of the wild turkey in West Virginia. W. Va. Dept. Nat. Resour. Bull. 6. 59

pp.

Benoit, M. 1996. Wildlife assessment for the West

Clear Creek ecosystem assessment. Manuscript on file, Coconino National Forest,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

Biswell, H.H., H.R. Kallander, R. Komerek, R.J. Vogl,

and H.Weaver. 1973. Ponderosa pine management. Tall Timbers Research Station

Miscellaneous Publication No. 2, Tall Timbers

Research Station. Tallahassee, FL.

Block, et al. 1996. Recovery Plan for the Mexican

spotted owl.

Brown, T.C and T.C Daniel. 1984. Modeling Forest

Scenic Beauty: Concepts and Application to

Ponderosa Pine. USDA Forest Service Research Paper RM-256.

Buckley, A.J. 1992. Fire behavior and fuel reduction

burning: Bemm River Wildfire, October 1988.

Australian Forestry 55: 135-147.

Campbell, R.E., M.B. Baker, P.F. Folliott, F.R.

Larson, C.C. Avery. 1977. Wildfire effects on a

ponderosa pine ecosystem: an Arizona case

study. USDA Forest Service Research Paper

RM-191. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Exp. Station, Fort Collins, CO. 12 p.

Chojnacky, D.C., B.J. Bentz, and J.A. Logan. 2000.

Mountain pine beetle attack in ponderosa pine:

comparing methods for rating susceptibility.

USDA Forest Service Research Paper RMRSRP-26. 10 p.

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs

30:129-1.

Covington, W. W., and M.M. Moore. 1994.

Postsettlement changes in natural fire regimes

and forest structure: ecological restoration of

old-growth ponderosa pine forests. Journal of

Sustainable Forestry 2:153-181.

Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure; changes

since Euro-American settlement. J. For. 92

(1):39-47.

Covington, W.W., P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart,

T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, and M.R.

Wagner. 1997. Restoration of ecosystem

health in southwestern ponderosa pine forests.

J. For. 95 (4):23-29.

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1992. Spatial

variation in soil mineral nitrogen following

prescribed burning in ponderosa pine. Forest

Ecology and Management 54:175-191.

Covington, W.W. and S.S. Sackett. 1990. Fire

effects on ponderosa pine soils and their

management implications. Pages 105-111 in

Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern

Natural Resources. Proceedings of the Symposium. November 15-17, 1988. Tucson,

Arizona. General Technical Report RM-191.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station. 293 pp.

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1986. Effect of

periodic burning on soil nitrogen concentrations in ponderosa pine. Soil Science Society

of America Journal 50:452-457.
128 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

6 • Literature Cited

Covington, W.W., and S.S. Sackett. 1984. The

effect of a prescribed burn in southwestern

ponderosa pine on organic matter and

nutritients in woody debris and forest floor.

Forest Science 30:183-192.

Dargan, C.M. 1991. Roost site characteristics of

bald eagles wintering in north-central Arizona.

Masters Thesis. Northern Arizona University,

Flagstaff, Arizona. 73 pp.

Dargan, C., J. Agyagos, T. Cain, B. Phillips, and G.

Goodwin. 1996. Amended biological assessment for the re-initiation of consultation on the

Coconino National Forest Plan as amended.

May 10, 1996. Coconino National Forest,

Flagstaff, AZ.

Davis, J.R., P.F. Ffolliott, and W.P. Clary. 1968. A

fire prescription for consuming ponderosa pine

duff. USDA Forest Service. Research Note

RM-115. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experimental Station, Fort Collins, CO. 4 p.

DeBano, L.F. 1990. Effects of fire on the soil

resource in Arizona chaparral. Pages 65-77 in

Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern

Natural Resources. Proceedings of the Symposium. November 15-17, 1988. Tucson,

Arizona. General Technical Report RM-191.

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest

and Range Experiment Station 293 pp.

DeMars, C.J. and B.H. Roettgering. 1982. Western

pine beetle. USDA Forest Service Forest Insect

& Disease Leaflet 1. 8 p.

Dieterich, J.M. 1980. Chimney Springs forest fire

history. USDA Forest Service Research Paper

RM-220, 8 p.

Dodd, N.L., S.S. Rosenstock, C.R. Miller, and R.E.

Schweinsburg. 1998. Tassel-eared squirrel

population dynamics in Arizona: index techniques and relationships to habitat condition.

Arizona Game and Fish Department Technical

Report 27, Phoenix, AZ. 49 pp.

Edge, W.D. and C.L. Marcum. 1991. Topography

ameliorates the effects of roads and human

disturbance on elk. Pages 132-137 in A.G.

Christensen, L.J. Lyon and T.N. Lonner (compilers), Proceedings of a Symposium on Elk

Vulnerability. Montana State University,

Bozeman, Montana. April 10-12, 1991.

Montana Chapter of The Wildlife Society. 330

pp.

Edminster, C.B. and W.K Olsen. 1996. Thinning as

a tool for restoration and maintaining stand

structure in stands of southwestern ponderosa

pine. In Conference on adaptive ecosystem

restoration and management: restoration of

cordelleran conifer landscapes of north America.

General Technical Report RM-GTR-278. Fort

Collins, CO: USDA Forest Service. 61-67.

Everett, R., P. Hessburg, M. Jensen, and B. Borman.

1994. Eastside forest ecosystem health

assessment. Pacific Northwest Research

Station, GTR-317. USDA, Forest Service.

Feeney, S.R., T.E. Kolb, M.R. Wagner, and W.W.

Covington. 1998. Influence of thinning and

burning restoration treatments on

presettlement ponderosa pines at the Gus

Pearson Natural Area. Canadian Journal of

Forest Research 28: 1295-1306.

Feeney, S.R., T.E. Kolb, M.R. Wagner, and W.W.

Covington. 1996. Restoration treatments

benefit old-growth ponderosa pine physiology

and insect resistance. Presented at the Society

of American Foresters National Convention,

November 9-13, 1996, Albuquerque, NM.

Fiedler, C.E., 1996, Silvicultural applications:

Restoring ecological structure and process in

ponderosa pine forests., pp. 39-40, INT-GTR341., Ogden, UT: USDA, Forest Service,

Intermountain Research Station.

Gaines, E.M., H.R. Kallander, and J.A. Waganer.

1958. Controlled burning in southwestern

ponderosa pine: results from the Blue Mountain plots, Fort Apache Indian Reservation.

Journal of Forestry. 58:323-327.

Garton, E.O., B. Hall, and T.C Foin. 1977. The

impact of a campground on the bird community of a lodgepole pine forest. Pages 37-43 in

T.C. Foin, Jr., editor, Visitor Impacts on

National Parks: The Yosemite Ecological

Impact Study. University of California, Davis.

Inst. Ecol. Publ. 99 pp.

Gladen, J.T. 1999. Letter regarding Appeal #00-03-

00-0005-A215, Fort Valley Restoration (Phase

I) Project, Peaks Ranger District, Coconino

National Forest. File Code 1570-1 (2400),

December 14, 1999. USDA Forest Service,

Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New

Mexico. 16pp.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 129

6 • Literature Cited

Griffis, K.L., J.A. Crawford, M.R. Wagner, and W.H.

Moir. 2001. Understory response to management treatments in northern Arizona

ponderosa pine forests. Forest Ecology and

Management. In press.

Gruell, G.E., G. Roby, K. Becker and R. Johnson.

1976. Gros Ventre cooperative elk study, June

1975-November 1975. Progress Report.

Brigger-Teton National Forest and Wyoming

Game and Fish Department. 127 pp.

Harrington, M.G. 1981. Preliminary burning prescriptions for ponderosa pine fuel reductions in

southwestern AZ. 7pp. United States Rocky

Mountain Station Research Notes.

Harrington, M.G. 1987. Ponderosa pine mortality

from spring, summer and fall crown scorching.

Western J. of Applied Forestry 31 (1):156-163.

Harrington, M.G. and S.S. Sackett. 1990. Using

fires as a management tool in southwestern

ponderosa pine. In Effects of Fire Management

of southwestern natural resources. General

Technical Report RM-191. Fort Collins, CO:

USDA Forest Service.

Holbrook, H.T. and M.R. Vaughan. 1985. Influence

of roads on turkey mortality. J. Wildl. Manage.

49(3):611-614.

Holbrook, H.T. and M.R. Vaughan. 1985. Influence

of roads on turkey mortality. J. Wildl. Manage.

49(3):611-614.

Knorr, P.N. 1963. One effect of control burning on

the Fort Apache Reservation. In Proceedings of

the seventh annual watershed symposium,

arizona watershed program. University of

Arizona. 35-37.

Larson, M.M. and G.H. Schubert. 1970. Gone crops

of ponderosa pine in central Arizona, including

influence of Abert squirrels. USDA For. Serv.

Res. Paper RM-58. Fort Collins, CO. 15 pp.

Latta, M.J., C.J. Beardmore, and T.E. Corman.

1999. Version 1.0. Arizona Partners in Flight

Bird Conservation Plan. Technical Report 142.

Nongame and Endangered Wildlife Program.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2221 W.

Greenway Road, Phoenix, AZ 85023-4399. 331

pp.

Laverty, et al. 2000

Lindemuth, A.W. Jr. 1960. A survey of effects of

intentional burning on fuels and timber stands

of ponderosa pine in Arizona. USDA Forest

Service. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experiment Station. Paper 54.

Lindezey, J.S. 1967. Highlights of management.

Pages 245-259 in O.H. Hewitt, editor, The Wild

Turkey and its Management. The Wildlife

Society, Washington, D.C.

McKelvey and others. 1996. An overview of fire in

the Sierra Nevada. In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project: Final report to Congress. Vol II,

Assessments and water and wildland resources.

Miller, R. and T. Randall-Parker. 1998. Effects of

Prescribed Burn Monitoring on Key Wildlife

Habitat Components. Unpublished. Presented

at the AZ/NM Chapters of the Wildlife Society

Annual Meeting, February 1998.

Negrón, J.F., J.L Wilson, J.A. Anhold. 2000. Stand

conditions associated with roundheaded pine

beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infestations in

Arizona and Utah.

Parker, D.L. 1991. Integrated pest management

guide: Arizona five-spined Ips, Ips lecontei

Swaine, and Pine engraver, Ips pini (Say), in

ponderosa pine. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R-3 91-8. 17 p.

Pearson, G.A. 1950. Management of ponderosa

pine in the southwest. USDA Agricultural

Monograph 6, 218 p. Forest Service, Washington, D.C.

Oliver, C.D., Ferguson, D.E., Harvey, A.E., Malany,

H.S., Mandzak, J.M., Mutch, R.W. 1994.

Managing ecosystems for forest health: An

approach and the effects on uses and values.

Journal of Sustainable Forestry (The Haworth

Press, Inc.) Vol. 2. No I/2, 1994 pp. 113-133.

Ottmar, R.D., 1997. Letter to David Blair, Aide to

Senator Ron Wyden, Washington, D.C., File

Code 4400.

Paijkos, K. 2001. Personal communication with

Keith Paijkos of the Arizona State Land Department, Flagstaff, Arizona. December 2001.
130 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

6 • Literature Cited

Patton, D.R. 1995. R3HARE – a logical wildlife

relationships data model for southwestern

national forests. Computerized model, Northern Arizona University, School of Forestry,

Flagstaff, Arizona.

Patton, D.R., R.L. Wadleigh, and H.G. Hudak. 1985.

The effects of timber harvest on the Kaibab

squirrel. Journal of Wildlife Management.

49:14 – 19.

Phillips, A.R., J. Marshall, and G. Monson. 1964.

The birds of Arizona. Tucson, AZ, University of

Arizona Press.

Phillips, B. and L. Moser. 2001. Integrated Weed

Management Practices for the Coconino,

Kaibab and Prescott National Forests. U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,

Southwestern Region. Revised September 23,

2001.

Reynolds, R. T., R. T. Graham, M.H. Reiser, R. L.

Bassett, P. L. Kennedy, D. A. Boyce, Jr., G.

Goodwin, R. Smith, and E. L. Fisher. 1992.

Management Recommendations for the Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United

States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RM-217 USDA Forest

Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Ryan, K.C. and J. Losensky. 1988. Predicting

postfire mortality of seven western conifers.

Canadian Journal of Forestry. 18:1291-1297.

Sackett, S.S. 1980. Reducing natural ponderosa

pine fuels using prescribed fire: Two case

studies. USDA Forest Service. Research Note

RM-392. 6p.

Sackett, S.S., S.M. Haase, and M.G. Harrington.

1996. Lessons learned from fire use for

restoring southwestern ponderosa pine ecosystems. Pages 53-60. In: Covington W.W., P.K.

Wagner (Tech. Coord.), Conference on adaptive

ecosystems restoration and management:

restoration of cordilleran conifer landscapes of

North America. USDA Forest Service General

Technical Report RM-GTR-278, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experiment Station, Fort

Collins CO.

Sampson, R.N. 1994. Report of the national commission on wildfire disasters. American Forests.

Sept/Oct. pp. 13-16.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, G. Gough, I. Thomas, and

B.G. Peterjohn. 1997. The North American

Breeding Bird Survey Results and Analysis.

Version 96.4. Patuxent Wildlife Research

Center, Laurel, MD.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 1996. The

North American Breeding Bird Survey home

page: Partners in Flight analysis. Patuxent

Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Scott, J., 1998. Reduce fire hazards in Ponderosa

pine by thinning. pp. 20-25, Fire Management

Notes. Vol. 58 No. 1.

Scott, J., 1998. Reduce fire hazards in Ponderosa

pine by thinning. pp. 20-25, Fire Management

Notes. Vol. 58 No. 1.

Swezy, M.D., Agee, J.K., 1991. Prescribed-fire

effects on fine-root and tree mortality in oldgrowth ponderosa pine., pp626-634, Canadian

Journal of Forest Research, Volume 21, No. 5.

Terres, J.K. 1991. The Audubon Society encyclopedia of North American birds. New York, New

York. Wings Books. 1109 pp.

The Nature Conservancy. 1999. Natural heritage

conservation databases. Accessed by USDA

Forest Service under Grant n. 97-CCS-230.

USDA Forest Service. 1987 and amendments.

Coconino National Forest Plan. Southwestern

Region.

USDA Forest Service. 1999. Coconino National

Forest Management Indicator Species (updated

11/2/99). Unpublished Report. Region 3. 5

pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Protecting People and

Sustaining Resources in Fire-adapted Ecosystems. October

USDA Forest Service. 2001a. Biological assessment

and evaluation for proposed wildland urban

interface fuel treatment in New Mexico and

Arizona. U.S. Department of Agriculture,

Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico, April 6, 2001. 259 pp.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/wui.

USDA Forest Service. 2001b. Interstate 17 wireless

communication system proposal, Orme Road to

Flagstaff, Environmental Assessment.

Coconino National Forest, Southwestern

Region. April 2001. Pages 39-42.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 131

6 • Literature Cited

USDA Forest Service. 2001c. Decision notice and

finding of no significant impact (FONSI) Interstate 17 corridor (I-17) wireless

communications system. Coconino National

Forest, Southwestern Region. September 6,

2001. 19 pp.

USDA Forest Service. 2001d. Update on the status

of some management indicator species. Letter

to files by H. Green, February 22, 2001.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery

plan for the Mexican spotted owl (Strix

occidentalis lucida). Vol I. U.S. Department of

the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Southwestern Region, Albuquerque, New Mexico,

October 16, 1995. 172 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service

biological opinion and conference opinion:

land and resource management plans, as

amended, for eleven national forests and

national grasslands in the southwestern

region. December 19, 1997. Albuquerque, New

Mexico. 130 pp.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Final rule to

remove the American Peregrine Falcon from the

Federal List of Endangered and Threatened

Wildlife, and to remove the similarity of Appearance Provision for Free-Flying Peregrines

in the conterminous United States. August 25,

1999. Federal Register 64, No. 164, pp. 46542

– 440875.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Biological

and conference opinion for proposed wildland

urban interface fuel treatment in New Mexico

and Arizona submitted by the Forest Service.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and

Wildlife Service, April 10, 2001. Albuquerque,

New Mexico. 136 pp. http://www.fs.fed.us/

r3/wui.

Van der Zande, A.N., J.C. Berkhuizen, H.C. Van

Latestejn, W.J. ter Keurs, and A.J. Popplelars.

1984. Impact of outdoor recreation on the

density of a number of breeding bird species in

the woods adjacent to urban residential areas.

Bird. Conserv. 30:1-39.

Van Wagtendonk, J.W. 1996. Use of a deterministic

fire growth model to test fuel treatments. pp.

1155-1165 In: Sierra Nevada Ecosystem

Project: Final Report to Congress, Vol II,

Assessments and scientific basis for management options. University of Ca. Davis, Centers

for Water and Wildland Resources.

Vincenty, J.A., III. 1974. Special wildlife investigations: study of factors affecting nesting raptor

populations in urban areas, Sacramento

County, California. California Department

Fish and Game Project W-054-R-06/QP03/

J6.1. 23 pp.

Weatherspoon, C.P. 1996. Fire-silviculture relationships in sierra forests. In: Sierra Nevada

Ecosystem Project: Final Report to Congress,

Vol. II, Assessments and scientific basis for

management options. Univ. of CA, Davis,

Centers for Water and Wildland Resources.

1167-1176.

Weaver, H. 1943. Fire as an ecological and silvicultural factor in the ponderosa pine region of the

Pacific slope. J. Forestry 41:7-14.

Weaver, H. 1952. A preliminary report on prescribed burning in virgin ponderosa pine.

Journal of Forestry 52:662-667.

White, A.S. 1985. Presettlement regeneration

patterns in a southwestern ponderosa pine

stand. Ecology 66(2):589-594.

Wooldridge, D.D. and H.Weaver. 1965. Some

effects of thinning a ponderosa pine thicket

with a prescribed fire, II. Journal of Forestry

63:92-95.

Wright, R.J. 1996. Fire effects on fine roots,

mycorrhizae, and nutrient dynamics in a

southwestern ponderosa pine forest. Masters

Thesis, May 1996. Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona.
132 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

6 • Literature Cited
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 133

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Analysis

Scoping Comment Summary Final

November 2001

This document lists all comments received in

response to the Proposed Action and subsequent

clarification comments and discussions. The

comments are listed here as either preliminary

issues or non-issue comments or questions. A

second document takes the preliminary issues and

divides them into two categories, significant issues

or nonsignificant issues. A third document takes

the significant issues and divides them into alternatives eliminated from detailed study or action

alternatives. These three documents show the

progression of the comment analysis process.

Comments are followed by notes by FS team members in italics.

Preliminary Issues Raised by Public

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

There are concerns from Mt. Trumbull that residual

trees in a similar silvicultural-restoration application

where lost to mortality. It may be that the residual

tree mortality was related to the effects of prescribed

burning in combination with unique soil types that

resulted in irreversible damage to root systems. The

FS must account for such unforeseen possibilities in

the Kachina Analysis Area by completing extensive

soil surveys, and identifying sensitive soil types

where similar mortality might occur. Prescribed

burning should be planned spatially and temporally

to account for such sensitive soils. Will the ground

disturbance associated with silvicultural treatments

also impact these sensitive soils?

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

We are concerned that the Kachina Timber Sale will

jeopardize the viability of species that thrive in forest

ecosystems through activities associated with timber

harvest and ground-disturbing activities intervene in

natural disturbance processes that are vital to

ecosystem sustainability and degrade water quality

and watershed condition. There are populations of

focal species and species-at-risk (MIS and TES) that

occupy the analysis area and surrounding landscapes that seem to be surviving despite the

“unnatural conditions” the Forest Service purports

to exist. The FS is required per its 1987 LRMP as

well as Federal planning regulations to collect and

present information on population numbers and

trends for these species as well as define what

constitutes the “minimum number” of individuals of

each population to secure its long-term viability.

The FS must present information to support determinations that the proposed Kachina Timber Sale

will not contribute to further declines in these

populations and more listing under the ESA. Simply, it is too soon to know how the “treatments” at

Fort Valley will affect focal species and species-atrisk.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

The Kachina Timber Sale will also damage social and

economic uses and values associated with natural

forests for the benefit of the timber industry, even

though non-timber uses and values are far more

important to local communities.

Nowicki

A 16-inch diameter cutting cap is critical. Many

sites have been commercially harvested removing a

large component of the larger trees from forest

structure. Existing large blackjacks will develop into

the next generation of old growth. Retaining 16-inch

dbh or greater provides some assurance the proposed action would not detriment this forest

structure further. A 16-inch cap would not impede

any of the treatments meeting the stated objectives.

(Nowicki Clarification Comment) In fact, even a 12-

inches dbh cutting cap would not impede the

treatments from achieving the stated objectives, as a

large proportion of the trees in the project are

smaller than 12-inches dbh. That is, thinning

treatments would be able to create a diversity of

stand densities and structures by implementing

varying levels of thinning the trees less than 12-

inches dbh. This analysis and cutting cap is

absolutely necessary to protecting vital components

of the current forest structure, and the next generation of old growth that will develop in the forest.

Nowicki and Nowicki Clarification

Comment

No new roads should be constructed, even if only for

the duration of the project as roads greatly increase

soil compaction, transport of exotic weeds, and long

lasting impacts on forest structure. South of Kelly

Canyon all thinning should be done by hand; the

limitation would not impede any of the treatments

from achieving stated objectives.

Nowicki

The EIS needs to include an analysis of the grazing

allotments in this area and appropriateness of

grazing in general and the deferment needed to allow

ground vegetation to respond after thinning.
134 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Metzner

Project is way too big for needs pressing. This is

another move by the government to control the

people’s freedom of movement and grab public

lands. Scope of project is way out of line for a

natural forest. More controls on camping and

where, not needed or wanted. We do not want more

controls on people’s freedoms. Leave the trails alone

for the people who use them.

Bird

The proposal represents a “sledgehammer” approach

to forest management, the extensive logging proposed has the potential to exacerbate fire danger,

extirpate wildlife, and increase sedimentation and

flooding.

Bird

The proposal forces the taxpayer to foot the bill for

an enormously expensive project whose benefits are

highly uncertain.

Bird

Temporary road construction will simply increase

the environmental costs of the Kachina Project,

increase fire hazard as they are used by ORV’s and

provide additional public access. The only reason

the roads are needed is to remove commercial

materials.

Bird and Nowicki Clarification Letter

It remains entirely unclear what purpose the 3-footwide dozer line along the canyon rims will serve.

This construction might potentially change the

hydrology of the canyon system significantly by

redirecting runoff away from the canyon edges.

Do not drive cat lines through the area. For many of

the reasons as listed directly above, cat lines should

not be used in the area. Fire lines should be created

by hand if they are absolutely necessary.

McKinnon and Ack

South of James Canyon, in areas proposed for

thinning and burning, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)

is a regular and often dominant understory species.

We are concerned that the proposed treatments by

themselves—especially burning—may facilitate its

further spread and competition with native species.

We strongly encourage the Forest Service to assess

the need for an integrated strategy to improve,

rather that potentially exacerbate the problem, both

south of James Canyon and in other locals within

the project area where cheatgrass poses a foreseeable risk.

The Nature Conservancy’s Wildland Weeds Management and Research Program has developed the

following recommendations for the management of

cheatgrass. We’ve attached this document in its

entirety as an appendix to these comments for your

use.

Lasting control of cheatgrass will require a

combination of chemical control, physical

control, vegetative suppression, and proper

livestock management where land is grazed.

This “cumulative stress” method will keep the

plants constantly under stress, reducing their

ability to flourish and spread. Also, a

cumulative stress approach provides a level of

redundancy in case one type of treatment is

not implemented or proves to be ineffective.

An effective management program needs first

to control existing infestations, and second to

develop a land management plan to deter reinfestation of Bromus tectorum. New

infestations should be controlled first before

cheatgrass becomes dominant and alters the

soil chemistry of the area (Belnap pers.

comm.). Since cheatgrass reproduces entirely

by seed, the key to controlling existing

infestations is to eliminate new seed

production and deplete the existing seed

bank.

Bromus tectorum is most commonly

controlled with herbicides. Quizalofop,

fluazifop, sethoxydim, paraquat, glyphosate,

and imazameth can be applied in the early

spring, before perennial grasses have

emerged, to control cheatgrass. Additionally,

sulfometuron methyl, and atrazine can be

applied in the fall to control cheatgrass in

winter crops. Several of these herbicides may

damage established perennials. Therefore, the

timing of herbicide application is crucial to

ensure that cheatgrass is selectively

controlled. Burning is usually conducted in

late May or early June, after the plants have

dried (Beck, pers. comm.). Reseeding native

perennial grasses is necessary after burning

or cheatgrass and other weeds will simply

reestablish in the disturbed area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 135

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

A two to three-year combination of burning,

herbicide application, and reseeding can be

used to control and re-vegetate an area that is

almost exclusively dominated by cheatgrass.

Burn and re-seed the area with native

perennial grasses during the first year. The

following spring, apply herbicides before the

seeded perennial grasses emerge in order to

eliminate any cheatgrass that emerged from

the seedbank after the burn. If necessary,

apply a second round of herbicides early in

the spring of the third year to control any new

cheatgrass seedlings and provide time for

native bunchgrasses to establish. This should

control the cheatgrass, deplete the existing

cheatgrass seed bank, and provide adequate

time for perennial grasses to establish to the

point where they can suppress any new

cheatgrass invasions.

If the area is only partially infested with

cheatgrass, burning is usually not

recommended (Belnap, pers. comm.).

Cheatgrass can rebound quickly after a fire

and the elimination of the remaining valuable

species will only enhance its ability to spread.

Hand pulling cheatgrass is very labor

intensive and is worthwhile only on very small

infestations. Mowing and cutting are not

usually recommended methods of control.

Plants that are cut before seed ripening will

regenerate new culms and produce seeds at

the cut height. Plants that are cut after seed

ripening will die, but by this point the seeds

are already viable. However, repeated mowing

(every three weeks) can eliminate cheatgrass

seed production in areas were herbicide

applications are unacceptable or cannot be

safely used.

Once an area has been treated, native

perennial grasses should be plugged and/or

re-seeded or cheatgrass will return to preburn densities within a few years (Beck, pers.

comm.). Hilaria (Hilaria jamesii) has been

observed to grow well in cheatgrass infested

areas of the Colorado Plateau by taking

advantage of warm summer rains (Belnap

pers. comm.).

McKinnon and Ack

The interruption of natural processes in southwestern ponderosa pine forests has been attributed to

widespread intensive livestock grazing that was

introduced in the mid and late 19th century. Upon

introduction, livestock grazing removed the herbaceous understory that is believed to have limited

pine seedling establishment and therefore also tree

densities through competition for light, water, and

nutrients, in addition to carrying frequent low

intensity ground fires.

In the absence of this “competition fire filter” that

limited pine seedling establishment, anomalously

high densities of trees have established that now

facilitate similarly anomalous high-intensity crown

fires that threaten ecological and human values

alike. In addition, the pine irruptions have led to a

decline in overall biological diversity of these forest

ecosystems, much of which was historically based

on the understory.

Considering this, perhaps the most critical element

to the restoration process for ponderosa pine forests

is ensuring that we facilitate understory (grass and

forb) recovery. In part this must come through

control of herbivores. Of the two major herbivore

pressures currently on the landscape (elk and

domestic livestock), we can only directly control the

intensity, seasonality, and duration of domestic

livestock grazing.

We think the appropriate frame of reference for

considering post-treatment (thinning and/or burning) livestock grazing begins with the assumption

that the most desirable management regime—and

the one that will most likely facilitate our restoration

goal of understory recovery—is livestock grazing

deferral for a period of time.

Based upon our observations at other restoration

sites, and discussions with Forest Service personnel,

we recommend this period of time span at least

three growing seasons. We further recommend that

quantitative and qualitative measures of recovery

should inform whether, after three growing seasons,

livestock should be reintroduced, and if so, at what

intensity, seasonality, and duration. One measure

of recovery included in this assessment should be

whether the native understory is capable of carrying

low-intensity grass fires.

Germaine

Item 2 discusses retaining ponderosa trees “approximately” 150 years or older. It is not clear how and

by whom decisions on these trees will be made.

Similarly, this Item states that >16” trees will be

“retained where possible”. What criteria determine

retention/removal, and who will make the decision on
136 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

the fate of an unknown number(?) of trees in such an

ecologically important size class from which our

future old-growth trees are to be recruited? Finally, I

urge that all road and landing locations avoid large

diameter trees in all instances, not simply “where

possible” as stated in the proposal. In addition to soil

compaction, old landings have roads that are often

traveled for years even if legally closed, and landings

under old trees will unquestionably become popular

(renegade) campsites.

McKinnon and Ack

We appreciate that the Forest Service has articulated that the vast majority of trees to be thinned

will be less than 12 inches and that trees greater

than 16-inches diameter at breast height will be

retained where possible. However, we feel that a

16-inch cap is warranted and should be instituted in accord with the GCFP’s

recommendation on this project.

Monitoring of the 16-inch cap at Ft. Valley has

revealed that, even in a thinning prescription that

gives little deference to tree size, only 2.5 large trees

per acre would have been cut in the absence of a

diameter cap. And of these trees, only 1 percent

were suppressed. The vast majority, or 99 percent

of the trees, were dominant or co-dominant trees.

Considering the description of thinning from below

in the proposed action, “thinning from below results

in the removal of smaller, unhealthy trees first and

progresses until the target density is reached,” it’s

unclear why any significant reason not to include a

diameter cap exists.

This is not to ignore the economic realities of restoration. Indeed, smaller trees are more expensive for

an operator to handle. There is more handling per

unit of wood volume with small trees than larger

trees, rendering smaller trees more expensive to

thin. If the USFS has an economic argument to

make about trees larger than 16 inches, it should

make that argument explicitly.

In the absence of such an argument, we believe that

there are significant social and political arguments

to include a diameter cap. These arguments are of

immediate concern to the Grand Canyon Trust and

we believe they should be of concern to the Coconino

National Forest.

The history of forest management in the Southwest

still casts a shadow over our current efforts. It

hasn’t been very long since most of the big, old trees

on the forest were felled at the cost of species

viability and overall ecosystem integrity. At the

present time, the public perception is that cutting

big trees is about revenue generation, and not about

the restoration of species and ecosystems.

A 16-inch cap provides the public with a clear, easily

communicated guarantee that distinguishes our

restoration efforts from those historical practices

that have resulted in the need for restoration today.

The diameter cap is also about the restoration of

public confidence and trust.

With each ensuing discussion of the merits of a

diameter cap will come news stories questioning our

intent and our legitimacy, using well-honed activist

media techniques. These opponents are very

effective at whittling away at our legitimacy and

weakening public support for restoration. Do we

really wish to continue subjecting our efforts to

these liabilities?

Having been put in the national spotlight, we also

have the responsibility and the opportunity to more

clearly define the purpose of restoration by exemplifying the parameters of responsible restoration.

Adopting a diameter cap establishes sideboards for

restoration that prevent ill-conceived adaptations of

our efforts and reinforce a principle we have identified as fundamental to responsible restoration:

effective restoration will require substantial reinvestment. Restoration should not be expected to pay for

itself.

Considering these points, we are confident that the

original recommendation put forth in unanimous

resolution by the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership

provides a workable and reasonable approach to

diameter caps:

“Ponderosa pine trees greater than 16” dbh

will be retained on the land. Black-barked

trees in excess of 16 inches may only be

treated to achieve the desired objectives of

creating grassy openings or enhancing existing

forest openings, or to enhance the health of old

growth stands or oak clumps. However, all of

these trees will be left standing (recruited) as

snags or felled and left as downed logs.”

We strongly encourage the Forest Service to

include an alternative that evaluates the impacts of the above recommendation in addition

to an alternative that includes and evaluates an

1-inch diameter cap. These evaluations should

provide a quantitative explanation of how project

objectives will be affected by these different diameter
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 137

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

caps, both ecologically and economically. We

further suggest that these alternatives explore—

perhaps with the help of Rocky Mountain Research

Station social scientists—the social, political, and

historical dimensions of a diameter cap in the

context of ponderosa pine forest restoration in the

Southwest.

Nowicki

(The following comments were provided by B.

Nowicki in a July 18 and a August 16 letter from the

SWFA and others (after the comments listed above).

The two letters included duplicated information.)

A 16-inch diameter cutting cap is critical. Many

sites have been commercially harvested removing a

large component of the larger trees from forest

structure. Existing large blackjacks will develop into

the next generation of old growth. Retaining 16-inch

dbh or greater provides some assurance the proposed action would not detriment this forest

structure further. A 16-inch cap would not impede

any of the treatments meeting the stated objectives.

Implement a 16-inches diameter cutting cap

throughout the entire Kachina Village Project. Many

of the sites within the project area have been commercially harvested, removing a large component of

the larger trees from the forest structure. The

existing large blackjack ponderosa pine trees will

develop into the next generation of old growth in

these areas. Retaining all trees with 16-inches dbh

or greater would provide some assurance that the

proposed action would not detriment even further

those degraded forest structures. In fact, even a 12-

inche dbh cutting cap would not impede the

treatments from achieving the stated objectives, as a

large proportion of the trees in the project are

smaller than 12-inches dbh. That is, thinning

treatments would be able to create a diversity of

stand densities and structures by implementing

varying levels of thinning the trees less than 12-

inches dbh. This analysis and cutting cap is

absolutely necessary to protecting vital components

of the current forest structure, and the next generation of old growth that will develop in the forest.

Implement “thinning from below, north of Kelly

Canyon” within the 1/8 mile (660 feet) immediately

adjacent to homes. Beyond the 1/8 mile, implement

a variable “thinning from below” to 60-120 BA north

of Kelly Canyon. This combination of treatments

acknowledges a distinction between wildland-urban

interface treatment and general fuels reduction, and

delineates a distinct defensible space in the wildland-urban interface. The 660-foot “Intensive Zone”

provides a defensible space in which a crown fire

can be forced to the ground, and in which

firefighters can safely work. The less intensive

treatment beyond 1/8 mile from houses serves as an

extensive zone to reduce fire intensity as it approaches the community. The intensive and

extensive zone treatments have been used in the

Southwest in the past to protect communities from

the threat of wildfire, and should be analyzed for use

in this project. Such a method reduces the impact

on adjacent forest ecosystems while providing

community protection.

Furthermore, Forest Service research shows that the

homesites themselves and the areas immediately

surrounding houses are the largest factors determining whether houses are at risk of burning from

forest fires. Therefore, the EIS needs to analyze the

effectiveness and necessity of these treatments in

conjunction with the current and future treatments

implemented on the private property adjacent to the

project. The EIS should also explain why there are

areas immediately adjacent to the private property

boundaries that are not being treated in this project.

The project in its proposed form may implement

high levels of forest thinning without effectively and

efficiently providing wildfire protection for the

adjacent communities.

No new roads should be constructed, even if only for

the duration of the project as roads greatly increase

soil compaction, transport of exotic weeds and long

lasting impacts on forest structure. South of Kelly

Canyon all thinning should be done by hand, the

limitation would not impede any of the treatments

from achieving stated objectives.

No new roads should be constructed for this project,

even if only for the duration of the project. Roads

greatly increase soil compaction, encourage the

transport of exotic seeds, and have long-lasting

impacts on the forest structure. The entire project

area has previously been heavily impacted by

recreation, including heavy traffic of ORV’s, and

should be spared further damage. Also, no area in

the project is far enough from roads to require new

roads to be built. In areas that are prohibitively far

from roads, this may limit the size of trees that can

be cut. However, this limitation would not impede

any of the treatments from achieving the stated

objectives.

Do not drive cat lines through the area. For many of

the reasons as listed directly above, cat lines should
138 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

not be used in the area. Fire lines should be created

by hand if they absolutely necessary.

Use only hand thinning south of Kelly Canyon. The

use of hand thinning may limit the size of trees that

can be cut in some areas away from roads. However, this limitation would not impede any of the

treatments from achieving the stated objectives.

Using hand thinning, the project will still be able to

create a diversity of forest structures and densities

throughout the area, including dense patches within

a less dense matrix. Most importantly, the use of

hand thinning would minimize the soil impacts,

protecting the area from further damage, and

maximizing its ability to recover and achieve the

proposed objectives of forest health and wildlife

habitat.

Use only hand thinning south of Kelly Canyon. One

of the objectives mentioned early in the planning

process was to manage the area south of Kelly

Canyon for wildlife, including designating the area

as old growth, existing or recruiting. This area is

not near houses or communities and is a critical

corridor for turkey and bear as well as generally

being important wildlife habitat with the potential to

develop good old growth characteristics. Designating the area as old growth would provide some

protection for this area of the forest as it develops

old-growth structure and function. Furthermore,

the EIS should include a comprehensive analysis of

old growth at the forest level as well as the project

level, as required by the Forest Plan.

The use of hand thinning may limit the size of trees

that can be cut in some areas away from roads.

However, this limitation would not impede any of the

treatments from achieving the stated objectives.

Using hand thinning, the project will still be able to

create a diversity of forest structures and densities

throughout the area, including dense patches within

a less dense matrix. Most importantly, the use of

hand thinning would minimize the soil impacts,

protecting the area from further damage, and

maximizing its ability to recover and achieve the

proposed objectives of forest health and wildlife

habitat.

Nowicki Comment: The following comments were

provided by B. Nowicki on 9/20 on the request of

Tammy Randall-Parker. Tammy asked Brian several

very specific questions to better understand exactly

what some of the comments were addressing. I

phoned and asked him to come in and visit, he

could not. Instead he sent an additional letter, that

did address the questions I had put forward to him

regarding roads and my interpretation of their

recommendations for the project (See PRD 110A).

The following is his last e-mail.

Ms Randall-Parker,

I have not been in touch with Taylor, but I

hope to speak with him soon regarding the

Kachina Village Project. I assume that his

lengthy comments are being considered in

developing the alternatives.

I will attempt to clarify, as succinctly as

possible, the SWFA comments you and I

spoke about yesterday regarding the Kachina

Village Project. These include: the 1/8-mile

treatments around communities, 60-120 BA

north of Kelly Canyon, temporary roads, and

hand thinning south of Kelly Canyon.

1/8-mile WUI treatments:

The Forest Service researcher Jack Cohen

states that the area immediately adjacent to

structures (houses) is the most important

determinant of whether or not that house will

burn. (Many of his ideas are presented in the

SWFA document “Protecting Communities

from Forest Fires” that can be found on our

website www.swfa.org, although I am sure

that you can also access his findings directly

through the Forest Service.) The ideas

regarding protecting houses fit in with the

concept of an intensive zone treatment. In

many cases, intensive zone treatments (often

a narrow band of 1/8 mile= 660 feet= 200

meters directly adjacent to communities)

provide a defensible space for fighting fires as

well as providing a shaded fuelbreak in which

the fire can drop to the ground. The exact

prescription for such an intensive zone would

be highly site-dependent, and the district fire

and fuels experts would have to determine

them on a site-by-site basis. However, the

treatment generally requires the removal of

ladder fuels and a reduction of fuels loads, as

well as eliminating continuous canopy so that

only relatively small groups and individuals

would be left. “The wildland fuel

characteristics beyond the homesite have

little if any significance to WUI home fire

losses.” (Cohen 1999). Therefore, treatment

beyond the area immediately adjacent to

communities (1/8-mile) should be treated

with a general fuel reduction as would be

used throughout the wildland forest. Of
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 139

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

course, no WUI treatment is effective unless

the personal properties and all homesites are

treated. However, used in conjunction with

home treatment, the above methods can

provide real community protection, while at

the same time reducing the need for drastic

and extensive thinning beyond the area

immediately adjacent to communities.

60-120 BA North of Kelly Canyon:

Thinning to a range of 60-120 sq ft BA should

provide all of the benefits that are provided by

thinning to a 40-120 sq ft BA, but would

provide some protection against unnecessary

and overzealous thinning. The negative

ecological impacts of reducing a significant

portion of the forest to 40 sq ft BA could be

severe. It is also my understanding that 40

sq ft BA is lower than is necessary to achieve

the desired goals of increased forest health

and lowered fire risk. (An analysis of the

resulting crown bulk density may be most

appropriate for determining the latter.) Of

course, this range of BA refers only to

forested acres, and not openings and

meadows. Also, we would assume that the

entire range of 60-120 sq ft BA would be

represented, and there would not be a bias

toward the low end of the range.

Temporary Road Construction:

The negative ecological impacts of road

building may far outweigh the benefits gained

from an increased level of thinning.

Understandably, the lack of new roads may,

in some cases, reduce the size of trees that

may be removed from an area, thereby

affecting the post-treatment stand density.

However, in many cases the resulting

difference may be marginal. More

importantly, the desired effects of thinning

may be only slightly reduced, but the negative

effects of roads would be entirely eliminated.

In some instances, the district may consider

cutting trees even though the logs could not

be removed by road. In these cases, the logs

may be lopped or bucked and eventually

consumed by prescribed fire. Of course, in

some cases, such methods would create very

high fuel loads for the first prescribed fires.

In such cases, the district could consider

thinning over a series of years, with a series

of prescribed fires. Furthermore, the district

should analyze the need for roads in each

stand, not just the need for them overall.

Hand-thinning South of Kelly Canyon:

Use of hand-thinning in the area south of

Kelly Canyon may restrict the cutting cap to

9”dbh. However, thinning with a 9” cap can

achieve the goals of the projects. At the same

time, the area will be spared the severe

impacts of soil compaction and disturbance

by large machines. The costs of such soil

impacts may far outweigh the ecological costs

of leaving a higher tree density on the site.

SWFA expects the Peaks Ranger District to

perform a fair and thorough analysis of these

issues. Please do not analyze these issues in

such a way as to determine, for example,

whether a 9” cap will allow you to reach you

goal of 40 BA. Obviously, this is circular

reasoning and unfair. Rather, analyze

whether a 9” cap will allow you to achieve the

goals of fire risk reduction and forest health.

Present your findings not by simply saying,

for example, that one alternative provides

greater fire risk reduction than another.

Instead, please present your findings as a

quantitative result, such as “Alternative X

provides only 80% as much increased tree

growth as Alternative Y”, or “Alternative X will

carry a continuous crown fire at 50 mph,

whereas Alternative Y will carry one at 60

mph”. Presenting the findings as such will

allow us to consider the proportional

difference in benefits compared to the

differences in treatment and collateral

damage (such as roads).

Thank you very much for considering these

ideas. Please feel free to call me if you have

any further questions.

Brian Nowicki

Non-Issues Comments and Questions

These items did not meet the definition for an issue

defined as a dispute or disagreement with the

Proposed Action based on some anticipated

environmental effect.

Bird (April – NOI response)

We intend this letter to be an expression of our

interest in the Kachina Timber Sale. Our organiza-
140 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

tions, FCC and NFPA would like to raise several

issues concerning the project that should be addressed in subsequent environmental

documentation.

Non-Issue: It is stated there are issues, but no

anticipated affects identified.

Response: The project is not a timber sale. In the

future, reference this project as the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project. This project has not been

planned as a timber sale, note that “timber production” is not listed in the purpose and need section of

the Proposed Action.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

The systematic application of an unproven silvicultural restoration technique being applied to

thousands of acres around Flagstaff and requires a

programmatic EIS (PEIS) remains a grave concern of

our organizations. During the Ft. Valley NEPA and

legal proceedings, the Forest Service argued that a

PEIS and a legally compliant cumulative effects

analysis were not necessary because the experimental nature of the various treatments in Fort Valley

precluded knowledge of what types of actions might

be applied to remaining 90K+/- acres remaining in

the Flagstaff area. Despite its assurances, the

Forest Service is proposing to employ one or more of

the Ft. Valley-type activities in the Kachina 10K! It

is plainly time for the Forest Service to concede that

it has well-defined plans for 100 thousand acres

surrounding Flagstaff and to proceed with a PEIS

and the appropriate cumulative effect analysis.

Non-Issue: This comment poses no dispute or disagreement with the Proposed Action, rather there is a

disagreement with the Fort Valley Project. No anticipated effects are directed at the Proposed Action.

Response: Your request for a Programmatic Environmental Assessment and subsequent description of

this is unsubstantiated by factual information.

Nowhere in the Fort Valley Project Record File have

your organizations ever mentioned a request for a

PEIS. There is no mention of a PEIS anywhere in the

CFR regulations or FS manual direction. There is no

such thing as a PEIS, so we are having difficulty

understanding this request.

Legal proceedings on Fort Valley had nothing to do

with a PEIS or cumulative effects; the legal proceedings focused on a process related issue that your

groups brought forward. The process issue centered

on a comment period for the EA for Fort Valley.

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project will be

conducted according to all Federal regulations at

stated in the CFR’s as we proceed with NEPA on this

project. The Kachina Village Forest Health Project is

a site-specific project for an area south of Kachina

Village. Site-specific projects as required by NEPA

require the preparation of a CE, EA or EIS. The

Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan

and subsequent amendment will guide this project.

Cumulative effects for ongoing, past and foreseeable

future projects will be analyzed.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

The question of uncertainty and the principle of

adaptive management is still at the forefront of the

controversy surrounding the GCFP/Forest Service

approach to forest restoration. The FS and GCFP

have adamantly insisted the nature of the thinning

is experimental in nature, thus accurate prediction

of effects cannot be made, and no future timber

sales would go forward until scientific information

validating one or another of treatments becomes

available. More large-scale restoration timber sales

such as Kachina is exactly what our organizations

warned of Ft. Valley. The actions at Fort Valley have

not even commenced in full and planning for another 10K has started. Such blatant failure to stand

by the principles of adaptive management is exactly

what has eroded the public’s faith in the FS.

Non-Issue: There is a dispute with the Fort Valley

Project, but no disagreement with the proposed

action. There are no anticipated effects stated by the

respondent with the Proposed Action.

Response: The project is not a timber sale. The FS

has not adamantly insisted the nature of the thinning

is experimental in nature and has not stated we could

not make accurate effects analysis. The FS has never

stated future projects would not be analyzed while

we wait for research data collected at Fort Valley.

We are pleased to see the Fort Valley Project move

forward and we will learn new information from the

project. There are no experimental treatments

proposed for Kachina Village; all silvicultural treatments have been proposed in the past and studied

and fall within parameters of the Forest Plan. The

thinning south of Kelly Canyon with the deferment

patches is a “new approach” to a straight thinning

from below with the deferral patches maintained for

wildlife. Arizona Game and Fish biologists have

worked with the IDT in the design of this treatment

and are anxious to see it applied on the ground. In

fact we have received three letters from the Arizona

Game and Fish Department in support of the treatment and overall design of this project.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 141

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

The structural model applied at Ft. Valley and we

assume the GCFP is attempting to blindly apply

again to public forest is fraught with uncertainty

and has not produced information, other than

anecdotal support of silvicultural goals. The

Covington model is based on structural attributes of

ponderosa pine forests and supporting evidence

consists of research on residual tree characteristics,

ie. dbh, growth related variable. This is not appropriate for our Federal public forestlands, which are

important ecological concentrations for TES species

population trends and habitat occupancy, hydrological processes, soils, etc.

Non-Issue: There is no disagreement or dispute

related to the Proposed Action and there are no

anticipated effects stated with the Proposed Action.

Rather, the respondent has issues with the Ft. Valley

Project and the Covington model of restoration.

Response: The Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Proposed Action does not include any Covington

model restoration type prescriptions and is working

with existing structure.

Bird (April –Response to NOI)

The FS during Fort Valley was criticized for using

selective science or ignoring critical science that

pointed to the uncertainties involved in silviculturebases restoration and fuels management. The new

National Forest Management Act planning regulations became effective on November 9, 2000. The

regulations mandate that the restoration and

maintenance of ecological sustainability is the “first

priority for stewardship of the national forests.” (36

C.F.R. 219). The FS is now required to ensure “that

the best available science is considered in planning.”

In particular, the requirement to consider the best

available science applies immediately to all project

decisions implementing current forest plans. FS

must refer to all of literature and science available.

There is little to no empirical evidence that the

proposed activities reduce fire risk or behavior and

in fact, the evidence would lead to the opposite

conclusion that commercial timbering and thinning

actually will increase the immediate risk of standreplacing fire or unnatural fire conditions and old

growth structure and process. In the recent Science

Consistency Check for the Sierra Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment, the science team repeatedly makes this

point. (Final Report from the Science Consistency

Check Team on the Carson Nevada Forest Plan

Amendment, 2000). Creating large trees is a silvicultural goal, not a purely ecological goal: big trees

alone do not ensure old growth conditions and

processes.

Non-Issue: There is no dispute or disagreement with

the Proposed Action and there are no anticipated

affects stated with the Proposed Action.

Response: The new planning regulations will not be

used for this analysis as these regulations are on

hold at this time. Our IDT will use all existing information available and scientific information to conduct

the best effects analysis possible.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

The FS must justify the application of potentially

harmful actions across 9,000 acres of Federal forest

lands rather than focusing its efforts on reducing

the immediate risk to property and lives in the WUI

and a property owner education and cooperation

program. Congress has not approved widespread

timber sales miles from the WUI. The Coconino

National Forest nor the GCFP has defined the WUI.

The Kachina EIS must offer legitimate justification

for applying silviculturual treatments to thousand of

acres of remote forestlands outside the WUI. Is this

cost effective? What the short and long-term ecological implications? What are the short and

long-term costs for maintaining the 10K landscape

in the “desired” condition?

Non Issue: This comment is not specific to the

Proposed Action, however there are several comments

which are addressed as follows.

Response: For the City of Flagstaff and surrounding satellite communities, the Forest Service has had

a definition of the wildland-urban interface in the

Coconino Land Management Plan and a map of the

interface that has been in use for years. The Fire

Management Area Zone (FMAZ) map shows that all

but a small area south of James Canyon are within

the W/UI. In the Coconino LMP there is guidance on

the size and scale of the urban interface found on

page 93, the Plan states “the urban interface is

defined as an area up to 10 miles long in a southwesterly direction from urban areas.”

Fire managers in Flagstaff have defined the WUI as

the points from which a fire originating under average

worst case conditions that would be likely to reach

structures within one or two burning periods. For

example, a fire that started near the junction of

Highway 89 and Forest Service Road 237 could

easily travel the approximately 3 miles to the south
142 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

end of Kachina Village within one burning period. A

fire in this area (as shown with Farsite Modeling PRD

73) will travel 2.5 to 3 miles in one afternoon, thereby

prompting us to look at the entire area in order to

protect homes in Forest Highlands and Kachina

Village. This type of fire would likely overwhelm

initial attack firefighters.

Further, this project proposal is not just a WUI

proposal. It is clearly stated in the Proposed Action

as a project to improve declining forest health and

high fire hazard conditions. MSO PAC’s, old-growth

habitats, old trees, northern goshawk habitat,

cultural sites, and the Oak Creek watershed are at

risk from wildfire and management actions are

proposed to reduce wildfire risk and potential.

The questions described in this comment will be

addressed in the EIS. A cumulative effects analysis

will be prepared. FSH indicates that economics are

not important drivers in this project. Commodity

production is not the driving factor in this project;

forest health improvement is. Therefore, cost effectiveness is not the prime question here. “For purposes

of complying with the (National Environmental Policy)

Act, the weighing of merits and drawbacks of the

various alternatives need not be displayed in a

monetary cost-benefit analysis and should not be

when there are important qualitative considerations.

(Emphasis added) (FSH 1909.15 41.1(2); FSH

1909.15 22.35; 40 CFR 1502.23. FSM 1905-55

defines “net public benefits” as “an expression used

to signify the overall long-term value to the nation of

all outputs and positive effects (benefits) less all

associated inputs and negative effects (costs) whether

they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net public

benefits are measured by both quantitative and

qualitative criteria rather than a single measure or

index.” This definition is consistent with the direction

of complying with NEPA.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

We are concerned with the adverse economic effects

of commercial logging, including silviculture-based

restoration on public lands and the damage and loss

of ecosystem service values associated with standing

or otherwise intact forests. The FS failure to quantify such effects at the project level or for the logging

program as a whole is contrary to many Federal and

USFS regulations. The opportunity costs of logging,

which include the values, of uses forgone on areas

logged plus the benefits associated with alternative

uses of timber sale funds should be evaluated on a

project basis. We request an impartial analysis of

all values, both market and not-market associated

with each alternative including the non-action and

no commercial harvest alternatives. This includes

employment and income (including multipliers)

associated with non-timber uses.

Non-Issue: There is disagreement expressed with

the Forest Service in general, but no disagreement

with the Proposed Action and no anticipated affects

stated with the Proposed Action.

Response: The Forest Service will conduct an

economic evaluation of the alternatives in the Draft

EIS. An economic analysis will comply with manual

direction for this item.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

The analysis needs to include an indepth treatment

of cumulative effects, especially in regards to soils,

water quality, fragmentation, old growth, TES, MIS

and neotropical migrant birds. All activities including past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future

activities, including the application of silvicultural

restoration treatments to 100K acres in the Flagstaff area, on each and every land ownership must

be incorporated. This is important considering the

fact that the FS is ignoring its promises to not apply

these experimental treatments until information

about their effectiveness can be obtained from other

areas and the obvious intentions of the FS to apply

these treatments to many 10K units as quickly as

possible.

Non-Issue: There is no disagreement stated with the

Proposed Action and no anticipated effects stated

with actions for the Proposed Action.

Response: The Draft EIS for the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project will include a cumulative effects

analysis as directed by Federal regulations which

includes ongoing, past and foreseeable future projects

(as defined as a project with a proposed action).

Bird

Statement concerning prioritization of implementation “by treating stands adjacent to communities

first, and then progressing south thereafter” makes

no sense and seems to pay lip service to the national

direction and science on WUI forest treatments and

places no concrete limitation on the project.

Non-Issue: No stated specific effect.

Response: As the treatments are implemented

within the project area, the treatments north of Kelly

Canyon will come first. The areas closest to the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 143

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

urban interface were prioritized, as first to complete

important work needed in the highest fire risk areas.

Treatments proposed south of Kelly Canyon will begin

after the north half is complete. Fire occurrence data

shows areas north of Kelly Canyon to have more

frequent human starts with higher use occurring

north of Kelly Canyon.

Denton

Large dense stands will continue to maintain a

threat of disturbance events including stand replacement, fire, insects, disease and drought.

Non-Issue: No disagreement with the Proposed

Action.

Response: A phone call to Charlie Denton was made

to clarify this issue. Charlie is not concerned with the

Proposed Action, if deferral patches remain as stated

in the Proposed Action which is 1/10th to 1 acre.

However, there would be concerns if deferral patches

become larger than 2 acres in size or there are

additional leave areas proposed, say more than the

25 percent described in the Proposed Action. We

have a concern with leaving large dense areas as

well and have brought forward a Proposed Action

which will not leave large dense areas susceptible to

fire, insects and disease.

Denton

The proposed actions do not bring the ecosystem

within the range of evolutionary (natural) variability,

which is needed to allow natural fire to play a role.

Non-Issue: No specific disagreement with the

Proposed Action.

Response: This is not an issue with Charlie per

phone call. He does not believe natural fire should be

included in the Proposed Action, which it is not.

Charlie has concerns with smoke management and

social acceptance, and is not supportive of the use of

“natural fire” in the urban interface. He also believes

the dense patches would affect our ability to use

natural fire in the area.

The objective to allow natural fire to play a role in this

area is beyond the scope of this project. The Forest

Service IDT and public participants discussed this as

a possible objective for the project, however this was

dropped for several reasons including public acceptance, smoke management concerns, etc.

Denton

No actions are described which increase the diversity of age classes.

Non-Issue: No specific disagreement with the

Proposed Action.

Response: Per the phone call, Charlie stated we

cannot change the diversity of age classes—and does

not think this should be part of purpose and need.

He agrees we are improving and increasing the

diversity of diameter classes. Charlie is not advocating for regeneration treatments, and is concerned

about increasing the number of small trees as this

would affect fire potential. He stated we need to

followup with future broadcast burning to thin

regeneration areas that will result from our thinning.

We agree with Charlie that future broadcast burns

and maintenance burning is essential to managing

regeneration in the area.

Denton

The understory productivity and diversity will only

respond in those areas where significant overstory

and understory thinning occurs.

Non-Issue: No dispute stated or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: The Forest Service is aware of research

and studies which document the effects of understory

response to stand density The changes in understory

development will be described in the EIS.

Denton

Smoke management will be a restrictive item adjacent to the interface property.

Non-Issue: No dispute stated or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: True statement; no disagreement from the

team.

Pond

The Highlands Fire Department thanks the Forest

Service and Partnership for excellent work on the

project. Appreciate participation in the initial

planning. In favor of efforts (thinning, burning) and

other efforts to reduce the potential for large fires in

the Wildland Urban Interface. We would like to

remain active in the processes of this project and we

are willing to serve as a community source of

information regarding this project.
144 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Non-Issue: No dispute or disagreement with the

Proposed Action.

Response: The USFS intends to further communication and informational meetings with residents and

local groups concerned with the project, and will

continue to include and seek assistance from the fire

department.

Pond

The Highlands Fire District would like to see the

project implemented sooner than the stated 5 to 10-

year schedule.

Non-Issue: There is a dispute with the Proposed

Action, but no anticipated effects are stated by the

respondent.

Response: This is our best estimate for the timeline

for this project. We expect that the thinning could be

completed over a 3 to 4-year period. Broadcast

burning would follow and will most likely take 10

years to complete all acres. In subsequent years

maintenance burning will occur. This is based on

past experience in managing airshed regulations,

weather conditions, etc. The project will start adjacent to Kachina Village and Forest Highlands.

Nowicki

It is my understanding the GCFP has adopted a 16-

inch dbh cutting cap; the GCFP decided that any

tree cut over 16 incheswould be left on site as a

snag or log. However, neither made it into the

Proposed Action.

Non-Issue: No dispute or disagreement with the

Proposed Action, and no anticipated effects identified.

Comments merely raise questions that can be answered now.

Response: The GCFP has not adopted a 16-inch dbh

cutting cap, but makes recommendations to the Forest

Service on a case-by-case basis regarding a cap. The

GCFP did not recommend a 16-inch cutting cap for

this project but did recommend that any 16 inch tree

that was targeted for removal to meet project objectives be retained on site. This was killing the tree to

create a snag or felling it to become a log. The Forest

Service proposed action includes creation of logs and

snags. See Page 2 (Item 2) and Page 7 (Item 17) in

the Kachina Village Forest Health Project Scoping

Letter.

Nowicki

If recommendations were indeed submitted by the

Partnership but not accepted by the Forest Service,

then this calls into serious question the reinvention

laboratory status of the Grand Canyon Forests

Partnership projects.

Non-Issue: No disagreement or dispute with the

Proposed Action.

Response: The Forest Service is responsible for the

NEPA process, including the decision. The Partnership provides recommendations and works with the

Forest Service just like all other publics can provide

comment. This does not question the reinvention

laboratory status of the project.

Nowicki

The Kachina Village project should retain all trees

older than 100 years to protect trees that were alive

at the turn of the last century, prior to the majority

of logging and grazing and before the regeneration

boom of 1910.

Nowicki and Bird

The proposal poses to cut trees as much as 150

years old. This age appears to be completely arbitrary.

Nowicki Clarification Comments

Perform a field analysis of tree age to diameter for

ponderosa pines, and retain all ponderosa pines

older than 100 years old. This would protect trees

that were alive at the turn of the last century, prior

to the majority of logging and grazing, and before the

regeneration boom of the late 1910’s. The age limit

of 150 years that is noted in the Proposed Action is

arbitrary and older than all age limits used previously in the Flagstaff area. The EIS needs to include

a detailed, quantitative analysis for choosing the age

limit of 150 years. Of course, the retention of all

ponderosa pines older than 100 years does not

imply in any way that all trees younger than 100

years would be cut. This analysis and protection is

absolutely necessary to protecting the next generation of old growth that will develop in the forest.

Non-Issue (Previous three comments): No clear

disagreement expressed with the Proposed Action, no

effects identified relative to the proposal; comment

raises a question that can be answered now.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 145

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Response: Our intent is to protect all old trees in the

Proposed action. Old trees are those which are

“yellow-barked” and are important for wildlife species

(over 80 species of wildlife use them for nesting,

roosting, and feeding). The Kachina Village Forest

Health Project Proposed Action states “retain all

existing mature ponderosa pine trees or old ‘yellowbarked’ trees that are approximately 150 years old or

older.” The 150-year-old descriptive is merely meant

to help explain “yellow-barked trees” and not meant

as any management intent. Our intent is exactly the

opposite—to thin from below and remove mostly

smaller, younger blackjack pine as needed to meet

density objectives and leave the larger, mature

(yellow-barked) trees. The 150 years number actually comes from a publication by Will Moir and Jack

Dieterich (“Old-Growth Ponderosa Pine from Succession In Pine-Bunchgrass Forests In Arizona and New

Mexico”) published in the Natural Areas Journal,

Volume 8 (1), 1988 in which they define yellow pine

as: “trees > 30 cm dbh but generally more than 150

years old (age at dbh).” Our personal experience

suggests that the age of yellow pines can be quite

variable, as few as 130 years up to 180 years or

more, depending on site and density conditions,

however the age is irrelevant. We are not cutting any

yellow-barked trees.

Nowicki

The Proposed Action confuses the distinction

between WUI treatments and general fuels reduction. It does not delineate a distinct defensible

space in the WUI, and forest areas directly adjacent

to Forest Highlands and Kachina Village are not

being treated for fuels reduction. The project relies

on fuels treatments over a large area to provide

community protection. This approach is leading to

confused objectives throughout wildland forest. The

SWFA endorses WUI treatments within a 660-foot

WUI intensive zone (directly adjacent) to houses.

South of Kelly Canyon treatments should only

remove understory trees 12 inches and less to

protect existing yellow pines.

Non-Issue: No clear disagreement with the Proposed

Action; the respondent finds the Proposed Action

confusing. The statements bring forward no anticipated effects relative to the proposal. The comment

raises questions which can be addressed now.

Response: The Proposed Action describes management actions to address declining, poor forest health,

and high fire hazard conditions on national norest

nands. Our objectives are not confused, the purpose

and need section of the Proposed Action clearly

defines our objectives for this project, with WUI

protection being only one of fourteen objectives for the

project. All lands adjacent to Forest Highlands and

Kachina Village that are in need of treatment to

address declining forest health and reduce high fire

hazard are proposed for treatment. A fire in this area

(as shown with Farsite Modeling PRD 73) will easily

travel 2.5 to 3 miles in one afternoon, thereby prompting us to look at the entire area in order to protect

MSO PAC’s, old-growth habitats, old trees, northern

goshawk habitat, cultural sites, the Oak Creek

watershed and homes in Forest Highlands and

Kachina Village. Direction in the Coconino LMP

provides guidance on the size and scale of the urban

interface. Page 93 of the Coconino LMP defines the

urban interface as an area up to 10 miles long in a

southwesterly direction from urban areas. Lyle

Laverty (Title), as well as many other Forest Service

fire specialists, believe wildland fire treatment to go

far beyond the 660 feet as expressed in your comments (PRD 91B).

Nowicki and Bird

Proposed thinning prescriptions are vague; various

items are listed to be included in the EIS. Impacts

are vague.

Non-Issue: No disagreement with the Proposed

Action stated and no anticipated effects provided by

respondent.

Response: There are no impacts stated in the

Proposed Action. The EIS and biological assessment

and evaluation will include additional detail and

effects analysis.

Nowicki

Areas South of Kelly Canyon should be designated

as old growth—existing and recruitment for wildlife

habitat. The EIS needs to include a comprehensive

analysis of old growth at the forest level, project level

as required by the Forest Plan.

Nowicki Clarification Letter

One of the objectives mentioned early in the planning process was to manage the area south of Kelly

Canyon for wildlife, including designating the area

as old growth, existing or recruiting. This area is

not near houses or communities and is a critical

corridor for turkey and bear as well as generally

being important wildlife habitat with the potential to

develop good, old-growth characteristics. Designating the area as old growth would provide some

protection for this area of the forest as it develops

old-growth structure and function.
146 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Non-Issue: No disagreement or dispute with the

Proposed Action based on anticipated effects.

Response: Effects on old growth and appropriate

designations will be disclosed in the Draft EIS.

Nowicki Clarification Letter

Provide a definition of “opening,” including the

criteria used to determine the location, size and

number of openings. The EIS needs to provide

clarification on the determination of openings. For

example, if the project includes recreating historic

openings, specify whether these are areas that have

at any point in time been openings, or if they were

openings prior to 1900 or some other criteria. One

concern is that areas that were opened in the past

by logging will be considered historic openings.

Another concern is that areas that were historically

more open (had very low tree densities) may have

still contained some trees (trees scattered within

openings). The EIS should include a justification for

the management of 10 percent of the area to provide

for grassy openings in the “thinning from below,

north of Kelly Canyon.” Is this an attempt to

implement the Goshawk Guidelines throughout the

area? Primarily, this analysis should determine the

“historic” level of openings, by number, size, and

locations. Without this clarification and analysis of

the openings, the project is in danger of arbitrarily

creating holes in the forest structure, with little

understanding of the impact and long-term effects of

such action. Furthermore, the EIS should include a

quantitative analysis of the impact of the created

openings. This includes analyses of the number of

trees removed by diameter class, and the pretreatment densities of those areas in which openings

will be created, as well as an analysis of the number

and size of openings by treatment.

Non-Issue: The respondent does not state a clear

debate or disagreement with the Proposed Action,but

rather asks questions which can be addressed at this

time.

Response: As stated in the Proposed Action, the

selection of areas for creating grassy openings will be

a combination of building on existing openings and

looking at historic openings. These openings will

implement the goshawk guidelines and provide gaps

in the canopy to lessen crown fire potential. The

Proposed Action specifies we will work to create 10

percent grassy openings in the project area. The

respondent provides no anticipated environmental

effects of concern for creating the openings. The need

for grassy openings is well documented in the Management Recommendations in the Southwestern

United States for the Northern Goshawk, Reynolds

et.al. Our Forest Plan has standards and guidelines

for creating grassy openings on the landscape. There

is no rationale provided by the respondent for the

data he requests. In my phone conversations with

Brian, I mentioned the need for removal of large

diameter black jacks to make grassy openings. The

1919 seed year deposited seeds in existing overgrazed small meadows. The trees which established

in some of the meadows tend to be large diameter,

short in height and have many limbs with abundant

needle cover (full canopy). The tree form growing in

many historic openings are affecting understory

ground cover by shading out the understory.

Nowicki Clarification Letter

These and the previous comments are specific to the

Kachina Village Project and are not template in

form. The comments were submitted in a good faith

attempt to convey our concerns, issues, and objections concerning the Kachina Village Project to the

Forest Service, as early as possible in the NEPA

process.

We submit these comments as substantive issues to

be analyzed and included within alternatives in the

EIS. These clarifications follow the comments of Ms

Randall-Parker at the August Grand Canyon Forests

Partnership meeting, in which she stated that no

substantive issues were raised in the comments so

far. If the Forest Service maintains this position,

please provide a citation to a provision within the

NEPA, its CEQ implementing regulations, the Forest

Service Manual or Handbook, or any other law or

policy in support of this position.

Regardless of which issues within our scoping letter

are deemed “significant” by the Forest Service, the

agency is required to provide a response to our

comments. See 40 C.F.R. § 1503.4. Additionally,

implementing regulations at 40 C.F.R. § 1501.7

requires that even those issues not found to be

significant must be identified and for the action

agency to give a “brief presentation of why they will

not have a significant effect on the human environment or providing a reference to their coverage

elsewhere.” Finally, in general, NEPA requires

agencies to “make diligent efforts to involve the

public in preparing and implementing their NEPA

procedures.” See 40 C.F.R. § 1506.6.

Non-Issue: No dispute with the Proposed Action or

anticipated effects. The respondent is concerned

about how their scoping comments will be addressed.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 147

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Response: All scoping comments have been addressed in the scoping comment summary which lists

all substantive scoping comments and links each

comment to its source. The scoping comment summary compiles all comments into categories: Issues;

Non-Issue Comments and Questions; and Alternatives

Suggested by the Public. In the scoping comment

summary, all comments are addressed with a

response. A definition for comments and issues is

provided in the summary. The list provides transition

from public scoping to the issue management phase

of NEPA. A document summarizing issues and nonsignificant issues has been prepared. This document

addresses all issues with a response as well. All of

the comments, issues and alternatives suggested by

this respondent have been addressed and considered

by the IDT and most importantly have been reviewed

by the line officer who will make this decision.

Kennedy

The AZG&F Department supports the Forest Service

management emphasis and focus on forest restoration and reducing risk of uncontrolled wildfires, and

request direct involvement through Rick Miller to

ensure wildlife goals and objectives are met.

Non-Issue: No disagreement or dispute with the

Proposed Action.

Kennedy

We would like to work cooperatively with the Forest

Service and GCFP to discuss possible development

of pre- and post project-monitoring actions to collect

information that could be used during the development of future forest health projects.

Non-Issue: No disagreement or dispute with the

Proposed Action.

Response: Continue to coordinate with AZG&F

personnel on the project. Have draft EIS include

potential preliminary research and monitoring.

Dodd

Pleased to see Proposed Action is encouraging

research and monitoring. Priority for evaluation is

the two prominent treatments north of Kelly Canyon

and south of Kelly Canyon. Needs 2+ years pretreatment and 2+ years post treatment.

Non-Issue: No dispute with the Proposed Action.

Response: Send letter to Dodd and others to have

working meeting to discuss the research. Work with

AZG&F on potential funding. Include Carl Edminster

and Diane Vosick of ERI & B. Cottam.

Metzner

Thinning around housing makes sense, but should

extend no more than 1/2 mile in any direction.

Non-Issue: There is a dispute with the Proposed

Action, however, no effects anticipated are described

by the respondent.

Response: A fire in this area (as shown with Farsite

Modeling PRD 73) will easily travel 2.5 to 3 miles in

one afternoon, thereby prompting us to look at the

entire area in order to protect MSO PAC’s, old-growth

habitats, old trees, northern goshawk habitat,

cultural sites,the Oak Creek watershed and homes in

Forest Highlands and Kachina Village. Direction in

the Coconino LMP provides guidance on the size and

scale of the urban interface. Page 93 of the Coconino

LMP defines the urban interface as an area up to 10

miles long in a southwesterly direction from urban

areas. Lyle Laverty (Title), as well as many other

Forest Service fire specialists believe wildland fire

treatment to go far beyond the 1/2 mile as expressed

in your comments (PRD 91b).

Metzner

If Kachina Village wants these kinds of changes in

our forest, we will request it.

Non-Issue: There is an overall dispute with bringing

forward a proposal for the area, but no anticipated

effects expressed.

Response: Many in the Kachina Village area have

expressed support for the types of activities brought

forward in the Proposed Action and requested these

types of changes as we have heard when working on

other projects such as the Lake Mary Ecosystem

Management Assessment and during the open house

for this project.

Bird

FCC and NFPA remain gravely concerned that the

FS continues to ignore own science, controversy of

forest restoration logging and cumulative effects.

Non-Issue: There is no clear dispute with the Proposed Action and there are no anticipated effects

described.
148 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Bird

The Kachina Timber Sale will “encourage research

and monitoring” is confusing. All of the topics or

“research studies” are already being studied at Fort

Valley. Wait for the results from Fort Valley before

you rush headlong into another controversial and

experimental restoration logging project. Agency

should proceed with far greater humility.

Non-Issue: There is clarification that is needed for the

respondent. There is no clear disagreement with this

Proposed Action and there are no anticipated effects

provided.

Response: This project is not a timber sale. The

treatments proposed for Kachina Village are being

applied differently than those at Fort Valley and some

are different than other treatments we have proposed

for other projects. However, all treatments fall within

the parameters of the Coconino National Forest Plan.

The treatments south of Kelly Canyon, which will

include the deferment areas intermixed within

treatments, have not had any type of intensive

wildlife study. The AZ Game and Fish Research

Branch is very interested in looking at how these

typeof treatments will affect Abert squirrel, songbirds

and mule deer. Also, there is interest from MSO

researchers to include the MSO PAC(s) within the

project area as part of a regional review of the

application of treatments described in the recovery

plan for this species. Fort Valley did not include any

thinning or prescribed burning in MSO PAC’s.

Bird

Kachina Timber Sale DEIS must comply with the

1996 LRMP amendments including providing old

growth assessments at three spatial levels.

Non-Issue: There is no dispute or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: This Environmental Impact Statement

and Project Record will have information that documents compliance with the Coconino LMP and

amendments.

McKinnon and Ack

Mechanical piling and burning piles may be ideal

from a fire management perspective but it is not

proven as the best alternative for ecological restoration. This approach to slash can have significant

impacts on the ground. We believe the USFS

should look at having different zones for slash

management, and utilize the lop and scatter

technique wherever possible, especially in the

parts of the project area distant from structures,

such as south of Kelly Canyon.

Non-Issue: There is a dispute with the Proposed

Action but no description of the anticipated effects.

Response: Most of the area will be rough piled with

some material retained as stated in the Proposed

Action. The amount of slash generated from the

proposed treatments would not allow for lop and

scatter only. Our experience from recent thinning

activities at both the A1 and Fort Valley Ecosystem

Restoration Projects have demonstrated that the

slash produced will require piling. Fuels specialists

have made recommendations for slash treatment that

are conducive to the amount of slash created and

concerns with red slash in the urban interface.

McKinnon and Ack

We enthusiastically support the Kachina Village

Project and appreciate the time and energy you and

other Coconino National Forest staff have dedicated

toward this project to date. In addition to comments

made by the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership, we

are providing the following comments that we feel

could help to clarify and improve the Proposed

Action for Kachina Village.

Non-Issue: There is no dispute or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: Thank you for your support.

McKinnon and Ack

While this section is at the end of the document, we

feel it should be the first section in a draft EIS. It is

important to immediately explain “why” to the

reader. We support all the statements in this

section, but we are curious why the term “restoration” does not appear here or in the remainder of the

document. For the Kachina project, it seems that

“improving forest health” has replaced “restoring

forest ecosystems” or “ecological restoration”

throughout the Proposed Action.

We would like you to consider changing the name of

the project to “Kachina Village Ecosystem Restoration Project,” making it analogous to Fort Valley.

This would also better reflect the reality of the Grand

Canyon Forests Partnership as stated in the Cooperative Agreement (1998) and Guide to the Grand

Canyon Forests Partnership (1998).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 149

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

We also recommend replacing the #14 in purpose

and need with the original language from the Guide

to the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership: “Research, test, develop, and demonstrate key

ecological, economic, and social dimensions of

restoration efforts.”

Non-Issue: This comment has brought forward

suggestions for language changes to the Proposed

Action. There are, however, no anticipated environmental effects.

Response: The suggested language changes have

been noted.

McKinnon and Ack

In order to more accurately communicate our

collective intention to retain all yellow pines in this

project; and to reduce the probability that our

collective efforts could be misconstrued or misunderstood, we suggest that the statement mentioning

retention of trees greater than 150 years old be

changed to simply state that “all yellow pines will be

retained.”

Non-Issue: There is a debate with the Proposed

Action regarding wording, however, there is no

anticipated affect.

Response: The age of 150 years was a descriptive

term only. This clarification will be made in the EIS.

Mckinnon and Ack

In addition to those research institutions mentioned

in the proposed action, we encourage the Forest

Service to include a monitoring plan in the scope of

work for this project.

Non-Issue: There is no dispute or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: A monitoring and implementation plan

will be included in the Draft EIS.

McKinnon and Ack

Project maps indicate that within units to be

thinned, all acreage has been included for thinning

targets. Based upon the experience at Ft. Valley,

where thinning targets exceeded actual thinned

acres, we recommend that the Forest Service reduce

acres treated in each unit by a percentage in order

to accommodate subsequent deferrals that are

identified, or to accommodate not thinning in areas

where no thinning is needed to meet project objectives.

Non-Issue: There is no stated disagreement with the

Proposed Action and no anticipated effects identified.

Response: This comment reflects a concern that

acreages show deferral acres. The EIS will include

accurate acreages.

McKinnon and Ack

See comment #6. If thinning is proposed in areas

that have been thinned in the last 10 years, the

Proposed Action should identify and discuss these.

Where the proposed action states that “clumps will

be selected based on existing structure,” it would be

useful to explain this further. We recommend the

following: “clumps will be selected based on the best

existing structures. This includes retaining those

clumps with the most and largest trees and those

that have a well developed and intact group canopy

structure first.”

Also, the Proposed Action is unclear as to how large

or small of an area over which basal area targets are

to be averaged. Without this information, the

capacity to actually work from the existing structure

is unclear. If these targets are point specific, they

will be unattainable in many cases. We recommend

including minimum acreage value that adds clarity

to the basal area targets.

Non-Issue: There is no clear dispute with the Proposed Action and no anticipated affects are identified.

Response: The historical thinning in the area will be

considered in a cumulative effects analysis. The

leave clumps as stated in the Proposed Action will

range in size from 1/10th acre to 1 acre. The range

in size of patches thinned to different basal areas will

be variable dependent upon existing stand structure

and based on experience working with thinning below

prescriptions pockets of thinning will vary between 1/

10th to 4 acres.

McKinnon and Ack

See comment number 6. We applaud the idea of

retaining a percentage in dense groups based upon

the best tree groups that exist on the landscape

today. We think the description of how these areas

will be identified, and how much of the total thinned

area will be retained in these groups could be

clarified. Rather than using the term “up to 25

percent of the area,” we recommend—for specificity

sake—that a range of percentage of area be identified to be left in dense groups. We recommend this

range to be 15 to 25 percent of the thinned matrix.
150 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Following are guidelines for your consideration in

how these dense patches may be identified:

Identifying and deferring some patches from

thinning treatment would (1) prevent

unnecessary thinning applications, (2)

minimize short-term disturbance during

implementation, (3) maintain patches of

undisturbed soil, (4) maintain patches of

undisturbed canopy for dense canopy

dependent species such as Abert squirrel and

passerine birds and (5) reduce overall visual

impacts (screening) of thinning across the

entire treatment area.

It should be noted that there is considerable

uncertainty about how deferral patches

should be retained. Because communities

are composed of different complexes of

species that respond to patch size,

configuration, and shape in different ways, it

seems unlikely that any single set of general,

theoretically derived principles would

successfully predict the “best” management

strategy for a particular set of circumstances

(McCoy 1982, Haila 1985, 1986, Zimmerman

and Bierregaard 1986). However considering

that our conservation needs are immediate,

and the research needed to aptly and

precisely inform the management of habitat

patches is largely speculative in a disturbance

matrix, the general principles of restoration

ecology provide a valuable framework for

reaching these decisions: The general

guidelines below employ existing forest

structure (“deferred”) according to the natural

range of variability and deferral guidelines

developed for similar projects.

The “patch” defined: In this case, “patch” is

synonymous with “clump” as it describes a

localized and distinct aggregation of

ponderosa pine trees with frequently

interlocking crowns and some age and/or size

variation.

Patch size: Defining optimal patch sizes for

deferral based upon species’ needs would be

an infinitely complex and under-informed

undertaking. Deferral patch size would be

most easily determined by identifying distinct

tree groups meeting established criteria (see

below): the size of individual distinct tree

groups would dictate patch size. However,

deferral patch sizes should be emphasized

(but not confined) to occur within the range of

natural variability, generally between .05 and

2 acres (Grieg-Smith 1952, White 1985), and

using existing group structures on the

landscape to guide size.

Patch configuration: Like patch size,

determining patch configuration

(arrangement/juxtaposition) across treatment

areas according to species’ needs would be an

infinitely complex undertaking. Belsky et.al.

(1995) recommend deferring both isolated

patches and large aggregations of patches

(totaling up to 5 acres) across thinning

projects in “eastside” ponderosa and jeffery

pine forest ecosystems of the northwest. This

would be a useful and applicable guideline for

our project.

Total area deferred: Belsky et.al. further

recommend retaining at least 20% or more of

an area considered for treatment in an

unthinned condition. Retention of some dense

areas provides important structural diversity,

wildlife cover, and undisturbed soil/

understory conditions within managed

stands. This would also be a useful and

applicable guideline for our project.

Deferral patches and catastrophic fire risk

reduction: The proposed deferral patch

guidelines maintain a discontinuous canopy

structure across the landscape. While

localized intra-patch biomass may be greater

in deferred patches, the ability of the overall

treatment area to carry a continuous crown

fire would probably not be significantly

increased.

Criteria for identifying deferral patches: It

would be desirable if wildlife biologists

identified deferral patches on the ground

based upon their professional assessments of

the presence of attributes generally favorable

to canopy dependent, short ranging species:

Intra-patch considerations:

• presence of important structural

components including interlocking crowns

and branches;

• physiognomic complexity such as broken

tops, brooms or oaks;
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 151

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

• distinct (to minimize the amount of

thinning required in adjacent/near deferral

patch);

• foliage height diversity; a diversity of sizes

of trees within patch;

• lack of excessive ladder fuels that would

create dangerous conditions during the reintroduction of fire; and

• patch size is determined by the existing

spatial distribution of a distinct tree

clump, emphasis on .05-2 acre deferral

patches is recommended but should not be

absolute.

Inter-patch considerations:

• different dominant tree size classes

between patches, favoring later seral stages

or larger average tree sizes in patch

selection;

• retain a variety of patch sizes and shapes;

and

• retain both isolated patches and

aggregations of patches up to 5 acres in

size.

In the remaining matrix outside these dense groups,

we recommend discussing how thinning strategies

are aimed at achieving overall structural heterogeneity. In fact, mention of this would be useful in

discussion of all thinning in the Proposed Action.

One approach that would fit nicely is the idea of

using changes in soil type to guide thinning intensities across the landscape. A few other phrases that

may help further articulate the idea of working with

the existing structure in the context of creating more

structural heterogeneity are “working back from the

best existing structures” and “creating more contrast

from the existing forest structure.”

Non-Issue: There is no disagreement with the

Proposed Action or anticipated effect with the Proposed Action. The respondent provides potential

language and scientific information for supporting

and guiding patch distribution south of Kelly Canyon.

Response: These items were discussed in a recent

meeting with Arizona Game and Fish Researchers

and discussed in relation to project design. The ideas

are quite good and will be forwarded into the implementation design where management biologist and

research biologists will assist in on-the-ground layout

of deferral patches. Specific language described here

will be beneficial in preparation of prescriptions.

Thank you for your time and effort researching these

questions.

McKinnon and Ack

Recent proposals put forth by the Regional Office

indicate that future wildland-urban interface

projects within 1/2 mile of the national forest

boundary will not, based upon proposed changes to

LRMP’s, be required to follow standards and guidelines for Mexican spotted owl and northern goshawk.

While we don’t recall any PAC’s or PFA’s within .5

miles of the Forest boundary in this project area, we

would not support any thinning within them that is

inconsistent with existing standards and guidelines.

Non-Issue: No dispute or disagreement with the

Proposed Action.

Response: The Kachina Village Forest Health Project

is consistent with all standards and guidelines in the

current LMP. This future potential amendment has

not been applied to this project.

McKinnon and Ack

Retaining areas of dense forest to facilitate movement of wide ranging species will be a critical

component to this project fitting into the surrounding landscape. We are glad to see that movement

corridors have been identified already in the project.

Non-Issue: No disagreement or dispute with the

Proposed Action.

McKinnon and Ack

The Grand Canyon Trust is interested in identifying

ways that ensure that some portion of restoration

project areas will be managed for old-growth values

into the future. We further understand that there

are no management area designations specific to

old-growth, and that old-growth designations within

the Management Area 3—or suitable timber base—

means that forests are managed for old-growth

values in the context of a 250-year rotation.

In the short term, “existing” and “developing” oldgrowth designations for the suitable timber base

appear to be our best option toward these ends. We

recommend that existing old-growth designations

are assigned according to the current distribution of

all stands that qualify for this designation—includ-
152 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

ing but not limited to those in Mexican spotted owl

PAC’s and northern goshawk PFA’s. Using a GIS, we

recommend old growth stands be identified as those

stands in which existing old-growth conditions were

observed during pre-planning transect surveys. We

urge the Forest Service to exceed the 20 percent old

growth allocation minimum according to “on-theground” conditions.

In the longer term, we are very interested in working

with the Forest Service to develop a management

area status for forest ecosystem restoration. This

would include (retroactive, if possible) standards and

guidelines for management of restoration treatments

to ensure that the restoration process is allowed to

unfold and eventually arrive at a healthy, functioning, and mature forest ecosystem. We would be

pleased to see this process take place in the context

of the Kachina Village Project, however, we understand it will require a Forest Plan amendment and

may not be immediately feasible.

Non-Issue: There is no dispute or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: The Kachina Village Forest Health Project

will designate old growth according to standards and

guidelines in the Forest Plan. All of the treatments

proposed will promote development of old growth

habitat. The Standards and Guidelines for Northern

Goshawk Management direct us to manage for 40

percent VSS 5’s and 6’s which are old growth or

areas with a lot of large trees. The 250-year rotation

does not exist per Amendment 11 to the Forest Plan.

This item will be further discussed in the EIS.

McKinnon and Ack

We encourage the Forest Service to assess and

prioritize snag and log creation according to Forest

Plan standards and/or guidelines across the entire

project area rather only in those locations mentioned

in the Proposed Action. If there is a need to exempt

areas from these values due to fire protection needs,

than we encourage defining a distance from the

Forest Service/private property boundary in which

snags and logs are not prioritized. The .5 mile

“intensive zone” suggested in the Region 3 WildlandUrban Interface Project (2001) may be an

appropriate distance.

Non-Issue: There is no clear debate or disagreement

with the Proposed Action based on anticipated

effects.

Response: The Forest Plan does not provide standards and guidelines for creating log and snag

structures. The Forest Plan does provide standards

and guidelines for desired densities of snags and logs

on the landscape. The creation of snags and logs will

be guided by biological and watershed needs. The

creation of snags from blackjack ponderosa pine has

not been studied and the results of this activity are

uncertain. Therefore, the FS is approaching this

application conservatively. Monitoring of snags

created from large blackjack trees and how many we

initially create will be discussed in the EIS.

McKinnon and Ack

Existing Conditions Description: As alternatives are

developed, we strongly encourage the Forest Service

to develop a description of existing conditions that

clearly and transparently articulates the need for

this project. Specifically, we encourage the inclusion of the fire risk assessments that were

conducted for the project area, all associated modeling results, and a description of the analyses and

data that were employed in arriving at this risk.

Non-Issue: There is no dispute or disagreement with

the Proposed Action.

Response: The above mentioned items will be

included in an EIS. The FARSITE modeling is also

located in the Project Record File and referenced in

regard to various comments to this Proposed Action

by other publics.

McKinnon and Ack

Recreation management and roads: We are encouraged by the proposed road network and anticipate

further detail on this and recreation management in

future documents.

Non-Issue: No dispute with the Proposed Action

Response: Thank for your support.

McKinnon and Ack

In addition to the opportunities for riparian restoration at Kelly Seep, we believe that Mortgage Springs

and Upper Pumphouse Wash (immediately downstream of the private property boundary) merit

inclusion. We have included a site assessment of

Mortgage Springs in the Appendix. The Grand

Canyon Trust is willing to dedicate significant staff

time toward writing restoration plans, and implementing restoration projects through our volunteer

program. We, therefore, urge the Forest Service to

include any additional riparian areas in need of

restoration in this project.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 153

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Non-Issue: No dispute with the Proposed Action.

Respondent asks for additional items to be included

in the Proposed Action.

Response: These proposals will be distributed to

appropriate staff and could be picked up as separate

NEPA projects.

Germaine

Item 6: AGFD fully supports implementation of a

strong research and monitoring effort on both the

list of species included in the Plan and on additional

species. In our research on the Mt. Trumbull

experimental area, we have learned that all taxa for

which we have post-treatment information display a

strong response to the treatments. Some responses

appear positive, as with lizards; some appear

negative, as with day-bedding mule deer, whose use

of treated areas has declined steadily in the 3 years

since treatment; and several have been surprising,

as is the case of parasitism rates on nesting western

bluebirds. Without hard information on the effects

of different treatment prescriptions on various

wildlife, we will not have the information we need as

Federal and state caretakers of wildlife resources to

make informed, responsible management decisions.

In addition, using real wildlife response data to

make decisions regarding restoration treatments is

the only way to reduce the number of lawsuits and

appeals that to date have strangled these efforts.

Non-Issue: No dispute or disagreement with the

Proposed Action.

Response: We are working with the Arizona Game

and Fish Department on research proposals. These

proposals are attached and funding is sought to

conduct this research and monitoring. We thank the

Arizona Game and Fish Department for their work on

this important monitoring and research effort.

Germaine

Item 8 discusses retention of existing large logs. I

know you are well aware of the wildlife value of logs

and snags, and I urge that extensive precautions be

taken to retain these logs, including the possibility

of raking away flammable fuels and burning during

cooler, moister periods than has existed for several

burns at Mt. Trumbull. Most of the old, large logs in

treated areas at Mt. Trumbull were lost in the posttreatment burns, often resulting in bare mineral

soils in the outline of the lost log. This unfortunate

loss can be avoided with greater care taken to

protect downed logs.

Item 9: similar to logs, gamble oak motts suffered

high levels of fire and logging related mortality in

early treatments at Mt. Trumbull. Mortality of oaks

declined markedly once fuels crews began removing

slash generated from thinning from under oaks and

logging crews were given specific instructions to

avoid dropping trees into oak motts. Including such

language in harvest contracts about reducing

logging-related oak mortality would further the

retention of live oak trees.

Non-Issue: No dispute or disagreement with the

Proposed Action.

Response: The EIS will include mitigation for reducing log and oak loss during prescribed burning. As

we have discussed, timing of burning (spring burning)

may reduce log loss and will be discussed in the

effects analysis of the EIS. My research with Rick

Miller (Arizona Game and Fish habitat specialist) has

shown oak loss to be approximately 6 percent based

on monitoring (Randall-Parker, 2000). The project will

include mitigation in burn plans to move large material away from the base of oaks to prevent loss of

oak. The EIS will more fully discuss this.

Germaine

Item 12: Retaining movement corridors and retaining a minimum of 35 trees per 1/10th – 1 acre

patches of dense cover as described in this item are

both very important components of modern wildlife

habitat. We have documented at Mt. Trumbull the

need for retaining dense clumps of smaller trees

within treated areas for the continued use of these

areas by day bedding mule deer. The clumps

described in this item will afford appropriate mule

deer day bed site structure, based on our models

from Mt. Trumbull. Item 17 discusses retaining 16-

inch dbh trees for recruiting into future snag and log

habitat components. This is an obvious strength in

this Plan, and I encourage retaining more rather

than less because some are likely to die in the first

post-treatment fires.

Items 10a, 10b, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17 all address

retention of some form of valuable-critical habitat for

forest wildlife. Retaining each of the important

features discussed in these items will result in

decreased availability of marketable trees, potentially higher fire risk at a localized scale, and

reduced overall economic potential of the restorative

treatments. As such, these items may be opposed

by forest industry or fire prevention advocates.

However, the habitat features discussed in these

items are all vital to the retention of the full array of
154 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

wildlife presently found in this area and if compromised beyond the current description in this Plan,

will likely result in population declines for at least

some of the species mentioned in this Plan

Non-Issue: No disagreement or dispute with the

Proposed Action.

Response: This comment agrees with and supports

elements of the Proposed Action and supplies supporting documentation from research at Mt. Trumbull

for the inclusion of this item in the Proposed Action.

Respondent is supportive of the many design features

included in the Proposed Action to improve and

maintain key wildlife habitats. We thank you for

your support.

Germaine

Separately, too many instances exist where oldgrowth ponderosa trees at Mt. Trumbull were killed

in post-treatment fires that burned cool until

reaching the drip line of these trees, then exploded

into a trees’ canopy because of needle cast under the

tree. Many of these trees had had duff raked away

from the trunk for 2-3’. To reduce old-growth

mortality, I suggest experimenting with raking all

needle cast beyond the drip line of old growth trees

with a small bobcat outfitted with a rake and

balloon tires. A small machine with weight-dispersing tires ought not compact soils much, while saving

many of the most valuable trees in this imperiled

age class.

Non-Issue: No disagreement with the Proposed

Action.

Response: As we discussed, old trees within the

project area will have duff raked from the base of the

tree where high litter depth layers could result in

mortality. The prescribed burn monitoring report and

information Rick Miller and Tammy Randall-Parker

have prepared will guide our actions. This information and mitigation will be stated in the Draft EIS.

Germaine

Finally, I laud the efforts of the working group that

drafted this plan of action for the Kachina Treatment

Block. This plan aggressively attempts to reduce fire

risk while acknowledging different levels of fire risk

in the urban interface and throughout the forest.

Simultaneously, it attempts to increase the overall

health of the ponderosa ecosystem, and to maintain

an appropriate level of habitat heterogeneity for

native wildlife. This Plan is the best-designed

attempt to improve the health of the ponderosa

forest ecosystem that I am aware of. I encourage full

support by USFS Coconino National Forest for

effects research and monitoring of actions taken

under this plan on wildlife populations, both to

demonstrate the value of this plan and for comparison to other existing treatment prescriptions.

Non-Issue: No disagreement with the Proposed

Action.

Response: Thank you for your support and your

efforts in the design of research and monitoring

proposals for this project.

I approve the Comment Responses and Identification

of Preliminary Issues identified for the Kachina

Village Forest Health Project.

/s/ Mike Hannemann 12/7/01

Mike Hannemann

Mormon Lake District Ranger

Significant and Non-Significant

Issues Final December 2001

Rationale for Non-Significance

1. The issue is outside the scope of the

proposed action. (Simply means the issue

lies outside the scope of actions and effects

of the specific proposal described in the

scooping letter; specificity of a Proposed

Action is essential to application of this

reason for nonsignificance.)

2. The issue is already decided by law,

regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher

level decisions. (Applies most often to

issues already decided by Forest Plans; be

careful with issues about whether lands

are suited for resource use and production;

application of LMP Management Rx’s to

suitable lands may require project level

evaluation.)

3. The issue is irrelevant to the decision to be

made. (Some issues have no identifiable

relevance to specific decision to be made;

the more specific the Decision to be made,

the more likely it is this reason will apply.)

4. The issue is conjectural and not supported

by scientific (or factual) evidence:. (IDT’s

ignore this reason because they associate
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 155

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

it only with scientific evidence; but the

most common application of this reason is

to issues that are unsupported by factual

evidence (use records, fire history, actual

facts about a proposal including integrated

design features); issue may be “unsupported on the basis of factual evidence.)

Process: The preliminary issues identified in the

scoping comment summary document have been

evaluated in this document to show significance.

IDT members met on July 31, August 1, August 2,

August 13, and August 21 to conduct this analysis.

Significant Issues

McKinnon and Ack

We appreciate that the Forest Service has articulated that the vast majority of trees to be thinned

will be less than 12 inches and that trees greater

than 16-inches diameter at breast height will be

retained where possible. However, we feel that a

16” cap is warranted and should be instituted

in accord with the GCFP’s recommendation on

this project.

Monitoring of the 16-inch cap at Ft. Valley has

revealed that, even in a thinning prescription that

gives little deference to tree size, only 2.5 large trees

per acre would have been cut in the absence of a

diameter cap. And of these trees, only 1 percent

were suppressed. The vast majority, or 99 percent

of the trees, were dominant or co-dominant trees.

Considering the description of thinning from below

in the proposed action, “thinning from below results

in the removal of smaller, unhealthy trees first and

progresses until the target density is reached,” it’s

unclear why any significant reason not to include a

diameter cap exists.

This is not to ignore the economic realities of restoration. Indeed, smaller trees are more expensive for

an operator to handle. There is more handling per

unit of wood volume with small trees than larger

trees, rendering smaller trees more expensive to

thin. If the USFS has an economic argument to

make about trees larger than 16 inches, it should

make that argument explicitly.

In the absence of such an argument, we believe that

there are significant social and political arguments

to include a diameter cap. These arguments are of

immediate concern to the Grand Canyon Trust and

we believe they should be of concern to the Coconino

National Forest.

The history of forest management in the Southwest

still casts a shadow over our current efforts. It

hasn’t been very long since most of the big, old trees

on the forest were felled at the cost of species

viability and overall ecosystem integrity. At the

present time, the public perception is that cutting

big trees is about revenue generation, and not about

the restoration of species and ecosystems.

A 16-inch cap provides the public with a clear, easily

communicated guarantee that distinguishes our

restoration efforts from those historical practices

that have resulted in the need for restoration today.

The diameter cap is also about the restoration of

public confidence and trust.

With each ensuing discussion of the merits of a

diameter cap will come news stories questioning our

intent and our legitimacy, using well-honed activist

media techniques. These opponents are very

effective at whittling away at our legitimacy and

weakening public support for restoration. Do we

really wish to continue subjecting our efforts to

these liabilities?

Having been put in the national spotlight, we also

have the responsibility and the opportunity to more

clearly define the purpose of restoration by exemplifying the parameters of responsible restoration.

Adopting a diameter cap establishes sideboards for

restoration that prevent ill-conceived adaptations of

our efforts and reinforce a principle we have identified as fundamental to responsible restoration:

effective restoration will require substantial reinvestment. Restoration should not be expected to pay for

itself.

Considering these points, we are confident that the

original recommendation put forth in unanimous

resolution by the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership

provides a workable and reasonable approach to

diameter caps:

“Ponderosa pine trees greater than 16-inch

dbh will be retained on the land. Black-barked

trees in excess of 16 inches may only be

treated to achieve the desired objectives of

creating grassy openings or enhancing existing

forest openings, or to enhance the health of old

growth stands or oak clumps. However, all of

these trees will be left standing (recruited) as

snags or felled and left as downed logs.”

We strongly encourage the Forest Service to

include an alternative that evaluates the impacts of the above recommendation in addition
156 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

to an alternative that includes and evaluates an

18-inch diameter cap. These evaluations should

provide a quantitative explanation of how project

objectives will be affected by these different diameter

caps, both ecologically and economically. We

further suggest that these alternatives explore—

perhaps with the help of Rocky Mountain Research

Station social scientists—the social, political, and

historical dimensions of a diameter cap in the

context of ponderosa pine forest restoration in the

Southwest.

Nowicki

(The following comments were provided by B.

Nowicki in a July 18 and an August 16 letter from

the SWFA and others. The two letters included

duplicate information, where information was

duplicated exactly, it is only shown once, where

there were slight variations, the information was

retained).

A 16-inch diameter cutting cap is critical. Many

sites have been commercially harvested removing a

large component of the larger trees from forest

structure. Existing large blackjacks will develop into

the next generation of old growth. Retaining 16-inch

dbh or greater provides some assurance the Proposed Action would not detriment this forest

structure further. A 16-inch cap would not impede

any of the treatments meeting the stated objectives.

Implement a 16-inch diameter cutting cap throughout the entire Kachina Village Project. Many of the

sites within the project area have been commercially

harvested, removing a large component of the larger

trees from the forest structure. The existing large

blackjack ponderosa pine trees will develop into the

next generation of old growth in these areas. Retaining all trees with 16-inches dbh or greater would

provide some assurance that the proposed action

would not detriment even further those degraded

forest structures. In fact, even a 12-inch dbh

cutting cap would not impede the treatments from

achieving the stated objectives, as a large proportion

of the trees in the project are smaller than 12-inches

dbh. That is, thinning treatments would be able to

create a diversity of stand densities and structures

by implementing varying levels of thinning the trees

less than 12-inches dbh. This analysis and cutting

cap is absolutely necessary to protecting vital

components of the current forest structure, and the

next generation of old growth that will develop in the

forest.

Implement “thinning from below, north of Kelly

Canyon” within the 1/8 mile (660 feet) immediately

adjacent to homes. Beyond the 1/8 mile, implement

a variable “thinning from below” to 60-120 BA north

of Kelly Canyon. This combination of treatments

acknowledges a distinction between wildland-urban

interface treatment and general fuels reduction, and

delineates a distinct defensible space in the wildland-urban interface. The 660-foot intensive zone

provides a defensible space in which a crown fire

can be forced to the ground, and in which

firefighters can safely work. The less intensive

treatment beyond 1/8 mile from houses serves as an

extensive zone to reduce fire intensity as it approaches the community. The intensive and

extensive zone treatments have been used in the

Southwest in the past to protect communities from

the threat of wildfire, and should be analyzed for use

in this project. Such a method reduces the impact

on adjacent forest ecosystems while providing

community protection.

Furthermore, Forest Service research shows that the

homesites themselves and the areas immediately

surrounding houses are the largest factors determining whether houses are at risk of burning from

forest fires. Therefore, the EIS needs to analyze the

effectiveness and necessity of these treatments in

conjunction with the current and future treatments

implemented on the private property adjacent to the

project. The EIS should also explain why there are

areas immediately adjacent to the private property

boundaries that are not being treated in this project.

The project in its proposed form may implement

high levels of forest thinning without effectively and

efficiently providing wildfire protection for the

adjacent communities.

No new roads should be constructed, even if only for

the duration of the project as roads greatly increase

soil compaction, transport of exotic weeds and long

lasting impacts on forest structure. South of Kelly

Canyon all thinning should be done by hand, the

limitation would not impede any of the treatments

from achieving stated objectives.

No new roads should be constructed for this project,

even if only for the duration of the project. Roads

greatly increase soil compaction, encourage the

transport of exotic seeds, and have long-lasting

impacts on the forest structure. The entire project

area has previously been heavily impacted by

recreation, including heavy traffic of ORV’s, and

should be spared further damage. Also, no area in

the project is far enough from roads to require new
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 157

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

roads to be built. In areas that are prohibitively far

from roads, this may limit the size of trees that can

be cut. However, this limitation would not impede

any of the treatments from achieving the stated

objectives.

Do not drive cat lines through the area. For many of

the reasons as listed directly above, cat lines should

not be used in the area. Fire lines should be created

by hand if they are absolutely necessary.

Use only hand thinning south of Kelly Canyon. The

use of hand thinning may limit the size of trees that

can be cut in some areas away from roads. However, this limitation would not impede any of the

treatments from achieving the stated objectives.

Using hand thinning, the project will still be able to

create a diversity of forest structures and densities

throughout the area, including dense patches within

a less dense matrix. Most importantly, the use of

hand thinning would minimize the soil impacts,

protecting the area from further damage, and

maximizing its ability to recover and achieve the

proposed objectives of forest health and wildlife

habitat.

Use only hand thinning south of Kelly Canyon. One

of the objectives mentioned early in the planning

process was to manage the area south of Kelly

Canyon for wildlife, including designating the area

as old growth, existing or recruiting. This area is

not near houses or communities and is a critical

corridor for turkey and bear as well as generally

being important wildlife habitat with the potential to

develop good old growth characteristics. Designating the area as old growth would provide some

protection for this area of the forest as it develops

old growth structure and function. Furthermore,

the EIS should include a comprehensive analysis of

old growth at the forest level as well as the project

level, as required by the Forest Plan.

The use of hand thinning may limit the size of trees

that can be cut in some areas away from roads.

However, this limitation would not impede any of the

treatments from achieving the stated objectives.

Using hand thinning, the project will still be able to

create a diversity of forest structures and densities

throughout the area, including dense patches within

a less dense matrix. Most importantly, the use of

hand thinning would minimize the soil impacts,

protecting the area from further damage, and

maximizing its ability to recover and achieve the

proposed objectives of forest health and wildlife

habitat.

Nowicki Comment: The following comments were

provided by B. Nowicki on 9/20 on the request of

Tammy Randall-Parker. Tammy asked Brian several

very specific questions to better understand exactly

what some of the comments were addressing. I

phoned and asked him to come in and visit, he

could not. Instead he sent an additional letter, that

did address the questions I had put forward to him

regarding roads and my interpretation of their

recommendations for the project. (See PRD 110A).

The following is his last e-mail.

Ms Randall-Parker,

I have not been in touch with Taylor, but I

hope to speak with him soon regarding the

Kachina Village Project. I assume that his

lengthy comments are being considered in

developing the alternatives.

I will attempt to clarify, as succinctly as

possible, the SWFA comments you and I

spoke about yesterday regarding the Kachina

Village Project. These include: the 1/8-mile

treatments around communities, 60-120 BA

north of Kelly Canyon, temporary roads, and

hand thinning south of Kelly Canyon.

1/8-mile WUI treatments:

The Forest service researcher Jack Cohen

states that the area immediately adjacent to

structures (houses) is the most important

determinant of whether or not that house will

burn. (Many of his ideas are presented in the

SWFA document “Protecting Communities

from Forest Fires” that can be found on our

website www.swfa.org, although I am sure

that you can also access his findings directly

through the Forest Service.) The ideas

regarding protecting houses fit in with the

concept of an intensive zone treatment. In

many cases, intensive zone treatments (often

a narrow band of 1/8 mile= 660 feet= 200

meters directly adjacent to communities)

provide a defensible space for fighting fires as

well as providing a shaded fuelbreak in which

the fire can drop to the ground. The exact

prescription for such an intensive zone would

be highly site-dependent, and the district fire

and fuels experts would have to determine

them on a site-by-site basis. However, the

treatment generally requires the removal of

ladder fuels and a reduction of fuels loads, as

well as eliminating continuous canopy so that

only relatively small groups and individuals
158 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

would be left. “The wildland fuel

characteristics beyond the homesite have

little if any significance to WUI home fire

losses.” (Cohen 1999). Therefore, treatment

beyond the area immediately adjacent to

communities (1/8-mile) should be treated

with a general fuel reduction as would be

used throughout the wildland forest. Of

course, no WUI treatment is effective unless

the personal properties and all homesites are

treated. However, used in conjunction with

home treatment, the above methods can

provide real community protection, while at

the same time reducing the need for drastic

and extensive thinning beyond the area

immediately adjacent to communities.

60-120 BA North of Kelly Canyon:

Thinning to a range of 60-120 sq ft BA should

provide all of the benefits that are provided by

thinning to a 40-120 sq ft BA, but would

provide some protection against unnecessary

and overzealous thinning. The negative

ecological impacts of reducing a significant

portion of the forest to 40 sq ft BA could be

severe. It is also my understanding that 40

sq ft BA is lower than is necessary to achieve

the desired goals of increased forest health

and lowered fire risk. (An analysis of the

resulting crown bulk density may be most

appropriate for determining the latter.) Of

course, this range of BA refers only to

forested acres, and not openings and

meadows. Also, we would assume that the

entire range of 60-120 sq ft BA would be

represented, and there would not be a bias

toward the low end of the range.

Temporary Road Construction:

The negative ecological impacts of road

building may far outweigh the benefits gained

from an increased level of thinning.

Understandably, the lack of new roads may,

in some cases, reduce the size of trees that

may be removed from an area, thereby

affecting the post-treatment stand density.

However, in many cases the resulting

difference may be marginal. More

importantly, the desired effects of thinning

may be only slightly reduced, but the negative

effects of roads would be entirely eliminated.

In some instances, the district may consider

cutting trees even though the logs could not

be removed by road. In these cases, the logs

may be lopped or bucked and eventually

consumed by prescribed fire. Of course, in

some cases, such methods would create very

high fuel loads for the first prescribed fires.

In such cases, the district could consider

thinning over a series of years, with a series

of prescribed fires. Furthermore, the district

should analyze the need for roads in each

stand, not just the need for them overall.

Hand-thinning South of Kelly Canyon:

Use of hand-thinning in the area south of

Kelly Canyon may restrict the cutting cap to

9”dbh. However, thinning with a 9” cap can

achieve the goals of the projects. At the same

time, the area will be spared the severe

impacts of soil compaction and disturbance

by large machines. The costs of such soil

impacts may far outweigh the ecological costs

of leaving a higher tree density on the site.

SWFA expects the Peaks Ranger District to

perform a fair and thorough analysis of these

issues. Please do not analyze these issues in

such a way as to determine, for example,

whether a 9” cap will allow you to reach you

goal of 40 BA. Obviously, this is circular

reasoning and unfair. Rather, analyze

whether a 9” cap will allow you to achieve the

goals of fire risk reduction and forest health.

Present your findings not by simply saying,

for example, that one alternative provides

greater fire risk reduction than another.

Instead, please present your findings as a

quantitative result, such as “Alternative X

provides only 80% as much increased tree

growth as Alternative Y”, or “Alternative X will

carry a continuous crown fire at 50 mph,

whereas Alternative Y will carry one at 60

mph”. Presenting the findings as such will

allow us to consider the proportional

difference in benefits compared to the

differences in treatment and collateral

damage (such as roads).

Thank you very much for considering these

ideas. Please feel free to call me if you have

any further questions.

Brian Nowicki
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 159

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Non-Significant Issues

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

There are concerns from Mt. Trumbull that residual

trees in a similar silvicultural-restoration application

were lost to mortality. It may be that the residual

tree mortality was related to the effects of prescribed

burning in combination with unique soil types that

resulted in irreversible damage to root systems. The

FS must account for such unforeseen possibilities in

the Kachina Analysis Area by completing extensive

soil surveys, and identifying sensitive soil types

where similar mortality might occur. Prescribed

burning should be planned spatially and temporally

to account for such sensitive soils. Will the ground

disturbance associated with silvicultural treatments

also impact these sensitive soils?

Conjectural, Unsupported: We are not aware of

any evidence that suggests that “unique, sensitive

soils” were a factor in tree loss at Mt. Trumbull. In the

Kachina analysis area, the Coconino National Forest

“Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey” is used to identify

soils that are susceptible to damage from a variety of

management practices. Management practices

intended to protect soils from damage by prescribed

burning will be developed for all treatment areas.

Ground disturbance from mechanized equipment has

the potential to adversely impact soil condition.

Management practices designed to protect soil

condition will also be developed for treatment areas.

Bird (April – Response to NOI)

We are concerned that the Kachina Timber Sale will

jeopardize the viability of species that thrive in forest

ecosystems through activities associated with timber

harvest and ground-disturbing activities intervene in

natural disturbance processes that are vital to

ecosystem sustainability and degrade water quality

and watershed condition. There are populations of

focal species and species-at-risk (MIS and TES) that

occupy the analysis area and surrounding landscapes that seem to be surviving despite the

“unnatural conditions” the Forest Service purports

to exist. The FS is required per its 1987 LRMP as

well as Federal planning regulations to collect and

present information on population numbers and

trends for these species as well as define what

constitutes the “minimum number” of individuals of

each population to secure its long-term viability.

The FS must present information to support determinations that the proposed Kachina Timber Sale

will not contribute to further declines in these

populations and more listing under the ESA. Simply, it is too soon to know how the ”treatments” at

Fort Valley will affect focal species and species-atrisk.

Conjectural, Unsupported: Species viability

analysis as required in NFMA is appropriately

addressed at the Forest Plan level. The 1987

Coconino National Forest Plan and subsequent

amendments, including Amendment 11 (1996),

include standards and guidelines for wildlife management. These standards and guidelines were

developed to meet the needs of Management Indicator

Species, threatened, endangered and sensitive

species on the Coconino National Forest. The Proposed Action meets all standards and guidelines for

TE&S species management as described in the

Coconino LMP and Amendments. Consultation with

the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service on this project has

already occurred (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service

2001). In the biological opinion, the Fish and Wildlife

Service concurred with the Forest Service that the

Proposed Action is not likely to adversely affect the

bald eagle, black-footed ferret or jaguar. A biological

assessment and evaluation will be prepared for

sensitive species.

This project is not a timber sale. The goals of the

Kachina Village Forest Health Project are to improve

forest health and reduce risk from serious and

uncontrollable wildfires through a variety of thinning

treatments followed by broadcast burning. Serious

and uncontrollable wildfires pose a greater threat to

species viability than thinning treatments in the

Proposed Action. Recreation and access management

proposed will also benefit the wildlife which use this

area.

Bird (April - Response to NOI)

The Kachina Timber Sale will also damage social and

economic uses and values associated with natural

forests for the benefit of the timber industry, even

though non-timber uses and values are far more

important to local communities.

Conjectural, Unsupported: Forest Service Manual

(FSM) and Forest Service Handbook (FSH) 1909.17

contain detailed guidelines for conducting economic

and social analysis. However, FSM 1970.3(6) states,

“Select cost effective methods of conducting economic

and social impact analyses to ensure that the degree

of analysis is commensurate with the scope and

complexity of the proposed action.” FSM 1970.6 adds,

“The responsible line officer determines the scope,

appropriate level, and complexity of economic and

social analysis needed.”
160 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

The purpose of an analysis is to assist in decision

making. The forest will prepare an economic analysis

that displays estimated costs and returns of the

alternatives contained within the EIS for the responsible official. The IDT will conduct a financial

analysis that will meet this requirement.

“For purposes of complying with the (National Environmental Policy) Act, the weighing of merits and

drawbacks of the various alternatives need not be

displayed in a monetary cost-benefit analysis and

should not be when there are important qualitative

considerations (emphasis added). (FSH 1909.15

41.1(2); FSH 1909.15 22.35; 40 CFR 1502.23. FSM

1905-55 defines “net public benefits” as “an expression used to signify the overall long-term value to the

nation of all outputs and positive effects (benefits)

less all associated inputs and negative effects (costs)

whether they can be quantitatively valued or not. Net

public benefits are measured by both quantitative

and qualitative criteria rather than a single measure

or index.” This definition is consistent with the

direction of complying with NEPA.

The forest will accomplish a balanced decision

through consideration of alternatives based on many

analyses within the EIS

Germaine

Item 2 discusses retaining ponderosa trees “approximately” 150 years or older. It is not clear how

and by whom decisions on these trees will be made.

Similarly, this item states that >16” trees will be

“retained where possible.” What criteria determine

retention/removal, and who will make the decision

on the fate of an unknown number(?) of trees in

such an ecologically important size class from which

our future old-growth trees are to be recruited?

Finally, I urge that all road and landing locations

avoid large diameter trees in all instances, not

simply “where possible” as stated in the proposal. In

addition to soil compaction, old landings have roads

that are often traveled for years even if legally

closed, and landings under old trees will unquestionably become popular (renegade) campsites.

Unsupported: Our marking crews mark all trees and

the number of 16” trees anticipated for removal is

described in the previous issue response. As we

discussed in my office, our experience is that landings can be used as dispersed recreation sites,

however this is generally minimal and the project is

proposing road closures that will lessen potential for

this type of activity.

Nowicki

The EIS needs to include an analysis of the grazing

allotments in this area and appropriateness of

grazing in general and the deferment needed to allow

ground vegetation to respond after thinning.

Outside the scope of the proposed action: The

area includes portions of two grazing allotments and

one sheep driveway. The appropriateness of grazing

in this area is outside the scope of the decision to be

made. The decision will not decide the appropriateness of grazing for this area. The deferment needed

to allow ground vegetation to respond after thinning

and prescribed fire is discussed in the Proposed

Action. Grazing by wildlife and livestock will be

included in cumulative effects in the EIS. As stated in

the Proposed Action for this project on page ( Item #

16 ). The annual operating instructions for grazing

allotments will be adjusted as needed to allow for

recovery of naturally occurring herbaceous communities. Monitoring will be a mitigation item described in

the EIS.

Metzner

Project is way too big for needs pressing. This is

another move by the government to control the

people’s freedom of movement and grab public

lands. Scope of project is way out of line for a

natural forest. More controls on camping and where,

not needed or wanted. We do not want more controls on people’s freedoms. Leave the trails alone for

the people who use them.

Conjectural: We are changing the types of access to

certain areas and changing the type of use in some

areas but not eliminating uses within the project area.

People are free to move about this area and, therefore, we are not controlling the people’s freedom of

movement to the project area. The changes in camping are needed to reduce fire risk. In the last 30

years, there have been 205 fires in the Kachina

Village Project area, with 151 of those human caused.

These fires have originated from four central areas,

including FR’s 237 and 535 and the Mexican Pocket

Area. These areas are proposed for designated

dispersed camping and will result in camping and

campfires isolated to small areas which will be

treated to lessen the risk of a large wildfire that

would originate from the camping locations. The grab

at public lands statement is conjectural as these are

public lands. Lastly, trails are causing resource

damage to the area. Forest Service designated trails

are proposed to replace the “user created” trail

system. The “user created” trail system has dam-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 161

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

aged meadows, riparian habitats, and wildlife

habitat. The FS system will be built following wildlife, archeological, and watershed assessments and

be constructed using best management practices to

protect the forest.

Bird

The proposal represents a “sledgehammer” approach

to forest management, the extensive logging proposed has the potential to exacerbate fire danger,

extirpate wildlife, and increase sedimentation and

flooding.

Unsupported: The Kachina Village Forest Health

Project was designed by wildlife professionals from

the USDA Forest Service, Arizona Game and Fish

Department, and USFWS, along with Northern

Arizona University professors and Rocky Mountain

Research Station scientists. Wildfire professionals

from the USDA Forest Service and Northern Arizona

University along with Rocky Mountain Research

scientists and personnel from the Flagstaff Fire

Department, Highlands Fire Department and Arizona

State Land Department assisted in the design of the

project with fire reduction goals in mind. Professional

foresters from the USDA Forest Service and Northern

Arizona University along with Rocky Mountain

Research Station scientists were involved in the

design of thinning methods and prescriptions to meet

project objectives. Hydrologists from the USDA Forest

Service have consulted with ADEQ and contributed to

the design of the project, where the greatest threat is

a wildfire to the Oak Creek watershed. Many months

of review, discussion and planning by over 30

professional resource specialists hardly represents a

“sledgehammer” approach as you have described.

There is a substantial body of knowledge that

supports the value of thinning and prescribed burning

to produce quality fuels treatments and forest health

objectives. There also is a strong body of evidence

supporting the notion that crown fire potential is

reduced by reducing canopy density and raising

crown base height. The consensus in the fire science

community is that lower stand densities and reduced

fuel volumes are necessary for maintenance of “fire

safe” forests. As Agee points out (1996, pgs. 52-68

in: Proceedings 17th Forest Vegetation Management

Conference, Redding, CA), “..fire safe forests are not

fire proof, but will have”:

• Surface fuel conditions that limit surface

fireline intensity;

• Forest stands that are comprised of firetolerant trees, described in terms of

species, sizes and structures; and

• A low probability that crown fires will

either initiate or spread through the

forest.”

The single most ecologically damaging and life

threatening forest fire is the crown fire. The intensity

of crown fires prevents direct fire suppression. The

massive blizzard of embers associated with crown

fires leads to long-range spot fires which circumvent

areas with little fuel. The presence of numerous spot

fires leads to erratic fire behavior and rapid acceleration in a fire’s growth. The most critical element to

fire management is the prevention of crown fires.

This is a primary goal of the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project.

In planning the Kachina Village Forest Health Project

all of the objectives, standards and guidelines in the

Coconino Land Management Plan and amendments

were used, hereafter referenced as the Forest Plan.

This environmental assessment is tiered to the

Environmental Impact Statement for the Coconino

Forest Plan. The Kachina Village Forest Health

Project meets all standards and guidelines for

management as described in the Forest Plan. Specifically, Amendment 11 to the Coconino Forest Plan was

reviewed thoroughly. This amendment to the plan

includes the recommendations for the northern

goshawk, Mexican spotted owl and old growth

management. The standards and guidelines are the

result of the recommendations made by scientific

management teams, which prepared the Recovery

Plan for the Mexican Spotted Owl, (Block, et. al.

1996) and Management Recommendations for the

Northern Goshawk in the Southwestern United

States, (Reynolds, et.al.1992). Both of these documents were frequently referenced and reviewed when

designing and preparing the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project.

The Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted owl states

that “two primary threats that should be the focus of

such management priorities are catastrophic wildfire

and widespread use of even-aged silviculture, Block

et.al. 1996.”

The “Recovery Plan” reads as follows:

“Heavy accumulations of ground and ladder

fuels have rendered many Southwestern

forests vulnerable to stand-replacing fires.

Such fires represent a real and immediate
162 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

threat to the existence of spotted owl habitat.

The management guidelines are intended to

provide land managers with flexibility to

reduce these fuel levels and abate fire risks.

Fire management should be given the highest

priority. (Recovery Plan for the Mexican spotted

owl, 1996 (page xii))

The “Management Recommendations for the Northern

Goshawk in the Southwestern United States” state

the following:

Southwestern forests have been altered from

presettlement conditions by fire suppression,

timber harvesting, livestock grazing, mining,

and recreational uses. Prior to fire

suppression in the Western United States,

ponderosa pine forests were burned by lowintensity surface fires at 2- to 15-year

intervals. Fires burned at lesser frequencies in

mixed-species forests (5-22 years). These fires

maintained forests that were relatively open

and dominated by mature trees by regularly

burning and killing small trees.

Habitat changes resulting from fire

suppression in ponderosa pine and mixedspecies, and to a lesser extent spruce-fir forest,

are: 1) the replacement of open, single-storied

stands by dense multistoried stands, through

tree regeneration; 2) loss of natural openings

by tree invasion; and 3) changes in the

abundance an composition of plant species in

both the understory and overstory due to plant

succession.

Accumulated fuels and dense forest conditions

resulting from fire suppression have also

increased the potential loss of goshawk

habitat through catastrophic wildfire and

epidemic infestations of insects and diseases.

Increased shading from the denser

regeneration has also reduced herbaceous and

shrubby understories that provide important

food and cover for goshawk prey. Livestock

and wildlife browsing have accentuated this

loss. In addition to these changes, timber

harvesting which began in the 1800’s, has

focused on large trees, resulting in few

remaining mature and old forests and

associated habitat attributes.

The present conditions in southwestern

ponderosa pine and mixed-species forests

reflect the extent of human interference with

natural processes. Given the improbability of

returning to the previous frequencies of natural

disturbances, some active management

(mainly thinning and prescribed fire) will be

necessary to produce and maintain the desired

conditions for sustaining goshawks and their

prey. (Executive Summary pages 5 - 6)

The team that worked on developing the

Proposed Action considered all of this

information in light of the fires we have

experienced in this area since 1994 and the

effects on Mexican spotted owl, northern

goshawk and other wildlife species affected by

recent fires.

Bird

The proposal forces the taxpayer to foot the bill for

an enormously expensive project whose benefits are

highly uncertain.

Conjectural, Unsupported: The respondent has a

dispute with the Proposed Action, however, the

anticipated effects—which are economi— are not

supported or substantiated by any facts or supporting

information. The EIS will include an economic

analysis and effects analysis.

Bird

Temporary road construction will simply increase

the environmental costs of the Kachina Project,

increase fire hazard as they are used by ORV’s and

provide additional public access. The only reason

the roads are needed is to remove commercial

materials.

Unsupported, Conjectural: Temporary roads are

used for a very short period of time during thinning

and then obliterated. There is no data or research to

show that short-term effects of increased fire hazard

exist or that ORV use increases. The respondent has

provided no affects associated with ORV use of roads

for short periods of time.

Bird and Nowicki Clarification Letter

It remains entirely unclear what purpose the 3-footwide dozer line along the canyon rims will serve.

This construction might potentially change the

hydrology of the canyon system significantly by

redirecting runoff away from the canyon edges.

Do not drive cat lines through the area. For many of

the reasons as listed directly above, cat lines should

not be used in the area. Fire lines should be created

by hand if they are necessary.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 163

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

Unsupported, Conjectural: As part of the prescribed burning portion of the Kachina Village Project,

fire control lines will be necessary to keep fire in

predetermined locations and also to keep fire out of

sensitive areas and steep inaccessible terrain such as

Kelly and James Canyons. When possible, natural

and other features such as rockslides, elk trails,

roads or old skid trails are used instead of constructing new control lines. When the construction of

control lines is necessary, control lines are generally

constructed to the most minimal extent possible. On

prescribed burns in similar terrain to that of the

Kachina Village analysis area, minimal line construction by hand or by using wet line are the preferred

methods. When burning is complete, crews install

waterbars and recondition lines. In some cases,

mechanized equipment may be used. The Peaks and

Mormon Lake districts have had good success with

using a small bulldozer and having the operator only

use the corner of his blade. This constructs a control

line of 1 to 3-feet wide. When the project is complete,

the operator can roll back the material pushed aside

and contour to the original condition. Control lines

constructed near Kelly or James Canyon will not be

located directly near the rim of the canyon for two

reasons. First, control lines are preferred on flatter

terrain with less likelihood of rolling material having a

chance to roll into the canyon. Second, as part of the

analysis process, it was agreed to leave denser cover

on the rims of the canyons for wildlife cover.

There is no anticipated influence on runoff characteristics associated with this action.

McKinnon and Ack

South of James Canyon, in areas proposed for

thinning and burning, cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum)

is a regular and often dominant understory species.

We are concerned that the proposed treatments by

themselves—especially burning—may facilitate its

further spread and competition with native species.

We strongly encourage the Forest Service to assess

the need for an integrated strategy to improve,

rather that potentially exacerbate the problem, both

south of James Canyon and in other locals within

the project area where cheatgrass poses a foreseeable risk.

The Nature Conservancy’s Wildland Weeds Management and Research Program has developed the

following recommendations for the management of

cheatgrass. We’ve attached this document in its

entirety as an appendix to these comments for your

use.

Lasting control of cheatgrass will require a

combination of chemical control, physical

control, vegetative suppression, and proper

livestock management where land is grazed.

This “cumulative stress” method will keep the

plants constantly under stress, reducing their

ability to flourish and spread. Also, a

cumulative stress approach provides a level of

redundancy in case one type of treatment is

not implemented or proves to be ineffective.

An effective management program needs first

to control existing infestations, and second to

develop a land management plan to deter reinfestation of Bromus tectorum. New

infestations should be controlled first before

cheatgrass becomes dominant and alters the

soil chemistry of the area (Belnap pers.

comm.). Since cheatgrass reproduces entirely

by seed, the key to controlling existing

infestations is to eliminate new seed

production and deplete the existing seed

bank.

Bromus tectorum is most commonly

controlled with herbicides. Quizalofop,

fluazifop, sethoxydim, paraquat, glyphosate,

and imazameth can be applied in the early

spring, before perennial grasses have

emerged, to control cheatgrass. Additionally,

sulfometuron methyl, and atrazine can be

applied in the fall to control cheatgrass in

winter crops. Several of these herbicides may

damage established perennials. Therefore, the

timing of herbicide application is crucial to

ensure that cheatgrass is selectively

controlled. Burning is usually conducted in

late May or early June, after the plants have

dried (Beck, pers. comm.). Reseeding native

perennial grasses is necessary after burning

or cheatgrass and other weeds will simply

reestablish in the disturbed area.

A two to three-year combination of burning,

herbicide application, and reseeding can be

used to control and re-vegetate an area that is

almost exclusively dominated by cheatgrass.

Burn and re-seed the area with native

perennial grasses during the first year. The

following spring, apply herbicides before the

seeded perennial grasses emerge in order to

eliminate any cheatgrass that emerged from

the seedbank after the burn. If necessary,

apply a second round of herbicides early in

the spring of the third year to control any new
164 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

cheatgrass seedlings and provide time for

native bunchgrasses to establish. This should

control the cheatgrass, deplete the existing

cheatgrass seed bank, and provide adequate

time for perennial grasses to establish to the

point where they can suppress any new

cheatgrass invasions.

If the area is only partially infested with

cheatgrass, burning is usually not

recommended (Belnap, pers. comm.).

Cheatgrass can rebound quickly after a fire

and the elimination of the remaining valuable

species will only enhance its ability to spread.

Hand pulling cheatgrass is very labor

intensive and is worthwhile only on very small

infestations. Mowing and cutting are not

usually recommended methods of control.

Plants that are cut before seed ripening will

regenerate new culms and produce seeds at

the cut height. Plants that are cut after seed

ripening will die, but by this point the seeds

are already viable. However, repeated mowing

(every three weeks) can eliminate cheatgrass

seed production in areas were herbicide

applications are unacceptable or cannot be

safely used.

Once an area has been treated, native

perennial grasses should be plugged and/or

re-seeded or cheatgrass will return to preburn densities within a few years (Beck, pers.

comm.). Hilaria (Hilaria jamesii) has been

observed to grow well in cheatgrass infested

areas of the Colorado Plateau by taking

advantage of warm summer rains (Belnap

pers. comm.).

Unsupported: The comment that the Proposed

Action will exacerbate the cheatgrass problem is

unsupported. The EIS will include effects analysis,

as well as common mitigation items which will lessen

spread of this species. Cheatgrass is associated with

disturbed areas and after treatment, cheatgrass

would be expected to increase. Cheatgrass is currently widespread within the project area, however

density is low. Cheatgrass in the Southwest will do

very well when we have a wet spring. A wet spring

following treatments has the potential to increase

cheatgrass throughout the project area. Cheatgrass

can be easily out competed by native grasses which

flourish during the wet monsoon season in the

Flagstaff area. In short, cheatgrass in this part of the

country is very cyclic with boom and bust years,

dependent upon weather conditions. The project will

include seeding high disturbance areas with native

grasses to lessen cheatgrass expansion. The project

will also include fall burning in some location which

will lessen cheatgrass spread. The project, by virtue

of opening up areas, will benefit native understory

species which will reduce and lessen the spread of

cheatgrass. Mitigation will be listed in the draft EIS

to reduce cheatgrass expansion in this area.

McKinnon and Ack

The interruption of natural processes in Southwestern ponderosa pine forests has been attributed to

widespread intensive livestock grazing that was

introduced in the mid and late 19th century. Upon

introduction, livestock grazing removed the herbaceous understory that is believed to have limited

pine seedling establishment and, therefore, also tree

densities through competition for light, water, and

nutrients, in addition to carrying frequent low

intensity ground fires.

In the absence of this “competition fire filter” that

limited pine seedling establishment, anomalously

high densities of trees have established that now

facilitate similarly anomalous high-intensity crown

fires that threaten ecological and human values

alike. In addition, the pine irruptions have led to a

decline in overall biological diversity of these forest

ecosystems, much of which was historically based

on the understory.

Considering this, perhaps the most critical element

to the restoration process for ponderosa pine forests

is ensuring that we facilitate understory (grass and

forb) recovery. In part this must come through

control of herbivores. Of the two major herbivore

pressures currently on the landscape (elk and

domestic livestock), we can only directly control the

intensity, seasonality, and duration of domestic

livestock grazing.

We think the appropriate frame of reference for

considering post-treatment (thinning and/or burning) livestock grazing begins with the assumption

that the most desirable management regime—and

the one that will most likely facilitate our restoration

goal of understory recovery—is livestock grazing

deferral for a period of time.

Based upon our observations at other restoration

sites, and discussions with Forest Service personnel,

we recommend this period of time span at least

three growing seasons. We further recommend that

quantitative and qualitative measures of recovery

should inform whether, after three growing seasons,

livestock should be reintroduced, and if so, at what
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 165

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

intensity, seasonality, and duration. One measure

of recovery included in this assessment should be

whether the native understory is capable of carrying

low-intensity grass fires.

Conjectural, Unsupported: The recommendation of

a three growing season deferral is unsupported,

rather monitoring should be used to determine the

proper timeframe. The area includes portions of two

grazing allotments and one sheep driveway. The

deferment needed to allow ground vegetation to

respond after thinning and prescribed fire is discussed in the Proposed Action. Grazing by wildlife

and livestock will be included in cumulative effects in

the EIS. As stated in the Proposed Action for this

project on page 6 ( Item 16 ). The annual operating

instructions for grazing allotments will be adjusted as

needed to allow for recovery of naturally occurring

herbaceous communities. Monitoring will be a

mitigation item described in the EIS.

I approve the Significant and Non-Significant Issues

for the Kachina Village Forest Health Project.

/s/ Mike Hannemann 12/07/01

Mike Hannemann

Acting Mormon Lake District Ranger

Alternative Document Including

Alternatives Suggested by the

Public Final December 6, 2001

This document tracks the formulation of alternatives

based on significant issues and alternatives suggested by the public.

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated

from Detailed Study

Bird (April NOI response – April 19,

2001) – Alternative Suggested

The Forest Service and GCFP have not offered

information that would preclude a purely processbased restoration alternative. We ask again that the

Forest Service fairly and accurately analyze an

alternative that would apply prescribed burns only

with necessary pre-fire fuels treatments, such as

raking needless from trees 24-inch dbh, pruning

lower ladder-branches, etc. Such non-commercial

approaches to restoration are being implemented

across Arizona by the Forest Service including the

Peaks Ranger District.

Response: Prescribed fire without thinning over the

entire project area, as a distinct alternative, was not

practical from a biological standpoint, nor did it meet

the Kachina Village Forest Health Project objectives.

Therefore, it was not considered as an alternative

that would use your suggestion across the entire

landscape. However, this treatment is incorporated

into the Proposed Action to achieve a mosaic of

effects. Prescribed fire without any mechanical

thinning is proposed for those stands in which it will

be effective and the desired effects are likely to be

achieved.

The prescribed fire without thinning alternative

was not developed as a distinct alternative for the

entire project area, because it did not meet enough of

the project objectives. There are two main reasons:

1) prescribed fire alone is not effective in thinning the

sizes of tree in the project area, and 2) prescribed fire

alone does not substantially reduce the risk of future

catastrophic wildfire because not enough trees are

killed. The following information discusses these two

points.

1) Most studies indicate that prescribed fire alone is

not effective in thinning the sizes of trees in the

Kachina Village Forest Health Project.

Prescribed fire is not a very selective thinning tool,

because a number of fires are required to reduce

fuels, change the understory, and overcome the

effects caused by fire exclusion (Harrington and

Sackett 1990). Gaines and others (1958), Woolridge

and Weaver (1965), and Lindemuth (1960) all reported that fire was a rather imperfect tool for

thinning. Harrington (1987) reported significant

reductions in tree density within sites occupied by

“dog-hair” thickets, while the same prescribed fire did

little to reduce tree density where sites were dominated by larger trees. Sackett (1980), Davis and

others (1968), and Campbell and others (1977)

reported similar results in both prescribed and

natural fires (Weatherspoon 1996).

In another study, Gaines et al. (1958) reported that

even though younger, suppressed classes had been

thinned by fire, the commercial overstory suffered

substantial injury. The trees Gaines refers to as “the

commercial overstory” in 1958 are the larger, older

trees this project wishes to keep alive for wildlife

diversity. Lindenmuth (1960) studied the effects of

fire in east-central Arizona and concluded that 24

percent of the potential crop trees were released from

competition, but 17 percent were killed or severely

damaged. Again, the trees Lindenmuth refers to in

1962 as “crop trees” are the larger, older trees this
166 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

project wishes to keep alive for wildlife diversity.

Harrington (1981) reported an average of 26 percent

reduction in stems per acre in southeastern Arizona,

however surveys in years following the burns revealed results that need special attention—which is

the subsequent loss of old-growth ponderosa pine

trees.

Attempts to use fire alone to thin dense stands

frequently resulted in high levels of mortality in the

residual stands (Swezy and Agee 1991, Sackett and

others 1996, Covington and Sackett 1984). Post-fire

mortality among old growth trees was 23 percent

higher in burned plots than in the unburned controls

over a 20-year period (Sackett and others 1996).

More than 30 years of study (since 1976) at the Fort

Valley Experimental Forest has demonstrated that

fire alone cannot effectively reduce stand levels

enough to protect remaining mature and old growth

trees. Allowing prescribed fires or wildfires to

selectively thin pine forests of the Southwest may be

the most detrimental in retaining what old growth

trees that remain (Weatherspoon 1996).

Substantial research has demonstrated the effectiveness of thinning as one component in a forest

restoration program (Swezy and Agee 1991, Fiedler

1996, Fenny and others 1996, Weatherspoon 1996,

Edminster and Olsen 1996, Covington and others

1997, Scott 1998, Harrington and Sackett 1990).

Therefore, some combination of thinning, manual fuel

removal, and prescribed burning will be necessary to

restore ponderosa pine ecosystems to more natural

conditions (Arno 1996; Fiedler 1996; Swezy and Agee

1991; Oliver and others 1994).

Most research points out the imperfection of fire as a

thinning tool. Prescribed fire by itself is not effective

in thinning ponderosa pine trees with diameters over

3 inches or trees that are over 6 feet tall without

significant damage to the larger, older trees this

project wishes to retain. On the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project, the trees in overabundance and

in need of thinning are predominantly 5-16 inches in

diameter (PRD 79 and PRD 79A).

Beginning in the 1930’s, research was conducted to

evaluate the effectiveness of a range of treatment

strategies to reduce stand densities and fuel loads.

Many researchers initially believed that simply

reintroducing fire would be sufficient to substantially

reduce both stand densities and fuel loads. Prescribed fire has been a successful means of fuel

reduction in some forest types (Biswell and others

1973, Knorr 1963, Weaver 1952).

Folliott et al. (1977) reported that a positive thinning

response followed prescribed fire in northern Arizona,

but basal area was not reduced enough for optimal

stand stimulation. Weaver (1947) reported that 30

years after burning, a young ponderosa pine stand

had fewer stems per acre, greater heights, and larger

diameter than an adjacent unburned stand.

2) Using prescribed fire without thinning does not

substantially reduce the risk of a catastrophic

wildfire.

One of the project’s primary goals is the reduction of

catastrophic (crown) fire. The risk reduction is

accomplished by reducing the amount of ladder fuels

and tree canopy fuels, as well as by reducing the

amount of ground fuels (Ottmar 1997; Agee and

others 1999; Buckley 1992; Van Wagtendonk 1996).

Reducing ground fuels temporarily reduces the fuel

load and ground fire intensity that could initiate a

crown fire. Removing ladder fuels will reduce the

potential for ground fire to climb into the tree crowns.

However, only by recreating a discontinuous canopy

layer can a treatment inhibit the rate of spread and

the eventual extent of a destructive crown fire.

In a report of the National Commission on Wildfire

Disasters, Sampson (1994) states many forest

situations will require mechanical removal of excess

trees via thinning before fire can safely be re-introduced. In an extensive 1995 report to Congress, the

Sierra Nevada Ecosystem Project (ponderosa pine is a

major forest type in the Sierra Nevada) authors

concluded that an extensive modification of forest

structure by thinning and burning is needed to

minimize severe fires in the future (McKelvey and

others 1995). In an extensive scientific evaluation

(involving over 100 scientists) of the effects of Forest

Service management practices on the sustainability of

eastern Oregon and Washington ecosystems (ponderosa pine is a major forest type), Everett and others

(1994) found a need to use thinning as one of several

actions to restore wildfire to more natural behavior.

In contrast to the destructive crown fire, a more

natural fire behavior for ponderosa pine forests is a

low intensity ground fire with flame lengths less than

2 feet.

Bird (July 23, 2001) – Alternative

Suggested

Develop a non-commercial alternative, restoration

alternative that uses non-commercial treatments in

the WUI*. Focus efforts on private homeowner

education and assistance, encouraging re-introduction of fire outside the WUI. Homeowner education
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 167

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

would be a coordinated program of public presentations, direct mail education, media public interest

education and news features. The local economy

stimulated through local landscape businesses and

construction companies retrofitting home sites for

protection. Jobs and income generated by activities

on Federal lands that prepare the forests outside the

WUI for re-introduction of fire.

Goals include:

1) improve protection of homes

2) economic opps

3) clean water and healthy watersheds

4) restore wildfire to forest ecology

5) improve scientific understanding of fire ecology

6) improve public understanding of fire ecology

and forest management.

Alt. Based on work of Jack Cohen: 40 meters of

home most important; beyond 40 meters has little

effect on the likelihood a home will burn.

*Inside WUI—focus on most flammable material—

brush and weeds and lower branches of trees.

Prioritize treatments around communities.

Outside the WUI use prescribed fire—prioritize use—

inconjuction with non-commercial preparation such

as brush removal, needle raking and lower branch

pruning. If small tree removal is scientifically

justified, offer as public fuelwood by permit only.

Response: The respondent has overlooked that this

project has a purpose and need which goes beyond

the purpose and need for reducing fire potential. The

purpose and need is aimed at long-term improvement

of forest health. The description of work proposed by

the respondent within the WUI and outside the WUI

are very similar. As described in the previous

response, these actions would not meet the objectives

of the Kachina Village Forest Health Project. Prescribed fire with only raking, pruning, etc. will not

meet most all of the purpose and need for this project.

The Federal Government does not have the authority

to require homeowners to change physical conditions

present on private land. However, the city and

county have some authority through ordinances and

such. In the Flagstaff community the Forest Service

and local fire departments have provided education

as well as assistance to private landowners to reduce

wildfire risk. The Proposed Action includes ongoing

efforts that include working with homeowner’s

adjacent to the communities of Flagstaff, Kachina

Village, Mountainaire and Forest Highlands. Local

fire departments, as well as the Forest Service, have

conducted public presentations and completed direct

mail education. Almost daily there are articles in the

paper and news media across the West regarding

homeowner preparedness. However, this in and of

itself will not solve the problems south of Kachina

Village and Forest Highlands.

There are numerous small businesses in the Flagstaff

area that conduct thinning and prescribed burning on

private land and replace shake-shingle roofs with

metal ones. Many of the goals of your alternative are

similar to our goals and goals of the Grand Canyon

Forests Partnership. However, your goals will never

be met with the alternative you have recommended,

especially Item 1 (protection of homes).

All lands adjacent to Forest Highlands and Kachina

Village that are in need of treatment to address

declining forest health and reduce high fire hazard

are proposed for treatment. A fire in this area (as

shown with Farsite Modeling PRD #73) will easily

travel 2.5 to 3 miles in one afternoon, thereby prompting us to look at the entire area in order to protect

MSO PAC’s, old-growth habitats, old trees, northern

goshawk habitat, cultural sites, the Oak Creek

watershed and homes in Forest Highlands and

Kachina Village. Direction in the Coconino LMP

provides guidance on the size and scale of the urban

interface. Page 93 of the Coconino LMP defines the

urban interface as an area up to 10 miles long in a

southwesterly direction from urban areas.

Reducing stand densities throughout the Kachina

Village Project area is critical to reducing fire potential. The single most ecologically damaging and life

threatening forest fire is the crown fire. The intensity

of crown fires prevents direct fire suppression. The

massive blizzard of embers associated with crown

fires leads to long-range spot fires which travel over

and beyond areas with little fuel. The presence of

numerous spot fires leads to erratic fire behavior and

rapid acceleration in a fire’s growth. The most critical

element in fire management is the prevention of

crown fires. It is important to evaluate fire potential

miles away from communities as well as immediately

adjacent to them.

Nowicki

In fact, even a 12-inch dbh cutting cap would not

impede the treatments from achieving the stated

objectives, as a large proportion of the trees in the

project are smaller than 12-inches dbh. That is,

thinning treatments would be able to create a

diversity of stand densities and structures by

implementing varying levels of thinning the trees
168 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

less than 12-inches dbh. This analysis and cutting

cap is absolutely necessary to protecting vital

components of the current forest structure and the

next generation of old growth that will develop in the

forest.

Response: A 12-inch cap was analyzed by reviewing

forest vegetation simulator computer modeling and

applying professional knowledge to decide if a 12-

inch cap would result in a viable alternative for the

Kachina Village Forest Health Project.

FVS (Forest Vegetation Simulator) computer runs

modeled under different scenarios show diameter,

density, and mortality conditions after different

thinning scenarios. These scenarios were picked to

either show likely cuts that would be made in action

scenarios, or to help analyze certain alternatives

(such as what happens if we impose a 12-inch cap on

cutting trees). Original data was taken from compartment exam points collected in 1989 that had

approximately 20 percent sample error and a confidence level of about 67 percent. Seven stands were

selected to model that show a range of both densities

and site indexes that reflect the Kachina project area

in general. In all the scenarios, only ponderosa pine

was simulated for cut, even though many of the

stands have an oak component.

A 12” cap scenario attempted to cut stands to a 50

BA, which is needed to meet goals and objectives in

the Proposed Action such as reducing wildfire potential, increasing understory and increasing individual

tree growth. In most cases, 50 BA could not be

achieved, so the model cut almost everything (a

cutting efficiency of 0.95) between 5 and 12-inch dbh.

Four out of the seven stands that were modeled still

had considerable BA over 50 BA. This scenario also

tends to have slightly lower growth rates for the

remaining trees than other alternatives modeled.

Growth was evaluated over a 50-year period. In

addition, the model indicated a higher mortality rate

in stands treated with a 12-inch cap over the same

50-year period. The target densities recommended in

the Proposed Action could not be met with the 12-inch

cap. Objectives to enhance understory, create grassy

openings and reduce wildfire potential could not be

met in the majority of the project area if a 12-inch

diameter cap is imposed. To enhance the understory,

it is desirable to reduce BA to less than 40. Diameter

caps, in general, reduce our ability to create grassy

openings due to the distribution of trees on the

landscape. A 12-inch diameter cap would make it

impossible to meet our objective for creating 10

percent grassy openings within treated stands.

Higher BA’s that would result from a 12-inch cutting

cap, would not decrease stand densities that would

achieve our goal of reducing fire potential. Fire

potential would remain moderate to high across most

of the project area.

Alternatives To Be Studied in Detail in

the EIS

Alternative A – Proposed Action (PRD 92)

Alternative B – No Action

Alternative C – Proposed Action with 16” Cap Based

on the Following Issues

Alternative D - Proposed Action with 18” Cap Based

on the Following Issues

Alternative E – Proposed Action with Modifications

Based on Issues of Roads and Concerns for Wildlife

Habitat Posed by SWFA.

Issue Driving Alternatives C

(McKinnon and Ack – July 18, 2001 and

Nowicki – July 18, 2001) - Alternative

Suggested with Issues explained

Summary of Comment which developed Alternative: The first point is a social/political issue based

on public trust. At the present time, the public

perception is that cutting big trees is about revenue

generation and not about the restoration of species

and ecosystems. A 16-inch cap provides the public

with a clear, easily communicated guarantee that

distinguishes today’s efforts from historical practices. The second point is that the existing large,

blackjack ponderosa pine trees will develop into the

next generation of old growth in these areas. Retaining all trees with 16-inch dbh or greater would

provide some assurance that the Proposed Action

would not detriment even further those degraded

forest structures.

Description of Alternative C: This alternative

places a 16-inch diameter cap on the proposed

action. The Proposed Action would drop the element

of creating logs and snags due to the lower value of

smaller logs and snags that would be created by

trees less than 16 inches. There are no other

changes to the Proposed Action.

Evaluation Criteria: Based on the comments

received, the changes in vegetative structural stage,

old growth development, creation of logs and snags,

social and economic effects are discussed in the

draft EIS. The implementation of a 16-inch diam-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 169

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis

eter cap would result in approximately 7,000 fewer

trees thinned from the landscape. This results in a

change in VSS structure of less than 1 percent. The

creation of grassy openings, based on professional

experience, will be difficult to achieve in many of the

treated stands.

Issue Driving Alternative D

(McKinnon and Ack – July 18, 2001)–

Alternative Suggested with Issues

explained

Summary: An evaluation of an 18-inch cap should

provide a quantitative explanation of how project

objectives will be affected by different diameter caps.

Description of Alternative D: This alternative

places an 18-inch diameter cap on the Proposed

Action. The Proposed Action maintains the element

of creating logs and snags from the trees 16 to 17.9-

inch dbh. There are no other changes to the

Proposed Action.

Evaluation Criteria: Based on the comments

received, the changes in vegetative structural stage,

old growth development, creation of logs and snags

and social, and economic effects are discussed in

the draft EIS. The implementation of a 18-inch

diameter cap would result in approximately 2,000

fewer trees thinned from the landscape. There is no

change in VSS from the Proposed Action. Creation

of grassy openings, based on professional experience, will be difficult to achieve in some stands.

Issues Driving Alternative E

Nowicki – August 16 and September 20,

2001– Alternative Suggested with

Issues explained

Summary: An intensive treatment zone should

occur in the area around private land. Thinning

north of Kelly Canyon should be lighter than that

proposed, with a 16-inch cutting cap imposed. No

new roads should be constructed, even if only for

the duration of the project as roads greatly increase

soil compaction, transport of exotic weeds and long

lasting impacts on forest structure. The use of hand

thinning (south of Kelly Canyon) would minimize soil

impacts, protecting the area from further damage,

and maximizing its ability to recover and achieve the

proposed objectives of forest health and wildlife

habitat. Restricting the cutting cap to 9-inch dbh

will spare the impacts of soil compaction and

disturbance by large machines in the areas south of

Kelly Canyon.

Description of Alternative E: Implement “thinning

from below, north of Kelly Canyon” within 1/8 mile

(660 feet) immediately adjacent to homes “intensive

zone.” Beyond 1/8 mile, implement a variable

“thinning from below” to 60-120 BA north of Kelly

Canyon. No new roads should be constructed, even

if only for the duration of the project as roads greatly

increase soil compaction, transport exotic weeds and

long lasting impacts on forest structure. Temporary

roads are needed to access areas within the “intensive zone.” A phone call to B. Nowicki on 10/31/01

resulted in changing no new temporary roads to

constructing temporary roads to accomplish thinning objectives within the “intensive zone.” South

of Kelly Canyon all thinning should be done by hand

with no trees over 9-inch dbh removed.

Evaluation Criteria: Based on the comments

received, the changes in vegetative structural stage,

old growth development, creation of logs and snags,

temporary road construction and change in the

potential for wildfire are discussed in the draft EIS.

This alternative will result in the use of 2.5 miles of

temporary road compared to 5.75 miles with the

Proposed Action, Alternatives C and D. The temporary road issue also resulted in more areas of 9”

thinning north of Kelly Canyon (556 acres). In total,

this alternative will place a 9” cap on 2,668 acres

compared to the Proposed Action which has a 9-inch

cap on 527 acres. The 9-inch cap and 16-inch cap

will make it very difficult to create any grassy

openings. The “intensive zone” will create a continuous grassy strip along the private land boundaries.

I approve this range of alternatives to be considered

in the Kachina Village Forest Health Project.

/s/Mike Hannemann 12/07/01

Mike Hannemann

Acting Mormon Lake District Ranger
170 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix A • Scoping Comment Analysis
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 171

Appendix B • Research Proposals Appendix B • Research Proposals

Evaluating Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration Effects On Mule Deer—A

Research and Monitoring Proposal - Emphasizing the Kachina Village

Forest Health Restoration Project - Mormon Lake Ranger District, Coconino

National Forest

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Research Branch

2221 W. Greenway Road

Phoenix, AZ 85023

September 1, 2001

Introduction

We are seeking funding to answer key ecological

questions about restoring fire-adapted western

forests to healthier, more natural conditions. Exclusion of natural surface fires, logging, and historical

overgrazing have led ponderosa pine forests across

the West to become over-dense with small trees and

accumulated fuels, leading to costly tragedies such

as the May 2000, Cerro Grande Fire that burned

across Los Alamos, N.M. Other effects include

reduced tree vigor, reduced herbaceous diversity and

biomass, and type conversions from fire-adapted

species to assemblages of fire intolerant species

(Cooper 1960, Covington and Moore 1994; Belsky

and Blumenthal 1997, Mast et al. 1999). In addition

to fire danger, these changes have led to poor

nutrient cycling and have altered wildlife community

composition.

Forest restoration treatments target reducing tree

stand densities and forest floor fuel loads through

selective cutting and prescribed burning. Such

treatments will result in more open, park-like forests

with an understory of herbs and grasses rather than

flammable organic litter. It is believed these forests

will better sustain natural processes like periodic,

cool fires and nutrient cycling, and not promote

catastrophic fire or threaten old-growth trees.

However, sharp debate and controversy exist due to

the lack of knowledge of both the effectiveness of

wildland-urban interface (WUI) wildfire reduction

treatments and their corresponding effects on

wildlife. While restoration treatments won’t result in

truly “restored” forests for decades or longer, they

are expected to drastically alter the structure and

composition of treated stands. In this regard,

restoration treatments have the potential to affect

the wildlife community living in the ponderosa pine

forest in unknown ways. The expected increases in

biodiversity and productivity at the herbaceous layer

should be immediately exploited by some wildlife

species. Conversely, other species rely on current

forest structures that will be reduced by restorative

treatments. Therefore, some species are expected to

decline in treated areas unless adaptations are made

to accommodate them. For these reasons, empirical

data are needed regarding the effects of ecosystem

restoration on all fauna within the ponderosa pine

community so that true adaptive management can

be applied to forest restoration efforts.

Justification and Need for Wildlife

Monitoring and Research

As indicated above, forests have changed drastically

in the past 100 years. Complicating matters is the

fact that no historic, quantitative data exists against

which to compare present wildlife population

numbers and distributions. However, many proposed forest restoration treatments will cause rapid

and drastic changes in forest structure (e.g. the

reduction of tree stem densities on Mt. Trumbull by

up to 85 percent). The degree and temporal rapidity

of these changes has great potential to affect populations of wildlife in treated areas.

The primary subjects of controversy surrounding the

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership fire risk reduction/forest health restoration treatments, as

demonstrated in 6 administrative appeals and one

lawsuit, are the efficacy of treatments and the effects

of such treatments on wildlife. Larger-scale environmental opposition to fire risk reduction treatments

in the urban interface is demonstrated by the recent

filing of a Notice of Intent by the Center for Biologi-
172 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

cal Diversity to sue over urban interface projects and

their perceived effects on threatened and endangered species.

To achieve success in implementing fire risk reduction projects in the urban interface, we must be able

to demonstrate both the effectiveness of fuels

reduction treatments and the corresponding effects

on wildlife. Only by evaluating the relationships of

key wildlife to various treatments can we responsibly

inform the adaptive restoration process. Therefore,

more detailed information on the effects of various

restoration treatments on wildlife are needed to

guide the discussion of the most desirable prescription or blend of prescriptions to restore WUI forests.

Limited wildlife response data have been available to

date with which to inform and adapt optimal fire

risk reduction/forest health treatment prescriptions.

These data have come primarily from the Mt.

Trumbull restoration project. While fire-risk reduction treatments planned for north of Kelly Canyon in

the Kachina Village Restoration Block are similar to

that applied at Mt. Trumbull, the majority of treatments planned for south of Kelly Canyon are

dissimilar due to the retention of patches of understory trees, and the planned retention of buffers of

untreated forest along canyon rims.

We (Arizona Game and Fish Department [AGFD], as

partners in the Grand Canyon Forest Partnership)

propose to monitor expected fire risk reduction

treatments in two prescription types in the Kachina

Village forest health and fire risk reduction block.

Mule Deer as a Monitoring and

Indicator Species

Mule deer populations are in decline throughout the

Western United States, and are considered a management indicator species in the Coconino N.F. and

elsewhere (USDA 2000, Thomas et al. 1979). One

factor leading to the decline of mule deer may be

reduced abundance and quality of herbaceous

ground cover associated with the over-dense forest

conditions which now occur throughout the West.

Mule deer can be an effective indicator of forest

health because of their reliance on a mixture of open

tree canopies with understory vegetation and dense

hiding cover. Several studies have demonstrated the

need for a mixture of adequate shrub and herbaceous vegetation and dense hiding cover to meet a

variety of life history needs. The reduction in

canopy closure as prescribed within Kachina Village

Forest Health Project will allow for the return of

valuable forage in the form of herbaceous and shrub

cover, but it is not known whether these treatments

will leave proper ratios of open:hiding cover for

continued mule deer use. The relationships between

mule life history and habitat are reviewed briefly

below.

Existing Mule Deer Research and

Implications to Forest Restoration

Little information currently exists about responses

of mule deer with which to inform restoration efforts.

Several studies have related specific activities of

mule deer to habitat type and structure, and one

study (Germaine 1998) compared the characteristics

of mule deer bed and forage sites between forested

areas in which restoration treatments had been

applied and controls in which no recent management activity had occurred. Implications of these

studies are discussed below.

Foraging

• Kufeld et al. (1988) found an inverse

relationship between mule deer feeding

activity and canopy cover in ponderosa

pine forests.

• Patton (1974) found substantial increases

in grass and forb production and deer use

after thinning ponderosa forests.

• AGFD research at Mt. Trumbull has

documented mule deer foraging in treated

areas during the 1-2 years immediately

following stand thinning, prescribed fire,

and reseeding (Germaine and Germaine

1999). Treated units appear to have

higher abundances of deer forage vegetation than untreated forest areas.

Hiding Cover

• Hiding cover is important for predator

avoidance, especially during fawning

(Trainer 1975). Fawn bed sites are often

within more densely vegetated areas (Fox

and Krausman 1994, Gerlach and

Vaughan 1991). The removal of sufficient

hiding cover could result in decreased fawn

recruitment (Fox and Krausman 1994).

Thermal Cover

• Dense vegetation can provide relief from

both extreme cold and extreme heat,

minimizing thermal stress upon deer

(Thomas et al. 1979, Parker and

Gillingham 1990).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 173

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Bedding Sites

• The dense horizontal and vertical vegetation typical of deer bedding sites

contributes to both hiding and thermal

benefits (Smith et al. 1986).

• AGFD research at Mt. Trumbull has

described specific characteristics of mule

deer day beds, and has documented a

marked decrease in available vegetative

structure for mule deer day bed placement

within treated areas. Mule deer day bed

placement in treated areas at Mt. Trumbull

has been limited to oak mots, which

appear to be the only features where

thermal and hiding cover needs for day

bedding are retained in the years immediately following forest restoration

treatments (Germaine 1998).

Fire Effects

• Fire has been considered beneficial to deer

habitat. Carlson et al. (1993) and Hobbs

and Spowart (1984) found increased deer

forage quantity and quality after fire, and

Stager and Klebenow (1987) documented

increased use of pinyon-juniper woodlands

by deer post fire. Kie (1984) reported

increased use of pine-oak forests by deer

after prescription burning.

Human Disturbance

• Mule deer are sensitive to human disturbance (Freddy et al. 1986, Yarmoloy et al.

1988) causing greater energy expediture

and reduced reproduction. Adequate

hiding cover can potentially reduce the

stress of human-induced disturbance.

Economics

• Mule deer are an economically important

game species in AZ and throughout the

West. In 2001 there were 87,835 applications for mule deer or any antlered deer

hunts in Arizona. Permits issued for these

hunts generated $2,210,832 in resident

license fees, and $317,119 in nonresident

fees in Arizona this year. Millions more

dollars are generated in Arizona each year

from deer hunting-related purchases.

The decline of mule deer in the West has coincided

with the general increase in forest canopy closure,

fire suppression, and the reduction of understory

vegetation. The deer-habitat-human interaction

factors listed above demonstrate how mule deer

population

trends and habitat use patterns can be an effective

indicator of forest health and a useful monitoring

tool. The Kachina block treatments have potential to

enhance deer habitat quality. The Kachina Block

treatment prescription will produce a different ratio

of open forest for forage production and dense

patches for hiding than that produced at Mt.

Trumbull. Learning the responses of mule deer to

different ratios of open forest/dense patches will

enhance our ability to manage for the benefit of

mule deer populations in Arizona.

Gaps in Knowledge of Mule Deer -

Restored Forest Habitat Relationships

AGFD research at Mt. Trumbull provides the only

information we are aware of to date documenting

mule deer responses to ponderosa pine forest

restoration treatments. This research has demonstrated a need to combine open-canopied forest to

improve forage vegetation with patches of dense

vegetation to meet bedding and fawning cover needs.

Threshold ratios of these habitat components are

not yet known, nor do we know how far from escape/hiding cover mule deer will forage in treated

forests.

AGFD has also documented that mule deer use of

the Trick Tank Unit at Mt. Trumbull, the first large

unit to be completed, has shown a marked decline

over the 3 years (1998 – 2000) since treatment (Fig.

1). Figure 1 correlates spring precipitation with

mule deer summer use of this unit. In this figure we

use spring precipitation as a proxy variable for

ground cover vegetation since we have noted a

strong correlation between spring rains and vegetation growth in treated units. We have not identified

the specific factor(s) responsible for decreased mule

deer use of this area. Possibilities include: shortterm site fidelity is being replaced by avoidance of

treated areas; deer are responding directly to varying

levels of ground cover vegetation (associated with

spring precipitation); forage quality has decreased

each year since treatment for reasons not related to

precipitation; or, the combination of habitat openness and intense human presence in the area has

caused an avoidance response. These types of

questions must be answered before we apply forest

restoration treatments over broad expanses of forest

landscape.
174 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project is the

second of 10 proposed ~4,000 ha planning units

within the Flagstaff Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI),

as part of the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership

(USDA Forest Service 2000, 2001). This 4,217 ha

project is located on the Mormon Lake and Peaks

Ranger Districts, is located 6 km south of Flagstaff,

includes the communities of Kachina Village and

Forest Highlands, and will extend between Highways

89A and I-17 southward to the rim above Oak Creek

Canyon.

Multiple thinning prescriptions are proposed in

various treatment units in the Proposed Action for

this project. While each prescription proposed has

unique wildlife value and is therefore of research/

monitoring interest, we propose to focus on two

prescriptions which are extensive enough to ensure

adequate samples may be generated, and which

most closely represent WUI prescriptions likely to be

applied throughout the west: “Thinning from Below –

North of Kelly Canyon and Lower 89A Corridor”

(hereafter TBN), and “Thinning from Below – South

of Kelly Canyon” (hereafter TBS).

TBN will occur on 779 ha (1,923 ac) and will focus

on reducing wildfire risk by both reducing ladder

fuels and disconnecting the present continuous

crown canopy. Post-treatment target tree densities

range from 40-120 ft.2 basal area, canopy closure

reduced to 40 to 50 precent, and mid-story canopy

base height raised to an average of 15 ft. Small

trees will be thinned around existing clumps of

larger trees, maintaining existing spatial structures.

Approximately 10 percent of the area will be managed as grassy openings located in areas where they

were likely to have occurred in the past. Gambel

oaks will not be cut.

TBS will occur on 674 ha (1,665 ac) south of Kelly

Canyon and in the Mexican Pocket area. This area

will be thinned with the objective of reducing wildfire

risk in a manner similar to TBN but will also retain

dense cover patches meant to enhance post-treatment wildlife value. Up to 25 percent of this area

will be retained in dense clumps of understory trees

with each clump exceeding 35 trees/clump, and

clumps ranging in size from 0.04-0.4 ha (1/10th to 1

acre). Clumps will retain closed canopies with

interlocking limbs and foliage. The forest surrounding clumps will be thinned to 40-100 ft.2 basal area.

The combination of closed and open forest types

proposed for TBS is expected to enhance wildlife

value for species requiring dense patches of cover

and those associated with ponderosa savannahs.

Grassy openings and Gambel oaks will be managed

in the same manner as in TBN.

Study Objectives

Our primary objective is to use mule deer as an

indicator of the effects of two different thinning

prescriptions (TBN, TBS) within the Kachina Village

Forest Health Project. We will do so by collecting

statistically reliable data comparing mule deer use of

specific areas both pre- and post-treatment. The

data collected will describe mule deer responses to

thinning treatments, and will provide detailed and

useful information which will help to guide future

habitat management both locally and throughout

the Southwest.

Objective 1: Collect baseline pre-treatment data on

mule deer habitat use and selection in both TBN and

TBS Kachina Village Forest Health Project treatment

areas.

Procedure 1.1 - Pre-treatment data

collection

In spring 2002, we will outfit up to 16 mule deer

with telemetry collars with Global Positioning

System (GPS) capabilities. Animals will be captured

throughout the study area using a variety of proven

methods, with 8 captured north and 8 south of Kelly

canyon. Sixteen animals is a minimal number, to

reduce cost, based on the recommendations (>20

animals) by Alldredge and Ratti (1986) and Leban

(1999) for statistically powerful analyses.

Figure 1. Mule Deer Use of Trick Tank Unit, Mt.

Trumbull, During 3 Years Since Treatment, 1998-2000
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 175

Appendix B • Research Proposals

GPS collars have several advantages over standard

VHF telemetry collars:

After deploying the collars on animals, collection of

location data is automated, requiring little effort in

the field. Only periodic monitoring for mortality

signals is required. Also, by eliminating presence of

people in the field, the bias introduced by human

disturbance from monitoring is eliminated.

Because of the automated nature of the collars,

location data can be collected more frequently than

with conventional collars, and the number of locations achievable (>1000/animal/year) far exceeds

the capabilities of VHF collars. Data will be collected

year-round, even when field conditions would

prohibit standard VHF monitoring.

The locations produced by GPS collars are quite

accurate (15m average). Acquiring locations this

accurate with standard collars would require extensive and costly field technician labor.

Although initial cost of the collars is higher, overall

cost per location is greatly reduced (<$2) because

field technician labor time is effectively eliminated.

Collars will be configured to record a GPS fix every 7

hours, and retrieved when batteries are depleted or

animal mortality is indicated. Collars will be configured to last 2 years and, therefore, provide up to 2

years of pre-treatment data depending on treatment

implementation schedule.

Prior to scheduled collar expiration we will retrieve

all collars while simultaneously placing new collars

on the same deer. If we are unable to recapture deer,

the collars will be removed from the animal via an

automatic release buckle. The collar can then be

retrieved on foot. We will then download collars into

an AGFD GIS database, and prepare data for analysis of pre-treatment habitat selection preferences.

Because of the potential confounding effects of

human disturbance, mostly within the TBN study

area, vibration sensors will be installed along

roadways at all boundaries of TBN and TBS treatments to index levels of human disturbance.

Vibration sensors will be checked twice per week,

separating weekdays and weekends. The relationship between deer location distance from roads and

the level of human activity on roads will be examined graphically to determine a disturbance

threshold. If a significant relationship is found,

roadways exceeding the disturbance threshold will

be buffered in the GIS to the threshold distance, and

this area will not be considered available habitat.

Objective 2. Collect post-treatment data on mule

deer habitat use and selection in both TBN and TBS

Kachina Village Forest Health Project treatment

areas.

Procedure 2.1 - Post-treatment data

collection

The first spring after treatments have been fully

completed (we anticipate 2005) we will outfit up to

16 mule deer with telemetry collars with Global

Positioning System (GPS) capabilities. Collar

configurations, data collection procedures, and data

retrieval/downloading will be the same as described

for pre-treatment above. *Note: Completing treatments in the shortest possible timeframe is important

to minimize the degree of external influence on

animals.

Levels of human activity in post-treatment areas will

be indexed and habitat availability buffered in the

same manner as described for pre-treatment data

collection, above.

An intern will be hired for one field season to help

map the boundaries of all dense cover patches of

trees retained after treatments with a GPS receiver.

Objective 3. Compare selection preferences of mule

deer for TBN and TBS habitats between pre- and

post-treatment periods.

Procedure 3.1 – Selection preference

analysis

Four habitat types will be considered in this study:

TBN, TBS, canyons (untreated), and other.

Total availability of each habitat type will be measured directly from GIS maps of the study area

(generated by the Coconino N.F.). Using minimum

convex polygons, home ranges as well as habitat

availability for each animal will be identified.

Habitat use will be determined for each deer by

comparing the proportional distribution of GPS

locations to that available within each habitat type.

The expected number of locations for each habitat

type will be the proportional equivalents of each

available habitat.

Habitat selection analysis (Neu et al. 1974) will be

used to test the following null hypothesis:

H0: Habitat use (GPS locations) occurs in equal

proportion to habitat availability.
176 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Additionally, we will employ Bonferroni confidence

intervals (Neu et al. 1974, Byers et al. 1984) to

determine which habitats are selected or avoided

and the strength of each demonstrated selection.

These determinations will be made both pre- and

post-treatment.

We will use Johnson’ (1980) use-availability ranking

method to index selection strength demonstrated by

deer for each habitat type both pre- and posttreatment.

Finally, we will use a Mann-Whitney U test (Zar

1999) to test for differences in the selection ranking

of each habitat type between pre- and post-treatment, under the null hypothesis:

H0: Selection preferences displayed by mule deer for

each habitat type do not differ between pre- and

post-treatment.

In this regard it would be optimal to have the same

deer telemetered both pre- and post-treatment. We

do not anticipate that this is logistically possible,

however, and will have a similar number of deer

telemetered in each area during each study phase.

Finally, mule deer locations will be correlated with

stand information on average dense cover patch size

and patch density to determine whether a relationship exists for deer use of various stand types as

defined by dense cover patches.

Benefits to Adaptive Management

While wildlife concerns continue to dominate professional and legal debates concerning WUI fire risk

reduction and forest restoration, information on

effects of treatments on wildlife remains extremely

limited. Furthermore, true adaptive forest management cannot proceed in an informed manner

without wildlife effects information. The information

we propose to generate will directly address this

problem. The results of this study will allow us to

make better-informed management decisions

regarding forest restoration and mule deer populations by providing information on TBN and TBS

treatment prescriptions and mule deer use. This

study will also provide additional information on

ratios of foraging:bedding habitat suitable for mule

deer, and ultimately will be of great value in guiding

the placement of various treatment prescriptions on

forest landscapes in WUI’s and elsewhere.

Project Partners: Partners include the Coconino

National Forest, Grand Canyon Trust, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, and other members of the

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership.

Budget

Year 1 (pre-treatment):

GS 20 Spec. III 1/12 time $4,326.92

GS 19 Spec. II 1/2 time $20,891.00

(develop study plan, initiate project)

Overhead $4,320.00

$(29,537.92)

Initial deer capture $12,800.00

Vehicle $6,000.00

Equipment: GPS collars $50,000.00

vibration sensors $1,200.00

computer supplies $5,850.00

AOO (field supplies) $2,000.00

Year 1 Total $107,387.92

Year 2 (pre-treatment):

GS 19 Spec. II 1/2 time $20,891.00

(analysis and reporting of pre-data)

Overhead $3,760.38

$(24,651.38)

Vehicle $6,000.00

AOO (field supplies) $1,000.00

Year 2 Total $31,651.38

Year 3 (1st year post-treatment):

Ps/ere

GS 19 Spec. II 1/2 time $20,891.00

(GPS cover patches)

Intern $3,214.00

(GPS cover patches)

Overhead $4,335.43

$(28,440.43)

Refurbish GPS collars $3,200.00

Replace GPS collars $12,800

Vehicle $6,000.00

AOO (field supplies) $1,000.00

Year 3 Total $51,440.43
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 177

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Year 4 (post-treatment):

Ps/ere

GS 20 Spec. III 1/12 time $4,326.92

GS 19 Spec. II 1/2 time $20,891.00

(final analysis & reporting)

Overhead $4,535.60

$(29,753.52)

Vehicle $6,000.00

AOO (pub/pres costs) $3,000.00

Year 4 Total $38,753.52

Literature Cited

Belsky, A. J., and D. M. Blumenthal. 1997. Effects

of livestock grazing on stand dynamics and

soils of upland forests of the interior West.

Conservation Biology 11:315-327.

Byers, C.R., R.K. Steinhorst, and P.R. Krausman.

1984. Clarification of a technique for analysis

of utilization-availability data. Journal of

Wildlife Management 48(3):1050-1053.

Carlson, P.C., G.W. Tanner, J.M. Wood, and S.R.

Humphrey. 1993. Fire in key deer habitat

improves browse, prevents succession, and

preserves endemic herbs. Journal of Wildlife

Mangement 57(4):914-928.

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forests

since white settlement. Ecological Monographs

30:129-164.

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure:

Changes since Euro-American settlement.

Journal of Forestry 92:39-47.

Fox, K.V., and P.R. Krausman. 1994. Fawning

habitat of desert mule deer. Southwestern

Naturalist 39(3):269-275.

Freddy. D.J., W.M. Bronaugh, and M.C. Fowler.

1986. Responses of mule deer to disturbance

by persons afoot and snowmobiles. Wildlife

Society Bulletin 14:63-68.

Gerlach, T.P., and M.R. Vaughan.1991. Mule deer

fawn bed site selection on the pinon canyon

maneuver site, Colorado. Southwestern Naturalist 36(2):255-258.

Germaine, S.S. 1998. Short-term effects of ponderosa pine forest restoration on wildlife at

Mount Trumbull, Arizona: 1997 & 1998 data.

Arizona Game and Fish Department Research

Branch Report. 43 pp.

Germaine, H.L. and S.S. Germaine. 1999. Shortterm wildlife responses to ponderosa pine

forest restoration treatments in the Mount

Trumbull area, Arizona. Arizona Game and

Fish Department Annual Progress Report. 20

pp.

Hobbs, N.T., and R.A. Spowart. 1984. Effects of

prescribed fire on nutrition of mountain sheep

and mule deer during winter and spring.

Journal of Wildlife Management 48(2):551-560.

Johnson, D. H. 1980. The comparison of usage and

availability measurements for evaluating

resource preference. Ecology 61(1):65-71.

Kie, J.G. 1984. Deer habitat use after prescribed

burning in northern California. Pacific Southwest forest and range experiment station.

USDA Forest Service research note PSW-369.

Kufeld, R.C., D.C. Bowden, and D.L. Schrupp. 1988.

Habitat selection and activity patterns of

female mule deer in the Front Range, Colorado.

Journal of Range Management 41(6):515-522.

Mast, J.N., P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, W.W. Covington,

and A.E.M. Waltz. 1999. Restoration of

presettlement age structure of an Arizona

ponderosa pine forest. Ecological Applications

9:228-239.

Neu, C.W., C.R. Byers, and J.M. Peek. 1974. A

technique for analysis of utilization-availability

data. Journal of Wildlife Management

38(3):541-545.

Parker, K.L. and M.P. Gillingham. 1990. Estimates

of critical thermal environments for mule deer.

Journal of Range Management 43(1):73-81.

Smith, H.D., M.C. Oveson, and C.L. Pritchett. 1986.

Characteristics of mule deer beds. Great Basin

Naturalist 46(3):542-546.
178 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Stager, D.W., and D.A. Klebenow. 1987. Mule deer

response to wildfire in Great Basin pinyonjuniper woodland. United States Forest Service

General Technical Report INT No. 215:572-579.

Thomas, J.W., H. Black, Jr., R.J. Sherzinger, and

R.J. Pedersen.1979. Deer and elk.

In Wildlife Habitats In Managed Forests: the Blue

Mountains of Oregon and Washington. J.W.

Thomas, editor. USDA Agricultural handbook

No.533. 104-127.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Fort Valley ecosystem

restoration project environmental assessment.

Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office,

Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.

Yarmoloy, C., M. Bayer, and V. Geist. 1988. Behavior responses and reproduction of mule deer,

Odocoileus hemionus, does following experimental harassment with an all-terrain vehicle.

Canadian Field Naturalist 102:425-429.

Zar, J.H. 1999. Biostatistical analysis. 4th edition.

Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River, NJ, U.S.A.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 179

Appendix B • Research Proposals

EVALUATING PONDEROSA PINE FOREST RESTORATION EFFECTS ON

FOREST SONGBIRDS - A Monitoring Proposal - Emphasizing the Kachina

Village Forest Health Restoration Project - Mormon Lake Ranger District,

Coconino National Forest

Arizona Game and Fish Department

Research Branch

2221 W. Greenway Road

Phoenix, AZ 85023

September 1, 2001

Introduction

Logging, fire suppression, grazing activities, and

climate changes over the past 150 years have

drastically modified distribution, species composition and stand ages in ponderosa pine forests,

resulting in general declines in forest health

(Covington and Moore 1994). A proliferation of

younger age class trees dominate forests today

(Johnson 1994, Mast et al. 1999) with increased

potential for catastrophic fire, disease, and decreased health of the ponderosa pine ecosystem

(Covington and Moore 1994, Covington et al. 1997).

These problems have spawned forest health restoration initiatives (Moore et al. 1999, Wagner et al.

2000) that advocate restoring ecosystem structure

and function, using aggressive thinning of forests to

improve tree growth, increase incidence of prescribed fire, and promote old-growth forest

conditions (Covington and Moore 1994, Covington et

al. 1997). The current threat of catastrophic fire to

human safety and property in the Wildland-Urban

Interface (hereafter WUI)—where homes and other

human development interface with wildland vegetation—are of high concern to land managers, fire

service personnel, property owners, and others.

However, sharp debate and controversy exist due to

lack of knowledge of both effectiveness of WUI

wildfire reduction treatments and their corresponding effects on wildlife. The primary subjects of

controversy surrounding the Grand Canyon Forests

Partnership fire risk reduction/forest ecosystem

health treatments are the efficacy of treatments and

the effects of such treatments on wildlife.

To address existing concerns, a suite of restoration

prescriptions have been proposed for reducing

wildfire risk in the WUI in the greater Flagstaff

vicinity. While individual prescriptions to date have

been derived from professional interpretations of

historic pre-settlement forest conditions, each varies

with respect to post-treatment densities of

ponderosas and understory trees retained. These

features will influence how well fire risk is reduced

in the WUI and what type of wildlife species are

supported in treated areas.

Wildlife response data are extremely limited to help

formulate treatment prescriptions that support

greater wildlife species diversity. To achieve success

in implementing fire risk reduction projects in the

WUI, we must be able to demonstrate both the

effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments and

maintain viable breeding populations of all native

wildlife.

Justification and Need for Wildlife

Monitoring and Research

Debate and controversy abounds due to lack of

knowledge of the effectiveness of WUI catastrophic

wildfire reduction treatments and their corresponding effects on wildlife. The primary subjects of

controversy surrounding the Grand Canyon Forests

Partnership fire risk reduction/forest health restoration treatments, as demonstrated in 6 administrative

appeals and 1 lawsuit, are the efficacy of treatments

and the effects of such treatments on wildlife.

Larger-scale environmental opposition to fire risk

reduction treatments in the urban interface is
180 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

demonstrated by the recent filing of a Notice of

Intent by the Center for Biological Diversity to sue

over urban interface projects and their perceived

effects on threatened and endangered species.

To optimize success in implementing fire risk

reduction/forest health projects in the urban

interface, we must be able to demonstrate both the

effectiveness of fuels reduction treatments and the

corresponding retention of native wildlife. Limited

wildlife response data are available to help inform

optimal fire risk reduction/forest health treatment

prescriptions; these have come primarily from the

Mt. Trumbull restoration project. While fire-risk

reduction treatments planned for north of Kelly

Canyon in the Kachina Village Restoration Block

appear similar to that applied at Mt. Trumbull, the

majority of treatments planned for south of Kelly

Canyon are dissimilar due to the retention of

patches of understory trees, and leaving buffers of

untreated forest along canyon rims.

Wildlife species are expected to respond differently

to each treatment prescription, and only by evaluating the relationships of key wildlife to various

treatments can we inform the adaptive restoration

process. Hard information on the effects of various

restoration treatments on wildlife are needed to

guide the discussion of the most desirable prescription or blend of prescriptions to restore WUI forests.

We (Research Branch, Arizona Game and Fish

Department [AGFD], as partners in the Grand

Canyon Forest Partnership) propose to monitor

expected fire risk reduction treatments in two

prescription types in the Kachina Village forest

health and fire risk reduction block.

Forest Songbirds as Monitoring and

Indicator Species

Songbirds are powerful management indicators

because many individual species are highly habitat

and structure-specific (McArthur and McArthur

1961, James 1971, Rosenstock 1998). Songbirds

are in decline throughout the Western Hemisphere,

primarily due to habitat degradation on breeding,

migration, and wintering grounds (Terborg 1989a).

Restoration treatments may drastically alter forest

structure in a short time, and are expected to

increase prey abundance for songbirds at ground

level, and to decrease amounts of foraging and

nesting substrate in the mid- and over-story canopy.

These changes to forest structure have great potential to alter songbird community composition and

habitat availability. Therefore, it is essential to

identify species retained in areas receiving different

treatment prescriptions so we can best manage for

viable breeding populations of all native songbird

species on forest landscapes.

Forest songbirds are well suited for indicating effects

of forest restoration treatments, for comparing

responses among different treatment prescriptions,

and for informing the adaptive management process,

because:

• Many species of forest songbirds are

obligates of pine and mixed conifer forests

and of distinct structural (VSS) stages

(Szaro and Balda 1986, Rosenstock 1996,

Moir et al. 1997). Songbird species partition habitat from ground level through

overstory canopy, and these habitat

relationships may change during breeding,

migration, and winter seasons. Because of

the high level of structural specificity of

many songbird species during different

seasons, forest songbirds make excellent

indicators of habitat structural diversity.

• Forest songbirds are highly responsive to

changes in ponderosa forest structure and

composition, with several species demonstrating marked population changes as

ponderosa forests have been altered since

circa 1910 (reviewed by Scurlock and

Finch 1997).

• Songbird populations are influenced by

factors at the micro-habitat, stand, and

landscape scales.

• Many species of forest songbirds are

abundant and widespread in ponderosa

forests, making collection of robust data

sets relatively inexpensive and efficient.

This allows analytically powerful comparisons among habitat types, treatment

prescriptions, and of pre- and posttreatment effects.

• Once collected, bird community data can

be easily parsed into examinations of

individual species responses, responses of

select indicator species, as guilds defined

by nesting or foraging habitat-use traits, or

as entire communities.

• A broad base of published knowledge

exists on the effects of various logging

practices and of fire on songbird populations (Finch et al. 1997), affording

predictions to be formulated and tested
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 181

Appendix B • Research Proposals

about responses of individual songbird

species to specific prescriptions. Testing apriori predictions has many advantages

over conducting purely descriptive or

comparative studies, the foremost being

clearer understanding of implications of

specific management actions.

Existing Forest Songbird Research and

Implications to Forest Restoration

Forest changes over the past 150 years have undoubtedly resulted in geographic scale shifts in

abundance for many species of forest songbirds.

Scurlock and Finch (1997) reviewed songbird

surveys from 1911, 1928, and 1961 and report

numerous species have either increased or decreased in abundance and distribution during this

time. They attribute this to changes in forest

structure associated with human activity since

before Euro-American settlement of the region.

Responses of songbirds to restoration treatments are

generally expected to reflect a shift back toward presettlement community composition. However,

treated forests won’t have pre-settlement old-growth

characteristics for decades or longer, and appropriate habitat structure must be retained on the

landscape to ensure retention of viable populations

of all songbirds until treated areas attain old-growth

characteristics. Furthermore, identification of

particular habitat structures (e.g. snags, thickets)

required to retain various songbird species in

restoration-treated settings is necessary to inform

the adaptive management process for forest restoration.

We are aware of only three studies (Beier 1998,

Germaine 1999, Gilihan 2000) that have examined

songbird communities in the context of ponderosa

forest restoration in the Southwest. However, other

studies have examined responses of breeding and

non-breeding songbirds to common silvicultural

prescriptions and among ponderosa age, size, and

vegetative structural stage classes in the Southwest.

Data from these studies are valuable for predicting

responses of various species and guilds to ponderosa forest restoration treatments.

• Beier (1998) collected 3 years’ data on

breeding bird abundance in ponderosa

forest preceding restoration treatments at

Mt. Trumbull, Arizona. He reported whitebreasted nuthatch, grace’s warbler,

mountain chickadee, pygmy nuthatch, and

western tanager as the five most abundant

species during the breeding season, and

noted brown-headed cowbirds as rare but

present. Beier (1998) also noted a preference by cavity nesters for snags, and six

bird species that demonstrated a preference for nesting in the largest trees

available.

• Germaine (1998) and Germaine and

Germaine (1999, 2000) also worked at Mt.

Trumbull, and collected 2-years’ pretreatment data on birds during the spring

(’98-’99) and fall (’99-’00) migration periods. The most abundant birds recorded

during spring migration were mountain

chickadee, yellow-rumped warbler, Grace’s

warbler, Steller’s jay, white-breasted

nuthatch, western tanager, and dark-eyed

junco; the most abundant birds during fall

migration were Steller’s jay, white-breasted

nuthatch, mountain chickadee, dark-eyed

junco, and western bluebird. Germaine

(1998) noted that sagebrush openings and

pinyon-juniper stands appeared to support

the lowest abundance of migrants, while

areas containing deciduous trees supported the highest abundance and

diversity of migrants. Germaine (unpub.

Data) also noted that overall bird abundance appeared higher during fall than in

spring.

• Gillihan (2000) examined short-term

responses of breeding birds to small (~ 40

ha) restoration plots on the San Juan

National Forest in southwestern Colorado.

He noted birds that were only found in

untreated forest (mourning dove, brown

creeper, hermit thrush, black-headed

grosbeak, band-tailed pigeon, northern

flicker, olive-sided flycatcher), while others

(northern goshawk, downy woodpecker,

ruby-crowned kinglet, plumbeous vireo,

orange-crowned warbler) were only found

in treated areas.

• All three studies noted the presence of

brown-headed cowbirds, and Germaine

(unpub. Data) and Gillihan (2000) both

noted higher abundances of cowbirds in

natural openings and treated areas than in

untreated forest. These observations are

important because nest parasitism by

cowbirds has caused significant declines in

some host species (Terborg 1989b).
182 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Some general trends were noted in these and other

studies:

• Bird diversity was higher in ponderosa

forests that had a deciduous component,

usually Gambel oak or aspen (Mannan and

Seigel 1988, Rosenstock 1998, Gillihan

2000).

• Bird community composition differed

between dense and more open forest

stands (whether natural or silviculturally

derived), with increases in ground foraging

and open area birds (chipping sparrows,

Cassin’s finches, western bluebirds and

several flycatchers) and decreases in dense

canopy or bark substrate foragers and

nesters (western flycatcher, pygmy

nuthatch, hermit thrush, black-headed

grosbeak, red-faced and Grace’s warblers)

as forests became more open (Szaro and

Balda 1979, 1986, Blake 1982, Mannan

and Seigel 1988, Gillihan 2000). In

general open forests had increased abundances of granivores and open-aerial

foragers and decreases in coniferous mid

and overstory nesters and canopy and

bark foragers.

• Bird density peaked in lightly thinned

stands and was lower both in uncut areas

and areas opened to the extent planned for

restoration treatments in the WUI (Szaro

and Balda 1979, 1986).

• Several forest bird species demonstrated

preferences for trees with old-growth

characteristics, if available (Mannan and

Seigel 1988, Beier 1998).

• Several forest bird species were less

abundant or absent from forest stands that

had been silviculturally thinned or burned

and contained no large trees demonstrating old-growth characteristics (Mannan

and Seigel 1988, Szaro and Balda 1979,

1986, Blake 1982).

Gaps in Knowledge of Forest Songbirds

and Restored Forest Habitat

Relationships

Limited information exists to date on songbird

responses specifically to ponderosa restoration

treatments. Existing studies in ponderosa forests

have demonstrated that birds respond to forest

thinning at both the population and community

levels, and suggest that forest restoration will affect

birds during the breeding, migration, and winter

seasons. Different restoration prescriptions will

retain different habitat features (e.g. varying ponderosa tree densities and diameters, volume of

midstory coniferous canopy, etc.), and will, therefore, likely retain songbird species in different

abundances. Songbird species diversity is highly

dependent on habitat structural diversity

(MacArthur and MacArthur 1961), and restoration

prescriptions that homogenize landscapes are likely

to support fewer species than those that strive for

structural heterogeneity. Therefore, gaining and

integrating information from a wide spectrum of

restoration treatments and seasons is vital to our

ability to manage for viable forest songbird populations in restored forest settings.

Breeding Songbirds

Breeding songbirds have specific habitat requirements for nesting and feeding (Szaro and Balda

1986, Rosenstock 1996) and are highly mobile,

making them good indicators of habitat quality.

However, it is not know where thresholds in appropriate habitat exist, and beyond which some species

may not be retained. This is an important

considersation because existing restoration prescriptions will alter forest habitats drastically and in a

short period of time. Treatment prescriptions that

aggressively open forest canopies may replace forestinterior birds species with ground foraging and

aerial flycatching species, but consideration to

volume and clumpiness of post-treatment coniferous

canopy may cause more forest-interior species to be

retained. Therefore, it is important to identify

breeding bird species retained in each treatment

prescription so that future prescriptions may be

applied in a coordinated manner allowing retention

of all breeding birds on our forest landscapes.

Migrating and Wintering Songbirds

Habitat requirements of passerine birds during

spring and fall migration are poorly understood, but

are known to include sites that afford high quality

foraging, predation avoidance, and roosting habitats

(Rappole 1995). Most long distance migrants

require highly specific types of stopover habitat, with

a large number of species using forested habitats

(Rappole 1995). Different restoration treatment

prescriptions are expected to vary in amounts of

insects, seeds, and fruits available and in amount

and type of foraging substrates retained in the lower,

mid, and over-story canopy. These changes in prey

base and forest structure have a great potential to
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 183

Appendix B • Research Proposals

alter the community composition and habitat use of

both wintering and spring and fall migrant bird

assemblages, but we do not yet know the relationship between different prescriptions and songbird

assemblages in these seasons.

Kachina Village Forest Health Project

The Kachina Village Forest Health Project is the

second of 10 proposed ~4,000 ha planning units

within the Flagstaff Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI),

as part of the Grand Canyon Forests Partnership

(USDA Forest Service 2000, 2001). This 4,217 ha

project is located on the Mormon Lake and Peaks

Ranger Districts, is located 6 km south of Flagstaff,

includes the communities of Kachina Village and

Forest Highlands, and will extend between Highways

89A and I-17 southward to the rim above Oak Creek

Canyon.

Multiple thinning prescriptions are proposed in

various treatment units in the Proposed Action for

this project. While each prescription proposed has

unique wildlife value and is therefore of monitoring

interest, we propose to focus on two prescriptions

which are extensive enough to ensure adequate

samples may be generated, and which most closely

represent WUI prescriptions likely to be applied

throughout the West: “Thinning from Below – North

of Kelly Canyon and Lower 89A Corridor” (hereafter

TBN), and “Thinning from Below – South of Kelly

Canyon” (hereafter TBS).

TBN will occur on 779 ha (1,923 ac) and will focus

on reducing wildfire risk by both reducing ladder

fuels and disconnecting the present continuous

crown canopy. Post-treatment target tree densities

range from 40-120 ft2 basal area, canopy closure

reduced to 40 to 50 percent, and mid-story canopy

base height raised to an average of 15 feet. Small

trees will be thinned around existing clumps of

larger trees, maintaining existing spatial structures.

Approximately 10 percent of the area will be managed as grassy openings located in areas where they

were likely to have occurred in the past. Gambel

oaks will not be cut.

TBS will occur on 674 ha (1,665 ac) south of Kelly

Canyon and in the Mexican Pocket area. This area

will be thinned with the objective of reducing wildfire

risk in a manner similar to TBN but will also retain

dense cover patches meant to enhance post-treatment wildlife value. Up to 25 percent of this area

will be retained in dense clumps of understory trees

with each clump exceeding 35 trees/clump, and

clumps ranging in size from 0.04-0.4 ha (1/10th to 1

ac). Clumps will retain closed canopies with interlocking limbs and foliage. The forest surrounding

clumps will be thinned to 40-100 ft2 basal area. The

combination of closed and open forest types proposed for TBS is expected to enhance wildlife value

for species requiring dense patches of cover and

those associated with ponderosa savannahs. Grassy

openings and Gambel oaks will be managed in the

same manner as in TBN.

Objectives of this Proposal

The Proposed Action for the Kachina Village Forest

Health Project includes a Purpose and Need to

“research and demonstrate key

ecological.....dimensions of forest health improvement efforts” (page 10) and Administrative and

Strategic Direction to “encourage research and

monitoring....to evaluate the effects of the project”

(USDA Forest Service 2001; page 3). We have

described why forest songbirds are an excellent

choice for evaluating the effects of restoration

treatments planned for the Kachina Village Block,

and propose to collect reliable data with which to

demonstrate songbird responses to restoration and

with which to compare effects of this treatment

prescription to other existing prescriptions (e.g.

those at Mt. Trumbull, Fort Valley, etc.). Our

objectives are to monitor breeding and non-breeding

songbirds in each treatment prescription to identify

the ability of songbird species to persist among

various treatment types. This monitoring will result

in reliable information and recommendations for

restoration applications within the Flagstaff WUI

and elsewhere in ponderosa forests in the Southwest.

Specific Objectives:

• To compare pre- and post-treatment

songbird communities among areas:

• scheduled to receive thinning-frombelow restoration treatments that do

not retain dense cover patches (TBN);

• scheduled to receive thinning-frombelow restoration treatments that

retain dense cover patches (TBS, as

described above);

• adjacent areas of similar vegetation to

serve as controls;

• near (< 150 m) and far (>250 m) from

untreated canyon forest habitat; and,

• containing low (< 25 percent of

expected range) and high (>75

percent of expected range) percent

composition of Gambel oak presence.
184 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Design and Procedures

Objective 1: To survey songbird communities in pretreatment and control areas during winter, migration,

and breeding periods.

Procedure 1.1 - Pre-treatment songbird

data collection

a. We will conduct modified point counts

(area-constrained surveys) at 150 points

distributed evenly among TBN, TBS, and

Control (CTRL) forest habitat during spring

migration (April-early May), breeding

season (late May-early July), and winter

(Jan-Feb) of 2002-2003, contingent upon

project implementation scheduling and

available funding. Survey points will be

separated by ≥200 m, will be >100 m from

the treatment edges (other than canyons,

described below), and will be surveyed

between 0530 and 1000 hours for breeding

birds, and 0630 and 1200 hours for

migrating and wintering birds, on days

with minimal wind and no precipitation.

Three visits of 8 minutes duration each will

be made to each point during each survey

period, with recorded survey data constrained to within 75 m of each point.

b. Species of, and distance to each individual

bird detected visually or aurally will be

recorded during surveys by field technicians experienced in bird censusing.

Abundance values for each species at each

point in each season will be the highest

number of individuals recorded during any

of the three visits/season.

c. Data will be summarized within each

seasonal survey period, and will consist of

evenness within guilds, with guilds defined

by foraging and nesting substrate use.

Both guild and indicator species analysis

suffer the possibility of misrepresenting

member species. Therefore, intra-guild

membership and relative abundance of

each species will be tracked among CTRL,

TBN, and TBS.

d. In each forest type (TBN, TBS, CTRL),

survey points will be distributed such that

25 points fall within 150 m of canyon

edges and 25 points fall beyond 250 m

from canyon edges. Contingent upon our

ability to find areas having a Gambel oak

basal area >10 and areas having no oak

within each distance class (near and far

from canyons), survey points will be

distributed such that 12-13 in each

distance class are in stands containing

Gambel oak and 12-13 points in areas

containing no Gambel oak. All points will

be placed to avoid the influence of preexisting meadow openings.

Objective 2: To describe habitat characteristics

among pre-treatment forest types.

Procedure 2.1 – Measure pre-treatment

habitat characteristics

a. To determine pre-treatment forest structural conditions influential to forest

songbirds we will measure forest structural

characteristics on all treatment and

control survey plots in 0.1 ha (.25 ac) plots

centered on survey points. We will measure diameter at breast height (dbh) of all

trees >2.5 cm dbh in two 6 m wide belts

running N-S and E-W across plots. We will

record percent deciduous, coniferous,

midstory, and overstory canopy closure at

40 points distributed about the plot, and

will index ground cover vegetation density

≤2.5 m in height using a density board.

These measurements will be made for

describing pre-existing differences among

treatment and control areas, and will not

be used in analyses of bird variables

among treatment/control areas.

Objective 3: To survey songbird communities in posttreatment and control areas during winter, migration,

and breeding periods.

Procedure 3.1 – Post-treatment songbird

data collection

a. Bird survey and vegetative data will be

collected during the first 2 years posttreatment at the same points and in the

same manner as described in Procedure

1.1.

Objective 4: To describe post-treatment habitat

characteristics among treatment types.

Procedure 4.1 – Measure post-treatment

habitat characteristics

a. To determine post-treatment forest structural conditions pertinent to forest

songbirds we will measure forest structural

characteristics on all treatment and

control survey plots in the same manner as
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 185

Appendix B • Research Proposals

described in Procedure 2.1. Again, these

measurements will be made for describing

differences among post-treatment and

control areas, and will not be used in

analyses of bird variables among treatment/control areas.

Objective 5: To compare effects of TBN and TBS

restoration treatments to control areas.

Procedure 5.1 – Assess effects of restoration treatments on TBN, TBS, and CTRL areas.

a. For bird guilds, the difference between TBS

pre-treatment – TBS post-treatment, TBN

pre-treatment – TBN post-treatment, and

CTRL pre-treatment – CTRL post-treatment

will be examined in an ANOVA modification of the B-A-C-I-P (Stewart-Oaten et al.

1992) design. The ANOVA will include

tests for interaction effects among treatment type x distance from untreated

canyon habitat and treatment type x oak

composition, under:

a. Ho1: the difference between pre- and

post-treatment songbird guild membership is equal among TBN, TBS,

and CTRL areas; and,

b. Ho2: no interaction effects among

treatment type, distance from canyon

habitat, or oak composition.

Benefits to Adaptive Management

While wildlife concerns continue to dominate professional and legal debates concerning WUI fire risk

reduction and forest restoration, information on

effects of treatments on wildlife is presently extremely limited. The information we propose to

generate will directly address this problem. Further,

true adaptive forest management cannot proceed in

an informed manner without wildlife effects information. The information we propose to generate will

enlighten debates on compatibilities and incompatibilities between individual treatment prescriptions

and numerous response groups of wildlife, will

identify wildlife species warranting concern in future

treatments, and ultimately will be of great value in

guiding the placement of various treatment prescriptions on forest landscapes, in WUI’s and elsewhere.

Project Partners: Partners include the Coconino

National Forest, Grand Canyon Trust, Arizona Game

and Fish Department, and other members of the

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership.

Budget

While we feel it is important to collect songbird

information during the three seasons described in

this document, we present funding options for

including 1, 2, or all 3 proposed survey seasons.

Funding Alternatives

Year 1 Breeding Breed & Breed,

Spring Spring,

Winter

GS 20 Spec. III $3,784.86 $3,784.86 $3,784.86

GS 19 Spec. II $15,078.00 $23,694.00 $30,874.00

GS 16 Technician $3,727.50 $7,455.00 $8,520.00

Overhead $3,000.05 $4,639.29 $5,734.24

Vehicle $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00

AOO $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Equipment $5,850.00 $5,850.00 $5,850.00

Year 1 Total: $37,440.36 $52,423.15 $62,763.10

Years 2 & 3

GS 20 Spec. III $3,784.86 $3,784.86 $3,784.86

GS 19 Spec. II $15,078.00 $23,694.00 $30,874.00

GS 16 Technician $3,727.50 $7,455.00 $8,520.00

Overhead $3000.05 $4,639.29 $5,734.24

Vehicle $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00

AOO $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00

Year 2: $31,590.41 $46,573.15 $56,913.10

Year 3: $31,590.41 $46,573.15 $56,913.10

Year 4

GS 20 Spec. III $3,784.86 $3,784.86 $3,784.86

GS 19 Spec. II $37,336.00 $37,336.00 $37,336.00

GS 16 Technician $3,727.50 $7,455.00 $8,520.00

Overhead $5,955.96 $6,450.98 $6,592.41

Vehicle $4,000.00 $5,000.00 $6,000.00

AOO $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00

Total: $58,304.32 $63,526.84 $65,733.27

* We are investigating the possibility of using Northern Arizona

Audubon members to assist in bird surveys, at a cost reduction

of up to $10,000/yr. However, we are weighing savings versus

scientific data collection quality tradeoffs.
186 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Literature Cited

Beier, P. 1998. Bird abundance and diversity prior

to restoration treatments for old-growth

ponderosa pine. Final Report – Arizona Game

and Fish Department Heritage grant 196008.

Blake, J.G. 1982. Influence of fire and logging on

nonbreeding bird communities of ponderosa

pine forests. Journal of Wildlife Management

46:404-415.

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure:

Changes since Euro-American settlement.

Journal of Forestry 92:39-47.

______________, P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, S.C. Hart,

T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sacket, and M.R.

Wagner. 1997. Restoring ecosystem health in

ponderosa pine forests of the Southwest.

Journal of Forestry 95:23-29.

Finch, D.M., J.L. Ganey, W. Yong, R.T. Kimball, and

R. Sallabanks. 1997. Effects and interactions

of fire, logging, and grazing. Pages 103-136 in

Block, W.M. and D.M. Finch eds., Songbird

ecology in southwestern ponderosa pine

forests: A literature review. Rocky Mountain

Forest and Range Experimental Station General Technical Report RM-GTR-292. Fort

Collins, CO.

Germaine, S.S. 1998. Short-term wildlife responses

to ponderosa pine forest restoration treatments

in the Mount Trumbull area, Arizona. Annual

Progress Report, Arizona Game and Fish

Department. Phoenix, AZ. 30 pp.

Germaine, H.L. and S.S. Germaine. 1999. Shortterm wildlife responses to ponderosa pine

forest restoration treatments in the Mount

Trumbull area, Arizona. Annual Progress

Report, Arizona Game and Fish Department.

Phoenix, AZ. 20 pp.

 . 2000. Short-term wildlife responses

to ponderosa pine forest restoration treatments

in the Mount Trumbull area, Arizona. Annual

Progress Report, Arizona Game and Fish

Department. Phoenix, AZ. 21 pp.

Gillihan, S.W. 2000. Avian responses to ponderosa

pine ecosystem restoration. Final report to the

Southwestern Colorado Wildlife Research

Committee and the Colorado Natural Areas

Program.

James, F.C. 1971. Ordination of habitat relationships among breeding birds. Wilson Bulletin

83:215-236.

Johnson, M. A. 1994. Changes in southwestern

forests: stewardship implications. Journal of

Forestry 92:16-19.

MacArthur, R.H. and J.W. MacArthur. 1961. On

bird species diversity. Ecology 42:594-598.

Mannan, R.W. and J.J. Seigel. 1988. Bird populations and vegetation characteristics in

immature and old-growth ponderosa pine

forests, northern Arizona. Final Report,

Reference G500016, School of Renewable

Natural Resources, University of Arizona,

Tucson, AZ.

Mast, J.N., P.Z. Fule, M.M. Moore, W.W. Covington,

and A.E.M. Waltz. 1999. Restoration of

presettlement age structure of an Arizona

ponderosa pine forest. Ecological Applications

9:228-239.

Moir, W.H., B.W. Geils, M.A. Benoit, and D.

Scurlock. 1997. Ecology of southwestern

ponderosa pine forests. Pages 3-27 in Block,

W.M. and D.M. Finch eds., Songbird ecology in

southwestern ponderosa pine forests: A literature review. Rocky Mountain Forest and Range

Experimental Station General Technical Report

RM-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO.

Moore, M.M., W.W. Covington, and P.Z. Fule. 1999.

Reference conditions and ecological restoration: A southwestern ponderosa pine

perspective. Ecological Applications 9:1266-

1277.

Rappole, J.H. 1995. The Ecology of Migrant Birds:

A Neotropical Perspective. Smithsonian

Institution Press, Washington D.C.

Rosenstock, S.S. 1996. Habitat relationships of

breeding birds in northern Arizona ponderosa

pine and pine-oak forests. Arizona Game and

Fish Dept. Technical Report 23, Phoenix.

____________. 1998. Influence of Gambel oak on

breeding birds in ponderosa pine forests of

northern Arizona. Condor 100:485-492.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 187

Appendix B • Research Proposals

Scurlock, D. and D.M. Finch. 1997. A historical

overview. Pages 43-68 in Block, W.M. and D.M.

Finch eds., Songbird ecology in southwestern

ponderosa pine forests: A literature review.

Rocky Mountain Forest and Range Experimental Station General Technical Report

RM-GTR-292. Fort Collins, CO.

Stewart-Oaten, A. J.R. Bence, and C.W. Osenberg.

1992. Assessing effects of unreplicated perturbations: no simple solutions. Ecology

73:1396-1404.

Szaro, R.C. and R.P. Balda. 1986. Relationships

among weather, habitat structure, and ponderosa pine forest birds. Journal of Wildlife

Management 50:253-260.

_________ and R.P. Balda. 1979. Effects of harvesting ponderosa pine on nongame bird

populations. USDA Forest Service Research

Paper RM-212, Rocky Mountain Forest and

Range Experimental Station, Flagstaff, AZ.

Terborg, J. 1989a. Where have all the birds gone?

Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Princeton, NJ.

Terborg, J. 1989b. Perspectives on the conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Pages

7-12 in J.M. Hagan III and D.W. Johnson, eds.,

Ecology and conservation of neotropical

migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution

Press, Washington, D.C.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Fort Valley ecosystem

restoration project environmental assessment.

Coconino National Forest Supervisor’s Office,

Flagstaff, Arizona, USA.

Wagner, M.R., W.M. Block, B.W. Geils, and K.F.

Wenger. 2000. Restoration ecology: A new

forest management paradigm, or another merit

badge for foresters? Journal of Forestry 22-27.
188 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix B • Research Proposals
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 

Appendix C • Maps 
190 

Appendix C • Maps
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 
192 

Appendix C • Maps
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 193

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
194 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 195

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
196 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 197

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
198 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 199

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
200 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix D • Visual Simulation Report
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 201

Appendix E • Key Standards and Guidelines, Appendix E • Key Standards and Guidelines, Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan

Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan

The general standards and guidelines that were key

to developing the Kachina Village Forest Health

Project are described here, however, this is not an

entire list of standards and guidelines of the Forest

Plan. Standard and guideline compliance reports for

the Proposed Action are located in the project record

file (Chapter L). Key standards and guidelines

include:

• Hold fires to 10 acres or less per fire start.

The zone is the WUI and an area up to 10

miles long in a southwesterly direction

from WUI areas (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 93).

• “...high intensity crown fires are not

acceptable in [northern goshawk] postfamily fledging family areas or nest areas.”

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

65-11.)

• Work toward the recovery and de-listing of

threatened and endangered species

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

23). “Heavy accumulations of ground and

ladder fuels have rendered many southwestern forests vulnerable to

stand-replacing fires...reduce these fuels

and abate fire risks” (Mexican Spotted Owl

Recovery Plan).

• Standards for northern goshawk habitat

call for sustaining a mosaic of vegetative

densities (overstory and understory), age

classes, and species composition across

the landscape. (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 65-7).

• Strive to create or sustain as much oldgrowth compositional, structural, and

functional flow as possible over time at

multiple-area and scales (Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p. 70-1).

• Northern goshawk habitat: Manage for old

age trees such that as much old forest

structure as possible is sustained over

time across the landscape (Coconino

National Forest Plan, 1996, p. 65-7).

• Follow distribution of age/size tree classes

per habitat guidelines for the Mexican

spotted owl and the northern goshawk

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, pp.

65-1 to 65-11).

• Seek to develop or retain old-growth

function on at least 20 percent of the

naturally forested area by forest type in

any landscape (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 70-1).

• For Mexican spotted owl Restricted Habitat: Attempt to mimic natural disturbance

patterns by incorporating natural variation, such as irregular tree spacing and

various patch sizes...Allow natural canopy

gap processes to occur, thus producing

horizontal variation in stand structure

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

65-4).

• Manage habitat to maintain viable populations of wildlife and fish species and

improve habitat for selected species

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

22-1).

• ROS classes are used in developing decisions on road standards and density.

Total acres of any ROS class are allowed to

change no more than +/- 15 percent from

the updated inventoried levels during the

first decade (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 51).

• Emphasize maintaining some thermal

cover in known wildlife corridors and

bedding areas (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 124).

• Dispersed areas are kept clean for aesthetics, health, and safety. Areas damaged to

use are closed and restored as necessary

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

57).

• Criteria for closures to off-road driving are

described on pages 58-59 of the Coconino

National Forest Plan (1996) and include

sensitive soils, wildlife, visual quality,

water quality, and wetlands.

• Maintain current satisfactory watershed

conditions and improve any unsatisfactory

conditions to satisfactory by 2020

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

74).

• At least 25 percent of those riparian areas

currently classified as “unsatisfactory” will

be in satisfactory condition by 2000

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

73).
202 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix E • Key Standards and Guidelines, Coconino National Forest Land Management Plan

• “...areas may be seasonally closed to

provide opportunities for recreation in a

setting...toward the primitive end of the

[ROS] spectrum” (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 59).

• “Implement off-road driving restrictions in

areas where roads are closed or

obliterated...to prevent reopening...”

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

60).

• Northern goshawk habitat: Manage road

densities at the lowest level possible

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

65-11).

• Manage road densities to achieve an

average of 2 miles per section in the

ponderosa pine/mixed conifer zone

(Coconino National Forest Plan, 1996, p.

89).

• Evaluate the extent to which insect and

disease control measures are needed to

protect either the suitable [timber base] or

unsuitable areas (Coconino National Forest

Plan, 1996, p. 70).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 203

Appendix F • Landscape Character Appendix F • Landscape Character

Landscape character analysis is mostly concerned

with long-term, indirect effects of landscape management activities. The landscape character issue

relevant to the Kachina area analysis is the extent to

which changes in forest composition, such as those

proposed in the EIS, will affect the inherent aesthetic qualities of the area landscape.

The landscape of the Kachina Project area lies

completely within the “Flagstaff Character Type”

zone, a contiguous geographic area with common

visual characteristics resulting from common

ecological characteristics. Scenic characteristics

identified for the Flagstaff Character Type in general

and which occur within the Kachina Project area are

outlined in Landscape Character Types of the

National Forests in Arizona and New Mexico (USDA

Forest Service Southwestern Region, supplement to

FSH 462.1989-676-727).

The Kachina Project area occupies a small portion of

the south edge of the San Francisco plateau, which

is part of the Colorado plateau dominated by the

San Francisco Mountain. Steep canyons in the

south portion dissect the gentle terrain. These

canyons become shallow in the northern areas. The

canyons are often rimmed with columnar basalt

cliffs that are atop sandstone cliffs in the deepest

canyon sections. The seasonally flowing streams in

the canyon bottoms create cascades and pools

during their flow seasons, with remnant pools

persisting well into the drier seasons. In places, the

bedrock has been sculpted by water leaving interesting and unique rock forms in the stream channel.

The canyon vegetation generally contrasts with

vegetation on top of the plateau, reflecting the

contrast between canyon and plateau microclimates.

Within the canyon walls, the vegetation is often

highly varied and distinct, with deciduous trees

such as aspen, oak, alder, and maple interspersed

with conifers such as Douglas-fir and pinyon pine

that create diverse vegetation patterns that change

seasonally.

The ponderosa pine forest on the plateau above the

canyons contains small remnants of the historic

forest condition described in early accounts of the

area. Historic accounts and photos describe a

relatively open landscape dominated by large

“yellow barked” ponderosa pine trees in huge grassy

“parks” and also patches of pine and oak in a

grassland matrix. A profusion of grasses and

herbaceous vegetation covered most of the ground

and very little brushy vegetation existed. Small

grassy or boulder-strewn openings were interspersed

throughout the more heavily forested areas.

Ecologists believe that the extensive pine forest of

the Colorado plateau has only existed since the time

of the last ice age, approximately 10,000 years ago.

Before 10,000 years ago it is believed that spruce

trees dominated the forest of the plateau. It is

likely that the landscape character of the area

changed little prior to European settlement. European settlement brought with it landscape

management practices, such as intensive grazing,

logging, and fire suppression, that have resulted in

the present forest scenic condition.

Most forest stands throughout the Colorado plateau

changed dramatically in appearance over a period

that started around 1880 and continues today. The

open pine parks, dominated by large, yellow-barked

ponderosa pine, have given way in most places to

more dense stands of smaller, black barked ponderosa pine trees such as those predominant in the

Kachina analysis area. The present Colorado

plateau forest stand typically has many more trees

and more forest litter, such as pine needles, limbs,

pine cones, and logs, and much less grass and

herbaceous ground cover; and appears much more

dense and shaded, than the pre-European forest.

The rapid change in landscape character over the

past century contrasts snapshots of two very different characteristic landscapes, one that evolved for

thousands of years and one that has come into

dominance within the past century and a half. The

contrast in the appearance between the two represents a range of variability in both ecological

processes and in the resultant scenic values. Recent years have shown the visible result of larger

and more numerous forest fires on forest landscapes, compelling us to consider large burned over

areas as also within the “natural” range of variability

for forest landscapes.

The denser tree cover that presently exists limits

visibility, while the forest floor is often covered in

several inches of forest litter that tends to exclude

herbaceous vegetation and grasses. The profusion

of small pine trees limits the viability and life span

of the remaining large trees, both pine and oak, as

described elsewhere in this EIS. The crowding

reduces the growth rate of trees throughout entire

stands so that the rate at which trees become larger

and more valuable scenic elements slows at the
204 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Appendix F • Landscape Character

same time that crowding reduces the number of

remnant large trees. The prevalence of small trees

obscures the presence and dominance of the large

trees, diminishing their large scale and muting the

intensity of their bark and foliage color. The resulting scenic character is more limited in scope, often

confined to only a few contiguous acres or less, with

relatively little variety of plant life visible on the

forest floor. The result is that the scenic value of the

Kachina area landscape is diminishing as the

dominance of smaller trees progresses and the

vegetative pattern becomes visibly less diverse.

Research suggests that most people prefer the

appearance of a more open forest with less forest

litter and more ground cover plants visible. Most

people also prefer the presence of larger trees in

general and of large “yellow bark” ponderosa pine in

particular.

Scenic integrity is a measure of the degree to which

a landscape is visually perceived to be “complete.”

Scenic integrity analysis is used primarily to address

the direct effects of activities on the landscape.

Activities affecting scenic integrity for the Kachina

Project include visible evidence of proposed thinning

activities such as slash, skid trails, and stumps, as

well as evidence of recreational activities such as fire

rings, off road trails, site compaction, and litter.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project 205

Index

A

Abert Squirrel. . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 45, 111, 112

Aesthetics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Air Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

B

Bald Eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 46, 95

Bark Beetles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69, 70

Basal Area . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 9, 26, 27, 28, 90

Black-footed Ferret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Broadcast Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . 13, 53, 57, 68, 76, 96, 98, 103

C

Camping . . . . . . . . 6, 47, 75, 78, 81, 83, 98

Camping and Campfires . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Canopy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 61, 77, 78

Canopy Closure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85, 87, 97

Canopy Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Crown Fire . . . . . . . . . 26, 43, 49, 54, 62, 63

Cultural Resources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

Cultural Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

D

Dwarf Mistletoe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 67, 69

E

Economic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42, 120

Elk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 111, 113

F

Fire Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 61

Fishes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

Flagstaff Beardtongue. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Flagstaff Pennyroyal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Flame Length . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 42, 61, 63

Forest Fragmentation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Forest Highlands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 16

Forest Road . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 73, 96

Forest Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Forest Vegetation Simulator . . . . . . 26, 67, 68

Fry Canyon 6th Code Watershed. . . . . . . . . 74

Fuel Reduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 65

Fuel Treatment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 66

G

Gambel Oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 21, 46, 67

Grand Canyon Forests Partnership. . . . . . . . 2

Grass/forb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Griffith Spring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Ground Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55, 75, 77

Growth Rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68, 71

H

Habitat Quality Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Hairy Woodpecker. . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 111, 114

I

Infestation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Intensive Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 39, 40, 62

Invertebrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

J

Jaguar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

James Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

K

Kachina Village. . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 16, 39, 40

Kelly Canyon . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 9, 39, 41, 43

Kelly Seep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 76

L

Landscape Character . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52, 56

Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 103

M

Mature Ponderosa Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 60

Mexican Pocket . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 16, 41

Mexican Spotted Owl . . . . . . . 5, 8, 13, 20, 97

Migratory Bird . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118

Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 22

Mule Deer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 111, 115

N

Navajo Mountain Mexican Vole . . . . . . . . . 100

Northern Goshawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . 5, 8, 20, 45, 84, 102, 111, 114

Noxious Weeds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Index
206 Draft Environmental Impact Statement for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Index

O

Oak Creek 5th Code Watershed . . . . . . . . . 74

Old-growth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9, 42, 89, 97

Openings . . . . . . . . 6, 40, 46, 54, 70, 72, 88

P

Peregrine Falcon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 101

Pile Burning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57, 76

Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 76

Ponderosa Pine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Prescribed Fire Without Thinning . . . . . 23, 24

Pumphouse 6th Code Watershed . . . . . . . . 74

Pumphouse Wash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Pygmy Nuthatch . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 112, 116

R

Recreation Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80, 82

Research and Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Riparian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 16

Riparian Restoration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 47, 107

S

Scenic Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51, 56

Slash Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Snags . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 103

Soil . . . . . 9, 36, 42, 44, 47, 72, 74, 78, 79

Soil and Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Soil and Watershed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

T

Taylor Woods Research Plots . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Temporary Road . . . . . . 9, 12, 35, 36, 44, 76

Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units . . . 72

Thinning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96, 98

Thinning from Below . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Thinning Systems. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Trail . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 16, 47, 78, 81, 82, 107

Turkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 20, 45, 112, 116

V

Vegetative Structural Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

. . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 67, 84, 85, 102, 103

Visual Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Visual Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Visual Simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

W

Water . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 78, 79

Watershed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46, 47, 72, 74

Wildland-Urban Interface . . . . . . . . 11, 60, 65

Wildlife Movement Corridor . . . . . . . . . 13, 47

Wildlife Travel Corridor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Y

Yellow Pines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Yellow-barked Trees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3, 12