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:

Alternative A reduces fire risk by balancing
human influences, fire occurrence, wildlife
habitat, and watershed health through
management of recreational use and
access. Alternative A will manage for
dispersed camping by designating
campsites along Forest Roads 237 and 535
where areas have been treated to reduce
crown fire potential. Designated camping
will occur away from sensitive wildlife
habitats (canyon edges). Alternative A
manages for good administrative access for
firefighting and provides the best
arrangement of roads to balance fire risk
(human access) and the recreation
experience.

(3) Public Involvement and Input

I have carefully considered all the public comments
received through this environmental analysis. In
addition to the response to comments sections in the
FEIS, I have incorporated feedback on the comments
by making corrections and adding clarification to the
FEIS, developing two new alternatives, as well as
providing the rationale for my decision in this ROD.

Significant issues raised for the KVFHP were
identified through public scoping. The six
significant issues were used to develop management
alternatives, mitigation measures and monitoring
requirements (40 CFR 1500.4g, 1500.5d,
1501.7(2,3), 1502.2b). In addition, during public
scoping, I was asked to consider environmental
protection measures related to retaining the largest
trees, leaving unthinned patches, not clear cutting,
thinning to variable densities, closing roads,
cleaning up slash piles, protecting soils and
understory growth, lessening the spread of noxious
weeds, protecting wildlife habitat, monitoring our
activities, and working in an adaptive management
approach. These suggestions are addressed in my
decision through (1) project design; (2) mitigation
measures; (3) integration of specific Best
Management Practices; (4) integration and
consistency with applicable forest plan management
direction; and (5) through contract specifications/
clauses,

There are two topics brought up during scoping and
during the review of the DEIS that I want to touch
on specifically:

16” Cutting Diameter: Many comments
focused on the desire that we not thin
ponderosa pine trees greater than 16
inches in diameter. Comments expressed
that thinning of larger diameter ponderosa
pine would impact future old-growth
(discussed previously) and that the
removal of larger ponderosa pine is for
economic gain and is in conflict with
ecosystem health. My decision allows for
cutting trees greater than 16 inches in
diameter for these purposes: creating
grassy openings, enhancing existing forest
openings, enhancing growth and health of
larger ponderosa pine to promote future
old-growth, and reducing fire potential
(FEIS, page 28). Nowhere in the document
do we state that our purpose and need is
economic, however thinning of trees
greater than 16 inches may result in some
economic gain. I view the commercial
value as a byproduct of sound ecological
restoration. The economic section in the
FEIS displays that Alternative A will cost
nearly 1 million dollars to implement. We
have the ability to use a goods for service
contract to implement this project as
Congress has authorized this type of
contract for our use because the GFFP is a
National Stewardship Pilot. This type of
contract allows for dollars generated from
the thinning to pay for ecological
restoration projects, such as rehabilitating
and closing roads, monitoring, and
constructing trails. This project is not
about economic gain, however, economic
gain from Alternative A will assist in paying
for the entire ecological restoration project.

Potential for Appeals and Litigation:
Many comments from the DEIS asked that
I select an alternative with the least chance
of appeal and/or litigation so that the
project could be implemented as soon as
possible. Any alternative that I select is
subject to administrative review (appeal
under 36 CFR 215) and/or litigation. I
chose Alternative A based on the factors
listed above supported through the
environmental analysis. My decision is not
based on whether an alternative has a risk
of being appealed or litigated.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

')



My decision does not extend onto private lands.
Through the GFFP and private landowners, other
fuels reduction efforts may be planned and
implemented to further reduce and address fuels
around homes and other private values.

Mitigation and Monitoring
Requirements

As part of my decision to select and implement
‘Alternative A, | am also incorporating the following
project design, mitigation, and monitoring measures.
These measures focus on items/tasks that were
incorporated into the design of Alternative A and/or
will be incorporated into the implementation of an
activity (identified in a contract, burn plan,
silvicultural marking prescriptions, etc.), These
measures address effects of project activities on soil
and water, wildlife, vegetation, recreation, and visual
quality.

In addition, the FEIS (pp. 22) identified research and
monitoring projects proposed by the Arizona Game
and Fish Department, Ecological Restoration
Institute/Northern Arizona University (NAU) and the
USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station. These
studies are not required mitigation or monitoring for
purposes of addressing environmental effects so my
decision does not require them to be completed.
However, 1 support these research and monitoring
projects and will continue to commit to working with
these groups to actively search for funding to
support them. Possible research studies include
Mexican spotted owl studies to examine the effects
of fuel reduction treatments: plack 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 GFFP projects.

Soil and Watershed Protection

Best Management Practices (BMP’s) will be
incorporated into activities as a means of preventing
or reducing the amount of pollution generated by
nonpoint sources to a level compatible with water
quality goals. BMP’s will be incorporated into all
project activities. BMP’s are located in the project
record file (PRD 137c).

Wildlife and Vegetation Protection
Bald Eagle

e in known winter roost areas, snags and

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)
© No activities, including thinning, broadcast

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

large yellow pine trees will have the duff
raked away from the tree bases before
broadcast burning where litter depth
layers exceed 12 inches.

Implement a 300-foot radius no cut buffer
around known bald eagle winter roosts
(Coconino National Forest Plan, 2001, p-
123). This will be amended thru FLEA,
and new direction should be followed if a
Bald eagle winter roost is located.
Currently there are no known winter roost
sites.

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
poundary, is used for roosting by bald ‘
eagles. )

There will be no project activities
conducted within a quarter mile of known
bald eagle winter roost areas between
October 15 and April 15.

burning, or new trail construction will
occur within PAC’s during the breeding
season (March 1 to August 31).

Any burning outside PAC’s during the MSO
preeding season will be designed to
minimize smoke impacts on the PAC’S.

Mandatory Impact Minimization
Measures to protect Mexican spotted
owl (USDI Fish and Wildlife Service
2001):

Protected Areas (MSO)

e No harvest of trees >9 inches dbh is
allowed in PAC’s. Harvest of any trees
is only permitted as described in USDI
Fish and Wildlife Service 2001.

e  Fuelwood harvest within PAC’s should
be managed in such a way as to
minimize effects to the owl and its
prey, and their habitats



For this project, all of the action alternatives provide
protection to the environment by their design,
management requirements, and built-in mitigations.
All action alternatives comply with NEPA’s purpose
and spirit.

Administrative Review
or Appeal Opportunities

This decision is subject to appeal in accordance with
36 CFR 215.7 (a). Any written appeal must be
postmarked or otherwise received by the Appeal
Deciding Officer, Harv Forsgren, Regional Forester,
USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, 333
Broadway Blvd., SE, Albuquerque, NM 87102, 45
days from the date of publication of the legal notice
in the “Arizona Daily Sun,” Flagstaff, Arizona.
Persons wishing to participate must meet the
requirements of 36 CFR 215.11. Notices of appeal
must meet the specific content requirements of 36
CFR 215.14.

16

Implementation Date

This project will be implemented five business days
after the close of the appeal period, if no appeals are
filed. In the event of an appeal, implementation may
take place 15 days following an appeal decision.

Contact Person

For additional information concerning this decision
or the Forest Service appeal process, contact Tammy
Randall-Parker, Interdisciplinary Team Leader.
Coconino National Forest, 5075 North Highway 89,
Flagstaff, AZ 86004, (928) 526-0866.

/s/ JAMES W. GOLDEN January 9, 2003

JAMES W. GOLDEN Date
Forest Supervisor
Coconino National Forest

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 2003-573-356/34065



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 l acre. The
district wildlife biologist along with timber staff will
assume responsibility for the completion of the task.

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 PACs, following recovery
guidelines, Fuels specialists and the district wildlife
biologist will be responsible for completing the task.

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 the completion of the task.

Herbaceous Understory Recovery

The annual operating instructions 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. 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.

Microhabitat Monitoring for Mexican
Spotted Owls

Microhabitat monitoring will be conducted according
to standard protocol as identified by Forest Service
Region 3 direction.

Partnerships and Public
Involvement

Greater Flagstaff 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 Greater Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP).

Public Scoping

The KVFHP 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 quarterly. The proposed action was mailed
to approximately 100 addresses.

A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was
published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2001.
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. In June 2001, a
scoping letter including the proposed action sought
public comment and was mailed to approximately
100 individuals, agencies, and groups. An
announcement regarding the project was printed in
the “Arizona Daily Sun” on March 30, 2001.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

J



Ww

Continue to work with the USFWS and
the recovery plan to develop a
monitoring program that assesses the
combined effects of thinning and fire
on spotted owls and their habitat.

© Ideally, a paired sample of PAC’s
should be selected to serve as
control areas.

o Within each selected PAC,
designate 100 acres centered
around the nest site. This nest area
should include habitat that
resembles the structural and
floristic characteristics of the nest
site. These 100 acres will be
deferred from the treatments
described below.

o Within the remaining 500 acres,
combinations of thinning trees <9
inches dbh, treatment of fuels, and
prescribed fire can be used to
reduce fire hazard and improve
habitat conditions for owl prey.
Habitat components that should be
retained or enhanced include large
logs (>12 inches midpoint
diameter), grasses and forbs, and
shrubs. Emphasis of the spatial
configuration of treatments should
be to mimic natural mosaic
patterns when consistent with fire
risk reduction objectives.

o Treatments should only occur
during the nonbreeding season
(September1 to February 28) to
minimize any potential deleterious
effects on the owl during the
breeding season.

0 Following treatments to the PAC’s,
effects on the owl, prey species, and
their habitats should be assessed.
If such effects are non-negative, an
additional sample of PAC’s may be
treated. If negative effects are
detected, these effects must be
carefully evaluated. If they can be
ameliorated by modifying
treatments, those modifications
should occur prior to treatment of
additional PAC’s, If not, reinitiate
consultation with the USFWS.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

° Within PAC’s treated to reduce fire risk,
pre- and post-treatment assessments
of habitat conditions and owl
occupancy should be done. Specific
habitat characteristics that should be
monitored include fuel levels, canopy
cover, snag basal area, volume of large
logs (12 inch midpoint diameter), and
live tree basal area.

* No aerial ignition within PAC’s

Steep Slopes Outside of PAC’s

° Within mixed-conifer and pine-oak
types, allow no harvest of trees >9
inches on any slopes >40 percent where
timber harvest has not occurred in the
past 20 years. These guidelines also
apply to the bottoms of steep canyons.
Thinning of trees <9 inches dbh,
treatment of fuels, and fire are allowed,
as described in USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service 2001. No seasonal restrictions
apply. Prescribed natural fire and the
creation of firebreaks may be used as
appropriate. On steep slopes treated to
reduce fire risk, either by the use of
prescribed fire alone or in conjunction
with removal of stems and ground
fuels, pre- and post-treatment
monitoring of habitat conditions should
be done. Specific habitat characteristics
to be measured include fuel levels, snag
basal area, volume of large logs (>12
inch midpoint diameter), and live tree
basal area.

Restricted Areas: These measures

should be followed whenever consistent

with risk reduction objectives (MSO)

° Manage mixed-conifer and pine-oak
forest types to provide continuous
replacement nest habitat over space
and time (Table III.B.1 of spotted owl
recovery plan).

* Incorporate natural variation, such as
irregular tree spacing and various
stand/patch sizes, into management
prescriptions and attempt to mimic
natural disturbance patterns.

© Maintain all species of native vegetation
in the landscape, including early seral
species, to allow for variation in
existing stand structures and provide



* Continue to work with the USFWS and
the recovery plan to develop a
monitoring program that assesses the
combined effects of thinning and fire
on spotted owls and their habitat.

© Ideally, a paired sample of PAC’s
should be selected to serve as
control areas.

o Within each selected PAC,
designate 100 acres centered
around the nest site. This nest area
should include habitat that
resembles the structural and
floristic characteristics of the nest
site. These 100 acres will be
deferred from the treatments
described below,

o Within the remaining 500 acres,
combinations of thinning trees <9
inches dbh, treatment of fuels, and
prescribed fire can be used to
reduce fire hazard and improve
habitat conditions for owl prey.
Habitat components that should be
retained or enhanced include large
logs (>12 inches midpoint
diameter), grasses and forbs, and
shrubs. Emphasis of the spatial
configuration of treatments should
be to mimic natural mosaic
patterns when consistent with fire
risk reduction objectives.

© Treatments should only occur
during the nonbreeding season
(September1 to February 28) to
minimize any potential deleterious
effects on the owl during the
breeding season.

0 Following treatments to the PAC’s,
effects on the owl, prey species, and
their habitats should be assessed.
If such effects are non-negative, an
additional sample of PAC’s may be
treated. If negative effects are
detected, these effects must be
carefully evaluated. If they can be
ameliorated by modifying
treatments, those modifications
should occur prior to treatment of
additional PAC’s, If not, reinitiate
consultation with the USFWS.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Within PAC’s treated to reduce fire risk,
pre- and post-treatment assessments
of habitat conditions and owl
occupancy should be done. Specific
habitat characteristics that should be
monitored include fuel levels, canopy
cover, snag basal area, volume of large
logs (12 inch midpoint diameter), and
live tree basal area.

No aerial ignition within PAC’s

Steep Slopes Outside of PAC'’s

Within mixed-conifer and pine-oak
types, allow no harvest of trees >9
inches on any slopes >40 percent where
timber harvest has not occurred in the
past 20 years. These guidelines also
apply to the bottoms of steep canyons.
Thinning of trees <9 inches dbh,
treatment of fuels, and fire are allowed,
as described in USDI Fish and Wildlife
Service 2001. No seasonal restrictions
apply. Prescribed natural fire and the
creation of firebreaks may be used as
appropriate. On steep slopes treated to
reduce fire risk, either by the use of
prescribed fire alone or in conjunction
with removal of stems and ground
fuels, pre- and post-treatment
monitoring of habitat conditions should
be done. Specific habitat characteristics
to be measured include fuel levels, snag
basal area, volume of large logs (>12
inch midpoint diameter), and live tree
basal area.

Restricted Areas: These measures

should be followed whenever consistent

with risk reduction objectives (MSO)

Manage mixed-conifer and pine-oak
forest types to provide continuous
replacement nest habitat over space
and time (Table III.B.1 of spotted owl
recovery plan).

Incorporate natural variation, such as
irregular tree spacing and various
stand/patch sizes, into management
prescriptions and attempt to mimic
natural disturbance patterns.

Maintain all species of native vegetation
in the landscape, including early seral
species, to allow for variation in
existing stand structures and provide



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.

* Old trees will have duff raked away from
the bases where high litter depth layers
(greater than 12 inches deep) may result in
girdling and mortality. The Prescribed
Burn Monitoring Report and Information
(Randall-Parker and Miller 1999) will guide
our actions.

Gambel Oak

° Large Gambel oak will be retained. Burn
plans will mitigate oak loss through the
removal of large material, raking duff from
the base of oaks where litter depth exceeds
12 inches, and avoidance of slash piles
near oaks.

Snags and Logs

° Snags will be lined before 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.

Recreation

* No slash piling in dispersed camping sites.
° No log landings in dispersed camping sites.

e No thinning activities on heavily used
holiday weekends, such as Memorial Day.
Fourth of July, or Labor Day.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Visual Management

¢ 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 I-17.

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.

Project activities may be incorporated into routine
forest monitoring like the annual review, annual
BMP implementation, and effectiveness review. The
results of this and other monitoring are summarized
in a 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.

Alternative A includes the following implementation
monitoring:



ce Record of Decision

ae for Kachina Village
ain Forest Health Project

Mormon Lake Ranger District,
Coconino National Forest

SIEGE Git. Goes

Ze

Oa



openings. enhancing existing forest openings,
enhancing larger trees to promote future old-growth
and reducing wildfire potential. The alternative
maintains the element of creating logs and snags
from some of the 18-inch dbh black-barked trees.

Alternative E

This alternative incorporates different thinning
prescriptions of varying intensities applied to the
treatment units. This alternative addresses Issues 3
through 6. No trees over 16-inch diameter would
be cut. Only 2.5 miles of temporary roads would be
required. Less mechanized equipment would be
used. Alternative E contains an area referred to as
the “Intensive Zone.” The Intensive Zone would be
located adjacent to private land and include a
variable thinning of 40 to 50 ft? BA to create a fuel
break. The fuel break would be approximately 1/8-
mile (660 feet) in diameter and immediately adjacent
to homes. Beyond the fuel break, a variable
thinning from below (60 to 120 ft?

BA) would be implemented to reduce fire potential
and improve forest health if roads are available.
Where an existing temporary road is not available, a
9-inch diameter thinning limit is applied. South of
Kelly Canyon no mechanical equipment would be
used and there would be a 9-inch diameter limit.

Alternatives Considered But
Eliminated from Detailed Study

Federal agencies are required by NEPA to rigorously
explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable
alternatives and to briefly discuss the reasons for
eliminating any alternatives that were not developed
in detail (40 CFR 1502.14). Public comments
received in response to the Proposed Action provided
suggestions for alternative methods for achieving the
purpose and need. Five alternatives in addition to
the five above were considered during the planning
process but were eliminated from detailed study.
These include the following: 1) use of prescribed fire
without thinning; 2) brush removal with raking and
lower branch pruning only; 3) a 12-inch diameter
thinning limit; 4) a revision of Alternative E without
any temporary roads; and 5) expanded area for
designated dispersed camping. | have reviewed
these alternatives and find the reasons described for
their elimination are valid (FEIS, pp. 22-27).

Rationale for Decision

I have selected Alternative A as this alternative will
best improve ecosystem health and reduce fire
potential. Alternative A is the most environmentally
preferable as described for this project (40 CFR
1505.2(b)). My reasons for selecting Alternative A
are based on the following factors:

(1) Working and Implementing the 1998
Cooperative Agreement between The Grand
Canyon Forests Foundation (GFFP) and the
Coconino National Forest.

Through this project, we are implementing the
agreement goals and objectives for forest
management approaches that improve and restore
ecosystem health of ponderosa pine forest
ecosystems in the Flagstaff wildland-urban interface
area. The relationship with the GFFP allows us to
build a stronger relationship with the Flagstaff
community.

‘The Partnership actively participated in all public
aspects of this environmental analysis. Public
outreach strategies and efforts led by members of
the Partnership have created greater community
awareness and understanding of the fuels/fire issue
plaguing our region. The Partnership efforts to
research and demonstrate new approaches to forest
management have strengthened the forest's
relationship with Northern Arizona University, the
Ecological Restoration Institute and provided the
forest with new tools to conduct research and
monitoring.

I received a letter from the GFFP during the DEIS
comment period that generally approved of and
endorsed Alternative A.

(2) Addressing the Purpose and Need.

In selecting Alternative A, I reviewed the purpose
and need for this project carefully with the
significant issues and differing alternatives. The
environmental analysis notes the differences
between the alternatives. | chose Alternative A
because it best addressed and integrated these
purpose and need statements from a fuels and
vegetative management perspective. These include:

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

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project



Meetings with state and Federal agencies,
communities, and others have included several open
house meetings in Kachina Village, GFFP meetings.
and numerous field trips involving some of the
following organizations and agencies: Grand
Canyon Trust, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Native
American Enterprises, Arizona Game and Fish
Department, Coconino Natural Resources
Conservation District, Southwest Forest Alliance,
USFS Rocky Mountain Research Station, Ecological
Restoration Institute of Northern Arizona University,
Grand Canyon Forests Foundation, Flagstaff Fire
Department, Society of American Foresters,
Highlands Fire Department, Arizona State Land
Department, and GFFP, including the Grand Canyon
Forest Foundation.

Public Comments on the DEIS

On February 28, 2002, a letter was sent to 96
individuals, organizations, and government
agencies. This letter stated that the DEIS would be
available for public review and asked for recipients
to indicate their preference for viewing the DEIS in
either compact disc format, hard copy format, or
viewing the document on the Coconino website. On
August 9, 2002, copies of the DEIS were sent to the
24 individuals, organizations, and government
agencies that responded with a preference to receive
either a CD or hard copy. Those who did not
indicate a preference received a letter stating that
the DEIS was available for public review on the
Coconino website. The Notice of Availability of the
DEIS was posted in the Federal Register on August
16, 2002. An open house to present the DEIS to the
public was conducted on August 21, 2002 and three
field trips followed for further discussion and
explanation of the DEIS. More than 100 persons
attended the field trips and open house. Forty-four
responses were received by the close of the comment
period on September 30, 2002. Copies of the letters
received and response to these comments can be
found in Appendix H of the FEIS.

In reviewing public comments, there was strong
support for going forward with a project to improve
forest health resiliency and lessen wildfire threat to
our community and to move forward as quickly as
possible. There was widespread support for the
selected treatment of thinning the smaller trees,
followed by broadcast burning, and management of
recreation use to lessen fire risk. There were no
comments that supported No Action. Some
generally approved of the thinning, but asked for a

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

more limited approach. Many supported either
Alternatives A, C, or D. Several comments
suggested that if the selection of an alternative may
lead to less chance of appeal or litigation, that we
select the alternative that would lessen this risk.
Several comments gave recommendations about
specific environmental protection that they would
like to see incorporated into the project.

We received detailed recommendations to change the
existing alternatives and blend alternatives. My staff
addressed these comments and studied two
additional alternatives in the FEIS. We received
comments that were outside the scope of this forest
health improvement project, such as those about
fines for illegal activities and allotment management
planning. Overall the largest number of comments
came from the residents of Kachina Village
expressing strong support for this project and to act
quickly to implement.

Other Alternatives Considered

Alternative B (No Action)

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. This alternative represents the existing
condition against which the other alternatives are
compared.

Alternative C

This alternative is identical to the “Proposed Action”
(Alternative A) except that this alternative would not
cut any trees larger than16-inch diameter, no
exceptions would be made. This alternative was
developed in response to Issue 1. This alternative
would drop the creation of logs and snags from the
16-inch black-barked ponderosa pines.

Alternative D

This alternative is identical to the “Proposed Action”
(Alternative A) except that this alternative would not
cut any trees larger than18-inch diameter. This
alternative was developed in response to Issue 2.
Some black-barked ponderosa pine trees 16 to 17.9
inches dbh would be removed to achieve important
and valuable objectives. such as creating grassy

9



species diversity. Both uneven-aged
and even-aged systems may be used as
appropriate.

e Allow natural canopy gap processes to
occur, thus producing horizontal
variation in stand structure.

e Within pine-oak types, emphasis
should be placed on management that
retains existing large oaks and
promotes the growth of additional large
oaks.

© Retain all trees >24 inch dbh.

¢ Retain/hardwoods, large down logs,
large trees, and snags.

e Emphasize a mix of size and age
classes of trees. The mix should include
large mature trees, vertical diversity,
and other structural and floristic
characteristics that typify natural
riparian conditions.

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 broadcast burning or thinning
will occur on sites 354/29 and 31 and the
southern half of 354/23 and 24 from
March 1 to August 15. This seasonal
restriction applies unless falcon habitat is
determined to be unoccupied. .

Northern Goshawk

¢ Thinning treatments will not occur within
or near nesting areas during the breeding
season (March 1 through September 30).

* As the trail system is implemented,
recreational trails that traverse nesting
areas will be closed. Access that will allow
people to travel into nesting areas will be
discouraged.

Other Raptors

© No cut buffers for nest and roost sites will
be implemented according to the Coconino
National Forest Plan (2001, 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 where litter
depth layers are greater than 12 inches.
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.

e Prescribed fire control lines and temporary
roads will avoid known populations of
sensitive plant species.

* Surveys for sensitive plant species will be
conducted prior to trail construction. If
sensitive plant species are found, layout
will avoid plants.

e 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.

e During thinning operations, equipment will
be cleaned prior to entering the project
area to avoid introduction or transfer of
noxious weeds. Within the project area,
equipment will be cleaned prior to leaving
areas infested with noxious weeds.
Equipment entrance and exit routes from
Interstate 17 and Highway 89 will include
hand tool treatment of noxious weeds.
Known populations of knapweed and bull
thistle will be marked for avoidance.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project



YW

Decision

It is my decision to select Alternative A as described
in the FEIS for the KVFHP along with all mitigation
measures and monitoring described in this ROD. 1
have determined that Alternative A is consistent
with the Coconino Forest Plan and associated forest
plan amendments and will not require any
amendments to the forest plan to proceed.

The scope of this decision is limited to National
Forest System lands as described in the Location
and Project Area section. As Forest Supervisor, I
have the authority to select and implement
Alternative A. My decision includes:

* Treating vegetation through thinning and
pile burning (approximately 4,800 acres).

° Broadcast and maintenance burning the
project area (6,229 acres) on National
Forest System lands except for three
canyons (Kelly, Pumphouse Wash, James)
and steep slopes. Broadcast burning
would occur after thinning activities and
will treat stands adjacent to communities
first and move south in three priority
areas: (1) area north of Kelly Canyon and
along Highway 89A corridor; (2) area
between Kelly and James Canyons; and (3)
area south of James Canyon. Maintenance
burning would continue throughout the
project area every 3 to 7 years.

° Thinning will require about 5.75 miles of
temporary roads, which will be obliterated
following thinning treatments, Existing
Level 2 and 3 Forest Service system roads
will receive maintenance (spot surfacing,
grading, drainage) to accommodate
thinning treatments. The Roads Analysis
Process document is located in Appendix
G.

° Create snags and logs from some of the 16-
inch dbh black-barked trees in the areas
south of Kelly Canyon, in northern
goshawk habitat, and in developing old-
growth.

* Manage Forest Roads 237 and 535 as Level
3 roads providing approximately 7 miles of
passenger car roads, Approximately 8.5
miles of Level 2 roads will be maintained
as high-clearance vehicle roads.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Approximately 17.65 miles of forest system
roads not shown on the open-road system
will be converted to trails, obliterated, or
gated for administrative use.

° Mexican Pocket will be designated for day-
use with no camping or campfires. Access
will be provided through a 2-3 mile loop
hiking trail to the edge of Pumphouse
Wash and to connect the Oak Creek Vista
Overlook with a small trailhead
constructed near the ADOT yard.

¢ Designate dispersed camping/campfire
sites north of Kelly Canyon and west of
Pumphouse Wash to one half mile on the
west side of Highway 89A and along Forest
Road 237. Camping in these designated
sites will be allowed within a 50 to 100-foot
radius of a marked post. Camping and
campfires will be prohibited in areas of
close proximity to Kachina Village and
Forest Highlands and along the first half
mile of Forest Road 535 as it departs
Highway 89A. Camping and campfire
prohibitions will become effective once
designated sites are established/signed on
the ground and a special order is issued by
the Forest Supervisor.

° Construct approximately 7 miles of non-
motorized Forest Service system trail south
of Forest Highlands and Kachina Village.
An existing social trail from Forest
Highlands into the Griffith Spring area will
be converted to a Forest Service system
trail.

° Construct one new trailhead near the
existing ADOT yard on Highway 89A.

e Fence the area around Kelly Seep and
remove structures to improve riparian
habitat conditions.

Implementation of these activities will vary.
Thinning, burning, and designating campsites will
begin in 2003. It is expected that thinning will
occur between 2003-2006. We anticipate that
burning would occur over a 10-year period. Road
rehabilitation, trail and trailhead construction will
likely begin in 2005 or 2006 as funds are available
and/or appropriated.

Prior and during project implementation, we will
continue to involve and inform property owners, fire
protection districts, and communities in the
scheduling and impact (i.e. smoke from burning) of
project activities.



In closing, Forest Service land managers and
resource specialists continue to evaluate the
appropriate treatments around as every year fires
are getting larger and more difficult to control. The
fires of 2002 are resulting in a completely new array
of papers and research that will be addressing this
subject and will be reflected in our next GFFP
project. It is my expectation based on some of the
initial information and monitoring that has been
discussed that future projects might require more
aggressive thinning. Some internal comments have
suggested more aggressive thinning on the Kachina
Village Forest Health Project. However, in the desire
to move this project forward | have decided to
continue on course with Alternative A knowing,
however, that future treatments will be needed to
maintain the stand densities desirable to lessen
wildfire potential. I anticipate the need for future
thinning of the area North of Kelly Canyon in
approximately 20 years in order to maintain the
lower tree density necessary to reduce crown fire
threat.

Issues Addressed

Significant issues raised for the Kachina Village
Forest Health Project were identified through public
scoping. The following issues were determined to be
significant and within the scope of the project
decision, and were used to develop management
alternatives, mitigation measures and monitoring
requirements (40 CFR 1500.4g, 1500.5d,
1501.7(2,3), 1502.2b):

° 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.

° All project objectives could be met with an
18-inch diameter limit and request that a
quantitative analysis be provided.

° 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.

° 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.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

° 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.

* 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.

Other concerns about the proposed treatments were
not considered “significant’ because the impacts
were likely to be negligible once the mitigation and
monitoring requirements are applied to minimize
potential adverse effects.

Permits and Agency
Approvals Required

Two permits or authorizations must be obtained
before implementing the project. These have already
been obtained — the consultation and concurrence
from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on the biological
assessment and the consultation and concurrence
from the State Historic Preservation Office.

Findings Required by
Other Laws and Regulations

The planning and decision-making process for this
project was conducted in accordance with all
applicable laws, regulations, policies and plans,

This section briefly describes my findings regarding
the legal requirements most relevant to this project
decision. All management practices and activities of
Alternative A are consistent with the management
direction of the Coconino National Forest Land and
Resource Management Plan as amended. The Roads
Analysis Process is documented in Appendix G of
the FEIS.

National Environmental Policy

Act (NEPA) and 40 CFR 1500 Regulations
NEPA requires that Federal agencies complete
detailed statements on proposed actions that

significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. The Act's requirement to prepare an

13



Migratory Bird Teary Act (MBTA)

I find that the project is consistent with this Act, as
well as recent agency guidelines for conformance with
the MBTA. Analysis in the FEIS disclosed effects of
the project and show that the project provides for
opportunity to restore and enhance habitat for
migratory bird species of concern.

Clean Water Act

The design of project activities and roads is in
accordance with forest plan management direction,
the regional guide, Best Management Practices, and
applicable Forest Service manual and handbook
direction. Monitoring and evaluation of the
implementation and effectiveness of the forest plan
standards and guidelines and Best Management
Practices will occur. Project activities are expected to
meet all applicable State of Arizona water quality
standards.

All roads will be designed and constructed in
accordance with the applicable Best Management
Practices listed at 33 CFR 323.4(a). No permits
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be
required.

Federal agencies are required by the Clean Water Act
to cooperate with state agencies in preventing,
reducing, and eliminating pollution in concert with
programs for managing water resources. 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.
The KVFHP meets these objectives through the
incorporation of Best Management Practices listed in
Document 137e of the Project Record.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act makes it the primary
responsibility of states and local governments to
prevent air pollution and control air pollution at its
source. States must have a plan that provides for
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of
the primary ambient air quality standard. 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.
Emissions generated by Alternative A have been
estimated and all modeled emissions would meet
National and State Ambient Air Quality Standards.
Calculations are located in the project record file.

Environmental Justice,
Executive Order 12898

Implementation of any project alternative is not
anticipated to cause disproportionate adverse
human health or environmental effects to minority
or low-income populations. The Flagstaff economy is
strongly tied to the tourism industry, with forest
products a very small percentage of the overall
economy.

Environmentally
Preferable Alternative

The NEPA implementing regulations (Section 1505.2)
require that the alternative(s) that best promotes the
national environmental policy as expressed in NEPA,
Section 101. be identified in the Record of Decision
as the “environmentally preferable alternative” or
alternatives. This is ordinarily “the alternative that
causes the least damage to the biological and
physical environment and best protects, preserves,
and enhances historical, cultural, and natural
resources” (FSH 1909.15, 05). For the KVFHP
Alternative A represents the environmentally
preferred alternative for reasons discussed above.



Kachina Village, Flagstaff, 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 within the project
boundary. The entire project encompasses 10,417
acres: 2,377 acres of private land, 326 acres of
Arizona State Trust Lands, and 7,714 acres of Forest
Service land.

Purpose and Need

‘The Kachina Village Forest Health Project is
currently proposed in response to the 1998 Grand
Canyon Forests Foundation Cooperative Agreement
(also referred to as the GFFP), the National Fire
Plan, and management direction in the Coconino
National Forest Plan. The goals and objectives of
this agreement and these plans are to improve forest
health and to help move the project area toward
desired future conditions. The goals and objectives
of the project are to:

© 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 in order 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 into the management plan
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:

e Improve and enhance understory
vegetation 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:

e 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
habitat as described in Amendment 11 of
the Forest Plan;

° Provide access (temporary roads) for
thinning:

e 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: and
e Protect archeological sites.

Goals and objectives that apply to the KVFHP and
are goals of the GFFP include:

© Research and demonstrate key ecological,
economical, and social dimensions of forest
health improvement efforts.

Applicable National Fire Plan goals and objectives
include:

* Reducing the number of small fires that
become large;

e Restoring natural ecological systems to
minimize uncharacteristically intense fires;

e 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.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project



Record of Decision
s)

Introduction

T am pleased to announce that we have completed
the detailed analysis process and Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the
Kachina Village Forest Health Project. The Record of
Decision (ROD) documents my decision for the
Kachina Village Forest Health Project (KVFHP). The
FEIS includes some corrections, clarifications,
additions to the Alternatives section, and the Draft
EIS Response to Comments document located in
Appendix H of the Final EIS.

I would like to thank everyone who participated in
this planning effort for making this a successful
project. Our cooperative effort with the Greater
Flagstaff Forests Partnership (GFFP) is extremely
valuable. The Partnership's efforts in expanding
public involvement, research, monitoring, and
working to develop markets for small diameter trees
have made this a very valuable and worthwhile
endeavor for the Forest Service and public we serve.

As Forest Supervisor for the Coconino National
Forest, I have made the KVPHP a top priority, as it
will reduce wildfire threat to the communities of
Kachina Village, Forest Highlands, and Flagstaff.
The dense forest conditions that exist within the
project area are highly vulnerable to the kind of
crown fires experienced last summer in Arizona and
throughout the Southwest. If we do not
substantially reduce the density of trees that
blanket this area, remove the accumulated fuels on
the forest floor, and change human use of the area,
we can expect a very severe fire that will
substantially alter the forest ecosystem, threaten the
homes and lives of those in our communities, and
our firefighters. If a massive wildfire occurs there,
the potential for massive soil loss and debris flow
into the Oak Creek Watershed is a serious concern
and could have substantial effects down stream to
this unique watershed. However, it would be
irresponsible for me not to take immediate action to
reduce the numbers of trees and reduce hazardous
fuel conditions as we have proposed throughout
much of the rest of the project area. If we do not
take action, | am certain that someday the
communities adjacent could be impacted by a large
wildfire. By taking action, we will substantially
improve our ability to suppress a wildfire if started
in this area. We know that we cannot prevent a
wildfire from ever burning in this area. Kelly
Canyon, James Canyon, and Pumphouse Wash are
the areas within the project boundary that could not
be treated due to steepness of terrain and will
remain at high fire risk.

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

This past fall we have all witnessed the ponderosa
pine mortality that has occurred from drought and
insects. The KVFHP project will improve forest
resiliency by creating a less dense forest through
thinning.

This ROD contains my decision on a selected
alternative and describes my rationale for selecting
it supported through the FEIS. A Notice of
Availability will be published in the Federal Register,
and legal notice published in the “Arizona Daily
Sun” following distribution of the FEIS and ROD to
the public, The FEIS, appendices, and maps are
available on request to those only receiving the ROD.

Proposed Action

A “proposed action” is defined early in the project-
level 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 for the Kachina Village Forest
Health project proposed thinning, prescribed
burning, road, and recreation management activities
to improve declining forest health and reduce
wildfire potential. Thinning prescriptions varied to
create a mosaic of resulting stand densities. The
following actions were discussed:

° Thin approximately 4,800 acres;

* Broadcast and maintenance burn the
project area on National Forest System
lands, except for canyons and steep slopes,
6,229 acres;

° Reduce road density:
° Construct several new trails;
¢ Designate dispersed camping areas and
close high fire risk areas to camping and
campfires.
The Proposed Action is described in detail in

Chapter 2 of the Final EIS, “Actions Common to All
Alternatives” and “Proposed Action,” (Alternative A).

Location and Project Area

The Kachina Village Project Area is located south of
Flagstaff, Arizona on the Peaks and Mormon Lake
Ranger Districts of the Coconino National Forest.
The project area is adjacent to the communities of



Ww

from which a crown fire would be
unlikely to originate under moderate
fire weather:

Alternative A changes flame lengths of 5.7
to 7.2 feet (existing condition) to less than
4 foot flame lengths and less in an
arrangement that creates discontinuous
canopy across the project area. Alternative
Awill reduce crown fire potential on 4,266
acres. By removing some 16-inch black-
bark trees for specific purposes (see “16"
Cutting Diameter” under “3) Public
Involvement and Input” on the following
page), Alternative A removes more ladder
fuels in areas than Alternatives C and D.
Alternative E reduced crown fire potential
on 2,328 acres (almost 50 percent less)
which is substantially less than Alternative
A.

Address and correct historical causes of
ecosystem degradation to increase
overall forest ecosystem resilience to
disturbance events, including fire,
drought, and insects:

High tree density and high canopy closures
are the greatest factors affecting ecosystem
resilience. Alternative A changes the
treated areas through thinning and
burning from 200 trees per acre (existing
condition) to 100 trees per acre on average.
Currently, 60 percent of the project area
has canopy closure greater than 60
percent. Alternative A will reduce canopy
closure to 20 percent with 60 percent
canopy closure.

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:

By retaining all existing mature ponderosa
pine trees (yellow-barked trees), we are
protecting habitat including old-growth
and snag recruitment for TES species. In
addition, thinning around these mature
trees to reduce competition for light.
moisture and nutrients will improve their
longevity. Alternatives A and D best
address thinning around these trees.

For MSO, fire hazard potential is reduced
by thinning aggressively adjacent to the

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

PAC’s and by thinning from below within
PAC’s as identified in the recovery plan for
this species. Broadcast burning within
and adjacent to PAC’s lessens wildfire
threats to nesting and foraging habitat.

For bald eagles, thinning will improve old
tree longevity in potential winter roost
sites. Thinning and broadcast burning will
lessen risk of potential winter roost sites
being destroyed by wildfire.

Recreation management will lessen human
activities and benefit potential winter
roosting habitat.

We implemented the Northern goshawk
guidelines with Alternative A, setting
vegetative structural stage on a trajectory
to improve habitat conditions as identified
in the management recommendations for
this species. VSS 1 is changed from 0
percent to 5.5 percent (desired is 10
percent), VSS 3 is changed from 61.5
percent to 26 percent (desired is 20
percent); VSS 4 is changed from 24 percent
to 52 percent (desired is 20 percent); VSS 5
is changed from 6 percent to 10 percent
(desired is 20 percent). In 50 years there
is 29 percent VSS 5 that in time will
develop into old growth representing a
substantial effort in achieving the desired
future condition for managing northern
goshawk habitat.

Improve and enhance understory
productivity:

Alternative A provides the greatest increase
in grassy openings than any other
alternative. It will result in a 50 percent
increase and change the overall canopy of
the forest from dense to moderately dense.
The existing condition is less than 10
percent of the area is in a 40 percent or
less canopy closure. Following thinning
and burning, approximately 35 percent of
the area will be in a canopy closure of 40
percent or less,

This change is critical for the northern
goshawk (sensitive wildlife species) with
Alternative A best meeting the
management recommendations tied to this
birds prey species. The Navajo Mountain
Mexican vole, Flagstaff beardtongue, and
Flagstaff pennyroyal (sensitive wildlife and
plant species) also benefit from increasing
canopy openings.

11


environmental impact statement is designed to
provide decision makers with a detailed accounting
of the likely environmental effects of a proposed
action prior to adoption and to inform the public of.
and allow comment on, such effects. The EIS does a
comprehensive job of analyzing and displaying the
alternatives and the environmental effects. The
procedural requirements of NEPA have been followed
and are met.

National Forest Management
Act (NFMA) and 36 CFR 219 Regulations

All project alternatives fully comply with the
Coconino National Forest Plan and associated
amendments, This project incorporates all
applicable forest plan forest-wide standards and
guidelines and management area direction as they
apply to the project area. The project is also in
compliance with forest plan goals and objectives.
This includes additional direction contained in all
amendments. All required interagency review and
coordination has been accomplished. New or revised
measures resulting from this review have been
incorporated.

Four sensitive species are evaluated in the biological
assessment and evaluation (BA&E) regarding the
preferred alternative for the project, because 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.

The forest plan complies with all resource
integration and management requirements of 36
CFR 219 (219.14 through 219.27). Application of
forest plan direction for the Kachina Village Forest
Health Project ensures compliance at the project
level.

National Historic
Preservation Act (NHPA)

Cultural resource surveys of varying intensities have
been conducted in accordance with inventory
protocols approved by the State Historic
Preservation Officer. Native American communities
have been contacted and public comment
encouraged. It was determined under the

Programmatic Agreement for Compliance with
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
that the proposed undertakings will have no effect
on cultural properties and values. This project
would have no cumulative effect on the cultural
properties and values.

Endangered Species Act (ESA)

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act
requires that Federal agencies consult with the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as
appropriate, to ensure that their actions do not
jeopardize the continued existence of species listed
as threatened or endangered under the ESA, or
destroy or adversely modify their critical habitat.
Threatened and endangered species were addressed
through consultation with the USFWS. 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). Consultation with
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. The USFWS concluded that implementation of
the project would have no effect on the black-footed
ferret, jaguar, and Gila trout. The USFWS also
concluded that implementation of the project may
affect the bald eagle, loach minnow, razorback
sucker, and the spikedace, but is not likely to
adversely affect critical habitat and result in a trend
toward Federal listing of these species. Lastly, the
USFWS concluded that implementation of the
project may adversely affect Mexican spotted owl.
However, 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).

Record of Decision for Kachina Village Forest Health Project

))

") )