United States 

Department of

Agriculture 

Forest 

Service 

Southwestern 

Region

July 2012

Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

Kaibab National Forest 

Coconino County, Arizona

All or portions of Sections 1-3, 10-15, 22-27, & 34-36 T21N R1E; Sections 

4-10, 15-22, & 27-31 T21N R2E; and Sections 31-33 T22N R2E Gila 

&Salt River Meridian.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs and 

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

marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, 

political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or part of an individual’s income is derived from any 

public assistance program. (Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with 

disabilities who require alternative means of communication of program information (Braille, 

large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and 

TTY). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director of Civil Rights, 1400 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 

720-6382 (TTY). USDA is an equal opportunity provider and employer.

Printed on recycled paper – July 2012
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

i 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for 

the 

Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Kaibab National Forest

Coconino County, Arizona

Lead Agency: USDA Forest Service

Responsible Official: Mike Williams, Forest Supervisor

800 South Sixth Street 

Williams, AZ 86046 

For Information Contact: Martie Schramm, District Ranger

742 South Clover Road 

Williams, AZ 86046 

(928) 635.5630 

 

Abstract: The Kaibab National Forest proposes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning on 

approximately 15,200 acres on and surrounding Bill Williams Mountain to reduce the risk of catastrophic 

wildfire and improve forest health and the watershed for the City of Williams. There are four alternatives, 

Alternative 1 is no action, Alternative 2 is the preferred alternative, and Alternatives 3 and 4 are 

modifications of the preferred alternative. There are four one-time site-specific Forest Plan amendments 

needed to implement the preferred alternative: 1) Re-designating approximately 8900 acres of land 

suitability, 2) Allowing a deviation from Forest Plan guidelines regarding Mexican Spotted Owl habitat, 

3) Allowing a deviation from Forest Plan standards and guidelines in ponderosa pine stands outside of 

goshawk Post-Fledgling Family Area’s (PFA’s) and nest areas, and 4) Allowing Forest managers to 

exceed fire planning objectives for the Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area. 

It is important that reviewers provide their comments at such times and in such a way that they are useful 

to the Agency’s preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. Therefore, comments should be 

provided prior to the close of the comment period and should clearly articulate the reviewer’s concerns 

and contentions. The submission of timely and specific comments can affect a reviewer’s ability to 

participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.

Your comments 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 

reviewers’ position and contentions. Comments on the DEIS should be specific and should address the 

adequacy of the statement and the merits of the alternatives discussed (40 CFR 1503.3). 

Comments received in response to this solicitation, including names and addresses of those who 

comment, will be part of the public record for this proposed action. Comments submitted anonymously 

will be accepted and considered; however, anonymous comments will not provide the respondent with 

standing to participate in subsequent administrative review or judicial review.
ii

Comments may be sent via email to: comments-southwestern-kaibab@fs.fed.us

or via facsimile to (928) 635-5680 with “Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project” on the subject line.

Written comments may be sent to: Kaibab National Forest, Attention: Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project, 742 South Clover Road, Williams, AZ 86046. 

Comments must be received during the 45-day comment period which follows publication of the Notice 

of Availability of the draft environmental impact statement in the Federal Register. Publication is 

estimated for July 2012.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

iii

Summary

The Kaibab National Forest proposes to treat approximately 15,200 acres with mechanized 

equipment and prescribed fire. The area affected by the proposal is located adjacent and up to 

approximately 4 miles south-southwest of the city of Williams, Arizona and includes Bill 

Williams Mountain, which is the primary watershed and municipal water supply for Williams, 

has historic and cultural value and is an important communication site for Northern Arizona. 

This action is needed to improve the health and sustainability of forested conditions on and 

surrounding Bill Williams Mountain by reducing hazardous fuels and moving vegetative 

conditions in the project area toward the desired conditions. This work would be done to directly 

and indirectly improve the watershed conditions contributing to the City of Williams water 

supply.

Bill Williams Mountain is the primary watershed for the City of Williams. A major wildfire and 

subsequent flooding would be devastating to the City and the surrounding communities, as well 

as downstream to the Havasupai Tribe from Cataract Canyon. There is a multi-million dollar 

communication site at the top of the Mountain that is extremely important to Northern Arizona 

and the loss of all or part of this site would disrupt emergency communications that are so vital to 

this area.

Two large wildfires in Northern Arizona in 2010 and the ensuing monsoon rains highlighted the 

values-at-risk in the project area and the need for treatment on Bill Williams Mountain. A highintensity wildfire on Bill Williams Mountain could result in the loss of critical emergency 

communications systems; the silting in of reservoirs that act as municipal water sources as well as

reductions in water quality; the loss of irreplaceable cultural and tribal resources; the loss of 

recreational areas and opportunities; the loss of important wildlife and plant habitat; and the 

potential loss of lives and homes.

In the early part of 2011, the Forest invited the public and various interested parties to participate 

in numerous informal “brainstorming” sessions where participants were solicited for ideas, 

questions, and concerns about treating hazardous fuels on Bill Williams Mountain. All of the 

ideas and comments we received were helpful in refining a proposal for the project area. 

A Notice of Intent (NOI) was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, April 21, 2011 

formally initiating scoping of the proposed action and seeking public comment on the proposal. 

The proposed action includes 4 one-time site-specific amendments to the Forest Plan. Using the 

comments we received from the public, other agencies, and interested and affected Tribal 

governments and communities during scoping of the proposed action, we identified a list of 

significant and non-significant issues (see Section 1.6 Issues). 

These issues led us to develop and consider alternatives to the proposed action. We analyzed four 

alternatives in detail and considered but eliminated from detailed study several alternatives. The 

four alternatives analyzed in detail include the no action alternative – Alternative 1 and the 

proposed action – Alternative 2, which includes 4 proposed amendments to the Forest Plan, as 

well as Alternatives 3 and 4 which were developed to address one or more significant issues to 

the proposed action. There are no proposed amendments to the Forest Plan in Alternatives 3 and 

4. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

iv

Major Conclusions: The analysis by resource specialists indicates all of the action alternatives 

would reduce hazardous fuels and the risk for high intensity stand-replacing wildfires and allow 

for the reintroduction of fire as a natural part of the ecosystem. The action alternatives would 

reduce fuel buildup and help prevent the spread of wildfire onto private property and into 

drainages leading to the City of Williams’ reservoirs. Currently and under the no action 

alternative, approximately 61% of the project area has the potential for active crown fire. Under 

the action alternatives, this is reduced to approximately 18% for Alternative 2 (the preferred 

alternative), 27% for Alternative 3 and 35% under Alternative 4. Under Alternative 2 only, 

approximately 8,900 acres of ponderosa pine forest surrounding the base of Bill Williams 

Mountain would have reduced stand densities similar to pre-settlement reference conditions and 

would be removed from the KNF Forest Plan’s designated suitable timber base by amending the 

Forest Plan. Timber stands would be thinned and grouped which would break up the continuity of 

the forest and increase forest diversity, tree vigor and stand resiliency. The reduction of tree 

densities on steep slopes would improve forest health by reducing competition for nutrients, and 

would protect the loss of specialized wildlife habitat from fire and forest disease and pests.

Treating fuel accumulations would abate fire risks to Mexican Spotted Owl habitat, while 

conserving existing nesting and roosting habitat. Reducing mistletoe infection levels would be 

more manageable as the area would be managed in an uneven-aged condition over time. 

Alternatives 2-4 would remove poorly located roads out of drainage bottoms. Alternatives 2 and 3 

would allow the construction of a new and more sustainable road system that would also provide 

access for the fuel treatments. The total net number of miles of open roads would remain 

essentially the same under all of the alternatives. The purpose and need for action would be best 

achieved with implementation of Alternative 2 – the Proposed Action. 

Based upon the effects of the alternatives, the responsible official would decide whether to select 

the proposed action or one of the alternatives, what mitigation and/or monitoring measures would

be required during implementation of the proposed action or any alternative selected, and what 

language and content changes are needed to the Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

v 

Contents

Summary iii

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action 1

Document Structure 1

1.1 Background 1

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action 3

1.3 Proposed Action 4

1.4 Decision Framework 5

1.5 Public Involvement 5

1.6 Issues 6

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action 11

2.1 Introduction 11

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail 11

2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring 18

2.4 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed Study 26

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives 29

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 45

3.1 Introduction 45

3.2 Silviculture 45

3.3 Fire and Fuels Management 84

3.4 Soils and Watershed 108

3.5 Transportation 163

3.6 Wildlife 168

3.7 Invasive Species 230

3.8 Rare Plants 238

3.9 Rangeland Resources 253

3.10 Recreation Resources 260

3.11 Scenic Resources 269

3.12 Cultural Resources 298

3.13 Implementation Economics 300

3.14 Socio Economics 309

3.15 Lands and Minerals 312

3.16 Other Disclosures 314

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity 315

Unavoidable Adverse Effects 316

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 316

Cumulative Effects 317

Other Required Disclosures 317

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 319

Preparers and Contributors 319

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the DEIS, Supplement and 

FEIS Were Sent 320

4.1 Tribal Consultation Summary 320
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

vi 

Glossary 325

References Cited 327

Index 343

Appendices 345

List of Tables

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives – Key Features** ......................................................... 29

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. ........................... 30

Table 3.2-1 Bill Williams Vegetation Cover Types(FS Lands)............................................... 45

Table 3.2-6 Estimated Stand Percentages of Seral Stages Between Alternatives after 

Treatment Year*.............................................................................................................. 54

Figure 3.2-18 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use 

Legend in 3.2-16)............................................................................................................ 60

Table 3.2-7 de Facto acres of Ponderosa pine stands Allocated for Old Growth Habitat...... 77

Table 3.2-8 de Facto White Fir stands Allocated for Old Growth Habitat.............................. 77

Table 3.2-9 de Facto Douglas-fir stands Allocated for Old Growth Habitat........................... 77

Table 3.2-10 Entire stands NOT Allocated as de facto Stands................................................ 78

Table 3.2-11 Allocated Old Growth Habitat from non de facto Stands.................................. 78

Table 3.2-12 Percent of Allocated Old Growth Within Each Cover Type ............................. 78

Table 3.2-13 EMA Allocation of Old Growth in all Forested Areas....................................... 79

Table 3.2-14. Current Old Growth Allocation of Ponderosa Pine within GA 2...................... 79

Table 3.2-15 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA 18"+ Trees Per Acre ................................................. 80

3.2-16 Mixed Conifer LOGPFA 18”+ Trees Per Acre ............................................................ 80

Table 3.2-17 Conclusion Table Part 1 ..................................................................................... 81

Table 3.2-18 Conclusion Table Part 2..................................................................................... 82

Table 3.3-4. Percent of the Bill Williams area demonstrating potential ................................. 86

for types of fire by alternative................................................................................................. 86

Table 3.3-5 Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator post treatment results 

by alternative. ................................................................................................................. 94

Table 3.3-6. Percent area in each FRCC by Alternative post treatment................................. 96

Table 3.3-7. Flame Lengths under 8 feet in the Project Area................................................ 106

Table 3.3-9. Relative ranking for each alternative. ............................................................... 107

Table 3.4.1-1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units located within the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project,........................................................................................................110

Table 3.4.1-2. Predicted Soil Erosion Hazard by TEU within the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project Analysis Area .................................................................................111

Table 3.4.1-3. Hydrologic Soil Groups and associated acreages for the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project analysis area...................................................................113

Table 3.4.1-4. Estimated Vegetation, Litter, and Total Vegetative Ground Cover within the 

Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Analysis Area...........................................116

Table 3.4.1-5. Revegetation potential within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

analysis area (Brewer et al.1991). ..................................................................................117

Table 3.4.1-6. Timber harvest limitations within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991). ....................................................................118

Table 3.4.1-7. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, codes, condition ratings, acreages, and 

associated percentages of total project area. ................................................................. 123
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

vii

Table 3.4.1-8. Watrshed condition indicator summary for watersheds that occur in the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project area. ............................................................... 125

Table 3.4.1-9. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, acreages, and associated percentages of each 

that comprise the City of Williams Municipal Watershed. ........................................... 125

Table3.4.1-10. Reservoirs, associated water storage capacities, and percentages of total 

municipal surface water in the City of Williams Municipal Watershed. ...................... 126

Table3.4.1-11. Wildlife and livestock watering ponds and reservoirs within the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project area................................................................................ 129

Table 3.4.2-2. Predicted soil erosion hazard by TEU where road obliteration would occur 

within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Analysis Area......................... 138

Table 3.4.2-3. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield by TES mapping unit in the 

Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area where forest thinning treatments would 

be conducted ................................................................................................................. 139

Table 3.4.2-4. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for watersheds in the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project area where forest thinning treatments would be 

conducted...................................................................................................................... 140

Table 3.4.2-5. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for Terrestrial Ecosystem Units 

where permanent roads would be constructed and maintained..................................... 142

Table 3.4.2-6. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for Terrestrial Ecosystem Units 

where temporary roads would be constructed and maintained..................................... 142

Table 3.4.2-7. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map unit acreages and associated erosion hazard 

ratings for areas where strategic fuels treatments would be conducted........................ 144

Table 3.4.2-8. Predicted sediment delivery rates for watersheds in the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project area under low severity prescribed fire treatments....... 145

Table 3.4.2-9. Predicted sediment delivery rates for watersheds in the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project area where 75 percent of each prescribed burn treatment results in 

low burn severity and 25 percent results in moderate burn severity............................. 146

Table 3.4.2-10. Predicted sediment delivery rates for watersheds in the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project area where 50 percent of prescribed burn treatment results 

in low soil burn severity, 25 percent results in moderate burn severity, and 25 percent 

results in high burn severity.......................................................................................... 147

Table 3.4.2-11. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units within the Arizona Bugbane 

Botanical Area............................................................................................................... 147

Table 3.4.2-12. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units and associated erosion hazard ratings that would 

be excluded from cable and excaline yarding systems under Alternative 3 within the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project Analysis Area ................................................ 148

Table 3.4.2-13. Predicted sediment delivery in year of disturbance and annual hillslope 

erosion by TES mapping unit where forest thinning treatments using cable and excaline 

yarding systems would be excluded ............................................................................. 148

Table 3.4.2-14. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units and associated erosion hazard ratings 

for operability zones 1, 2, and 6 with slopes less than 40 percent. ............................... 150

Table 3.4.2-15. Predicted sediment yield in year of disturbance and annual hillslope erosion 

by TES mapping unit in operability zones 1, 2 and 6................................................... 150

Table 3.4.2-16. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for watersheds in the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project area where forest thinning treatments would be 

conducted under Alternative 4 ...................................................................................... 151

Table 3.4.2-17. Predicted sediment yield and hillslope erosion rates and for Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Units where temporary roads would be constructed and maintained under 

Alternative 4 ................................................................................................................. 152
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

viii

Table 3.4.3-1. Past projects in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Cumulative 

Effects Analysis Area.................................................................................................... 154

Table 3.4.3-2. Current projects in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Cumulative 

Effects Analysis Area.................................................................................................... 154

Table 3.4.2-3. Reasonably foreseeable projects in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project Cumulative Effects Analysis Area.................................................................... 154

Table 3.4.3-4. Current activities and associated acreages that occur in the same watersheds 

(HUC12) as the proposed Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project....................... 156

Table 3.5-1. Approximate miles of existing roads within the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project Area ............................................................................................... 163

Table 3.5-2. Approximate miles of roads within the project area that are poorly located and 

proposed for obliteration............................................................................................... 164

Table 3.5-3. Comparison of Road Mileages by Alternative.................................................. 164

Table 3.5-4. Road Cost/Mile by Construction Phase and Road Type ................................... 165

Table 3.5-5. Road Cost by Alternative.................................................................................. 165

Table 3.6-1. List of TES wildlife species considered in this analysis.................................. 168

Table 3.6-2. Acres of MSO habitat within the project area, by habitat type........................ 173

Table 3.6-3. Percent of area in each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC)........................ 175

Table 3.6-4. Probability of surface fire, passive crown fire (i.e., torching), and active crown 

fire (i.e., stand-replacement fire) within different habitat types of the project area...... 176

Table 3.6-5. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Protected Habitat..................................... 180

Table 3.6-6. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Protected Habitat............................. 181

Table 3.6-7. Effects of Alternatives on the Bill Williams PAC............................................ 182

Table 3.6-8. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Restricted Habitat.................................... 183

Table 3.6-9. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Restricted Habitat. .......................... 184

Table 3.6-10. Effects of Alternatives on Restricted Habitat which meets the definition of 

Threshold Habitat under the 1995 MSO Recovery Plan............................................... 185

Table 3.6-11. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Restricted Habitat which meets the 

definition of Threshold Habitat under the 2011 (draft) MSO Recovery Plan............... 186

Table 3.6-12. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Restricted Habitat which meets the 

definition of Threshold Habitat under the 2011 (draft) MSO Recovery Plan............... 187

Table 3.6-13. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Restricted Habitat managed as Target 

Habitat........................................................................................................................... 188

Table 3.6-14. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Restricted Habitat managed as Target 

Habitat........................................................................................................................... 189

Table 3.6-15. Acres of different goshawk habitat within the project area............................ 197

Table 3.6-16. Management Indicator Species within the action area of the project, along with 

Forest-wide habitat component indicator and population trends.................................. 218

Table 3.6-17. Management Indicator Species within the action area of the project, along with 

acreage of each MIS’s habitat component on the Kaibab NF, in the project area, and 

increased or decreased by each Action Alternative....................................................... 220

Table 3.6-18. List of migratory birds of conservation concern that occur on the Kaibab 

National Forest, with notes on whether they occur or have habitat within the project 

action area..................................................................................................................... 225

Table 3.7-3: Invasive plant species that have been documented within a 1-mile buffer of the 

project area perimeter.................................................................................................... 230

Table 3.8-4: Cover types within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Area 

boundary........................................................................................................................ 239
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

ix

Table 3.9-5: Cover types within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Area 

boundary........................................................................................................................ 254

Figure 3.9-6: The Hat Grazing Allotment and the Bill Williams Restoration Project Boundary

...................................................................................................................................... 256

Table 3.10-1 shows the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classification by Acres for the 

Project Area. ................................................................................................................. 262

Table 3.10-2 shows the Acres for Alternative 2 by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Operability Zone........................................................................................................... 265

Table 3.10-3 shows the Acres for Alternative 4 by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Operability Zone........................................................................................................... 266

Table 3.11-3 Scenic integrity objectives in the proposed operability zones. ........................ 286

Table 3.11-4. Summary of risk rating. .................................................................................. 290

Table 3.11-4. Scenic Integrity Objectives by Operability Zone for Alternative 3 ................ 294

Table 3.11-5 Scenic integrity objectives by operability zone for Alternative 4. ................... 296

Table 3.13-1. Logging cost summary Alternative 2.............................................................. 304

Table 3.13-2. Logging cost summary Alternative 3.............................................................. 305

Table 3.13-3. Logging cost summary Alternative 4.............................................................. 307

Table 3.13-4. Estimated Implementation Costs by Alternative............................................. 308

Table 4.1-6: Summary of tribal consultation on the Bill Williams Restoration Project........ 321

List of Figures

Figure 1. Photo comparison of reference and current conditions in the Bill Williams 

Restoration Project Area................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2. Schematic showing the buffer zones for the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area 

mitigation measures. ....................................................................................................... 20

Figure 3.2-1 Ponderosa Pine Cover Type by Vegetative Structural Stages (VSS) under 

Current Condition ........................................................................................................... 46

Figure 3.2-2 40 year Projection of Ponderosa Pine Cover type (LOGPFA) Sustainability in 

the Project Area............................................................................................................... 47

Figure 3.2-3 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for the Ponderosa Pine 

Cover Type...................................................................................................................... 48

Figure 3.2-4 % of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine Cover 

Type)............................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 3.2-5 Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine 

Cover Type) .................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 3.2-6 Mixed Conifer Cover Type VSS Current Condition .......................................... 51

Figure 3.2-7 40 year Measure of Mixed Conifer Cover type (LOGPFA) Sustainability........ 51

Figure 3.2-8 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for Mixed Conifer 

Cover Type...................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 3.2-9 Percent of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Mixed Conifer Cover 

Type)............................................................................................................................... 53

Figure 3.2-10 DM Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Mixed Conifer Cover Type).. 53

Figure 3.2-11

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 1 and 2 . 55

Figure 3.2-12 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 3 (Use 

legend in 3.2-11)............................................................................................................. 56

Figure 3.2-13 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use 

legend in 3.2-11)............................................................................................................. 57

Figure 3.2-14 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 5(Use 

legend in 3.2-11)............................................................................................................. 57
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

x 

Figure 3.2-15 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 6 (Use 

legend in 3.2-11)............................................................................................................. 58

Figure 3.2-16 Ponderosa Pine PFA (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 1 and 2 .......... 58

Figure 3.2-17 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 3 (Use 

legend in 3.2-16)............................................................................................................. 59

Figure 3.2-18 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use 

legend in 3.2-16)............................................................................................................. 60

Figure 3.2-19 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 5 ..... 60

Figure 3.2-20 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 6 (Use 

legend in 3.2-19)............................................................................................................. 61

Figure 3.2-21 Ponderosa Pine Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA 

Level): VSS 4 and 5 (Use legend in 3.2-22).................................................................. 62

Figure 3.2-22 Ponderosa Pine Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA 

Level): VSS 6.................................................................................................................. 62

Figure 3.2-23 Ponderosa Pine Canopy Cover for PFA and goshawk nests (tree group, stand 

and EMA Level): VSS 4, 5 and 6 (Use legend in 3.2-16)............................................... 63

Figure 3.2-24 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 1 and 2.. 64

Figure 3.2-25 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 3 (Use 

legend in 3.2-24)............................................................................................................. 65

Figure 3.2-26 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use 

legend in 3.2-24)............................................................................................................. 66

Figure 3.2-27 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 5 (use 

legend in 3.2-24)............................................................................................................. 66

Figure 3.2-28 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 6(Use 

legend in 3.2-24)............................................................................................................. 67

Figure 3.2-29 Mixed Conifer Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA 

Level): VSS 4 and 5 (Use legend in 3.2-24)................................................................... 67

Figure 3.2-30 Mixed Conifer Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA 

Level): VSS 6 (Use legend in 3.2-24)............................................................................. 68

Figure 3.2-31 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for all Alternatives in 

the Ponderosa Pine Cover Type ...................................................................................... 70

Figure 3.2-32 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for all Alternatives in 

the Mixed Conifer Cover Type ....................................................................................... 71

Figure 3.2-33 Percent of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine 

Cover Type) .................................................................................................................... 72

Figure 3.2-34 Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine 

Cover Type) .................................................................................................................... 73

Figure 3.2-35 Mixed Conifer % of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Ponderosa 

Pine)................................................................................................................................ 74

Figure 3.2 – 36 Mixed Conifer % of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands 

(Douglas-fir) ................................................................................................................... 74

Figure 3.2- 37 Mixed Conifer Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands 

(Ponderosa Pine)............................................................................................................. 75

Figure 3.2- 38 Mixed Conifer Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands 

(Douglas-Fir) .................................................................................................................. 76

Figure 3.3-1 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution 

of fire potential for Alternative 1. ................................................................................... 88

Figure 3.3-2 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution 

of fire potential for Alternative 2. ................................................................................... 89
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

xi

Figure 3.3-3 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution 

of fire potential for Alternative 3. ................................................................................... 90

Figure 3.3-4 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution 

of fire potential for Alternative 4. ................................................................................... 91

Figure3.3-5. Habitat Stratum Fire Type Potential................................................................... 93

Figure 3.3-6. Percent FRCC for each alternative................................................................... 98

Figure 3.3-8. Arizona Smoke Management Map.................................................................. 102

Figure 3.4.1-1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project analysis area...................................................................................................... 109

Figure 3.4.1-2. Predicted Soil Erosion Hazard within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project analysis area.......................................................................................................112

Figure 3.4.1-3. Hydrologic soil groups within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

analysis area...................................................................................................................115

Figure 3.4.1-4. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units and their associated Timber Harvest Limitations 

within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project analysis area .......................... 120

Figure 3.4.1-5. Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project in relation to subwatersheds 

(HUC12). ...................................................................................................................... 124

Figure3.4.1-6. Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area in relation to the City of 

Williams Municipal Watershed..................................................................................... 127

Figure 3.6-1. Habitat of Mexican spotted owls affected by the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project. Double-click image for high-resolution .pdf map....................... 171

Figure 3.6-2. Habitat of northern goshawks affected by the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project. Double-click image for high-resolution .pdf map....................... 172

Figure 3.6-3. Effects of Alternatives on down logs/acre in landscapes out goshawk PFAs 

(LOGPFAs), PFAs, and nest areas in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests. ........ 199

Figure 3.6-4. Effects of Alternatives on tons of woody debris/acre in landscapes out goshawk 

PFAs (LOGPFAs), PFAs, and nest areas in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests.200

Figure 3.6-5. Effects of Alternatives on large snags/acre in landscapes out goshawk PFAs 

(LOGPFAs), PFAs, and nest areas in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forest........... 201

Figure 3.7-5: Invasive plants within a 1-mile buffer of the project areas. ............................ 233

Figure 3.9-6: The Hat Grazing Allotment and the Bill Williams Restoration Project Boundary.

...................................................................................................................................... 256

Figure 3.11-2. Finger Rock formation on Bill Williams Mountain. ..................................... 271

Figure 3.11-3. Bill Williams Mountain in a background view from downtown Williams, AZ.

...................................................................................................................................... 273

Figure 3.11-4 Foreground mixed conifer on top of Bill Williams Mountain, and looking to 

background at Williams, AZ. ........................................................................................ 273

Figure 3.11-5. Benham Ranch House ca. 1910 (Benham Collection). ................................. 277

Figure 3.11-6. Benham Ranch reshoot, 2011........................................................................ 277

Figure 3.11-7 Photo of the western slopes of Bill Williams Mountain................................. 278

Figure 3.11-8 Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives. .......................................................... 286

Figure 3.11-8 Cable corridor and haul road example from Montana.................................... 288

Figure 3.11-9 Looking down a cable corridor in Montana the next summer post treatment.288

Figure 3.11-9 Example of strategic fuels treatment near Elk Ridge Ski Area (prior to burning).

...................................................................................................................................... 289
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

xii

[This page intentionally left blank]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action 1 

Chapter 1 – Purpose of and Need for Action

Document Structure

The Forest Service has prepared this Environmental Impact Statement in compliance with the 

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

regulations. This Environmental Impact Statement discloses the direct, indirect, and cumulative 

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

is organized into four chapters: 

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

of the project proposal, the purpose of and need for the project, and the agency’s proposal 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

consequences associated with each alternative. 

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

describes the environmental effects of implementing the proposed action and other 

alternatives. This analysis is organized by resource area. 

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

agencies consulted during the development of the environmental impact statement. 

• Appendices: The appendices provide more detailed information to support the analyses 

presented in the environmental impact statement such as the existing and desired 

conditions report, public comments and responses, etc.

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

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

found in the project planning record located at Williams Ranger District office in Williams, 

Arizona.

1.1 Background

Bill Williams Mountain lies just southwest of Williams, Arizona and has an elevation of 9,256 

feet. It was identified by both the City of Williams and the USDA Forest Service as a critical 

resource deserving special protection from catastrophic wildfire in the Greater Williams Area 

Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005). 

There is a multi-million dollar communications site on the top of the mountain providing 

communications towers for the Arizona Department of Public Safety, USDA Forest Service, 

Arizona State Land Department, Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and several other 

governmental and private enterprises. The north side of the mountain is home to a small ski 

resort, and private property, homes and other infrastructure surround the base of the mountain. It 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

2 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

is an important sacred site and traditional use area for several Native American tribes, and has 

been determined eligible as a traditional cultural property.

Bill Williams Mountain is also the apex of six watersheds, including the Sycamore and Hell 

Canyon watersheds to the south and east, the Cataract Creek and Spring Valley Wash watersheds 

to the north, and the Ash Fork Draw and Upper Partridge Creek watersheds to the west. The City 

of Williams relies heavily on three of these watersheds to provide clean and abundant water to the 

local reservoirs as their municipal water source. 

Two large wildfires in Northern Arizona in 2010 and the ensuing monsoon rains highlighted the 

values-at-risk in the project area and the need for treatment on Bill Williams Mountain. The Eagle 

Rock Fire on Sitgreaves Mountain burned approximately 3,500 acres on the Kaibab National 

Forest and on the neighboring Coconino National Forest the Schultz Fire burned approximately 

15,200 acres on the San Francisco Peaks. Both fires involved area closures, and evacuations. 

These high-intensity wildfires led to flooding, erosion and sedimentation problems as well as 

landscapes and habitats that will take decades to recover. A high-intensity wildfire on Bill 

Williams Mountain could result in the loss of critical emergency communications systems; the 

silting in of reservoirs that act as municipal water sources as well as reductions in water quality; 

the loss of irreplaceable cultural and tribal resources; the loss of recreational areas and 

opportunities; the loss of important wildlife habitat; and the potential loss of lives and homes.

Vegetation treatments and prescribed burning have been planned and implemented in many areas 

surrounding the mountain, such as within the City and Twin Project area boundaries. However, 

our experiences from 2010 and lessons learned from previous years have led us to re-evaluate the 

treatments within these areas and we now recognize the urgency and need to treat the steep slopes 

of Bill Williams Mountain. 

It is not a question of “if” but “when” a large fire will occur on the mountain. It is time to take 

significant steps to reduce hazardous fuels and reduce the risk of a high intensity stand-replacing 

fire near the City of Williams and within its municipal watershed. 

 

Figure 1. Photo comparison of reference and current conditions in the Bill Williams 

Restoration Project Area. The photo on the left was taken southwest of Williams, AZ in the 

1890’s and overlooks town. The photo on the right was taken from approximately the same 

location in 2011. Since the forested condition in the foreground of the picture on the left does not 

appear to have been logged (i.e. there are no visible stumps in the openings), it provides a good 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action 3 

example of the reference conditions for portions of the project area. Comparison of the two 

pictures demonstrates how open forested conditions were and how dense they have become. 

1.2 Purpose and Need for Action1

The purpose of the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project is to improve the health and 

sustainability of forested conditions on and surrounding Bill Williams Mountain by reducing 

hazardous fuels and moving vegetative conditions in the project area toward the desired 

conditions. This work would be done to directly and indirectly improve the watershed conditions 

contributing to the City of Williams water supply.

There is a need for:

 Reintroducing fire as a natural part of the ecosystem;

 Reducing the risk for high intensity stand-replacing wildfires; 

 Reducing fuel buildup to help prevent the spread of wildfire onto private property and 

into drainages leading to the City of Williams reservoirs; 

 Reducing overall stand densities and moving stand conditions toward forest structures 

considered to be more typical of forest structure under pre-settlement fire regimes;

 Treating fuel accumulations to abate fire risks to Mexican spotted owl habitat, while 

conserving existing nesting and roosting habitat;

 Improving tree vigor and stand resiliency;

 Improving the diversity of age classes and structure of woody vegetation;

 Improving ground cover, including down woody debris, fine litter and herbaceous 

understory composition and productivity;

 Reducing mistletoe infection levels to more manageable levels where the area can be 

managed in an uneven-aged condition over time;

 To provide forest products, such as firewood, for people living in Williams, AZ and the 

surrounding area, in order to meet their needs for forest and wood products, while 

protecting these resources for future generations;

 And by improving the motorized transportation system to provide for a more sustainable 

road system where poorly located roads are relocated or obliterated.

Site-Specific Forest Plan amendments for the proposed action are listed below:

There is a need to amend the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) Land Management Plan (Forest Plan, 

as amended, 1988) to re-designate the land suitability classification within the project area to 

allow restoration treatments to move vegetative conditions toward the reference conditions for the 

area. This amendment is needed because the long-term desired conditions for the area (achieved 

through strict-sense restoration and maintenance burning) would preclude timber production over 

the landscape and not meet the intent of the Forest Plan.

There is a need to amend the Forest Plan (1988, as amended) to allow the Forest to deviate from 

Forest Plan Guidelines for Mexican Spotted Owls (MSO) by thinning trees over 9” diameter 

 

1 The purpose and need for action is derived from the differences between existing conditions and 

desired conditions in the project area. DEIS Appendix E documents the existing resource 

conditions and desired conditions in the Bill Williams Mountain project area. Desired conditions 

are based on management direction in the 1988 Kaibab Forest Plan, as amended, and also on 

reference conditions for vegetation. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

4 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

breast height (dbh) in order to achieve fuels-reduction objectives in MSO Protected Habitat 

(mixed-conifer and pine-oak forest on slopes ≥40% and all areas within the Bill Williams 

Protected Activity Center). 

There is a need to amend the Forest Plan (1988, as amended) to allow the Forest to deviate from 

Forest Plan Standards and Guidelines in ponderosa pine stands outside of goshawk post-fledgling 

family areas (PFAs) and goshawk nest areas by reducing canopy cover below 40% in certain 

areas in order to achieve restoration objectives.

There is a need to amend the Forest Plan (1988, as amended) to allow the Forest to exceed the 

maximum fire size and average annual burned area objectives of 1/10th acre per year within Land 

Use Zone – Special Area 6, the Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area.

1.3 Proposed Action

To meet the purpose and need for action, the Kaibab National Forest proposes to treat stands on 

and surrounding Bill Williams Mountain with mechanized equipment and prescribed fire. 

A combination of commercial timber harvest treatments and non-commercial mechanical 

treatments is proposed on approximately 15,200 acres. Mechanized treatments include hand 

felling, ground-based logging systems, cable-logging systems and helicopter logging. Treatments 

would thin stands to meet or move toward the desired conditions and in some stands, noncommercial treatments may be the only treatments feasible/necessary to achieve resource 

objectives. 

Prescribed fire is also proposed on approximately 15,200 acres of the project area. In some areas, 

prescribed fire would be used in conjunction with mechanical treatments to achieve restoration 

and fuel treatment objectives. In other areas where operability is limited and more costly, only 

prescribed burning may be used to meet resource objectives.

The Proposed Action includes four one-time site-specific Forest Plan amendments to meet the 

purpose and need for action and move vegetative conditions in the project area toward the desired 

conditions. They are as follows: 

This proposed action would amend the Kaibab National Forest (KNF) Land Management Plan 

(Forest Plan, as amended, 1988) to re-designate the land suitability classification within portions 

of the project area to allow restoration treatments to move vegetative conditions toward the 

reference conditions for the area. This amendment is needed because the long-term desired 

conditions for the area (achieved through strict-sense restoration and maintenance burning) would 

preclude timber production over the landscape and not meet the intent of the Forest Plan.

This proposed action would amend the Forest Plan to allow the Forest to deviate from Forest Plan 

Guidelines for Mexican Spotted Owls in order to achieve fuels-reduction objectives in MSO 

Protected Habitat (mixed-conifer and pine-oak forest on slopes ≥40% and all areas within the Bill 

Williams Protected Activity Center). 

This proposed action would amend the Forest Plan to allow the Forest to deviate from Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines in ponderosa pine stands outside of goshawk post-fledgling family 

areas (PFAs) and goshawk nest areas in order to achieve restoration objectives.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action 5 

This proposed action would amend the Forest Plan to allow the Forest to exceed the maximum 

fire size and average annual burned area objectives within Land Use Zone – Special Area 6, the 

Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area.

A detailed description of Alternative 2, the proposed action, is provided in Chapter 2 (Section 

2.2). 

1.4 Decision Framework

Based on the purpose and need for action, the findings in the Final Environmental Impact 

Statement (FEIS) and supporting project record, and consideration of the best available science, 

the Forest Supervisor will decide:

1. Whether to select the proposed action or one of the alternatives;

2. What mitigation and/or monitoring measures will be required during implementation of 

the proposed action or any alternative selected; and

3. What language and content changes are needed to the Kaibab National Forest Land 

Management Plan. 

1.5 Public Involvement

Public involvement for this project began prior to the publication of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to 

prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. The Forest invited the public and various interested 

parties to participate in numerous informal “brainstorming” sessions during January, February 

and March of 2011. Participants were solicited for ideas, questions, and concerns about treating 

hazardous fuels on Bill Williams Mountain, and thereby improving forest health near the 

community.

Where possible, we incorporated the input we received into the purpose and need for action and 

the desired conditions for the project area. Many overarching themes were repeated during these 

discussions. For example, many statements were made about the need to avoid incidents like the 

Schultz Fire as well as the events that followed. Others stated we should consider the costbenefits of treating the fuels now versus trying to suppress a high-intensity wildfire. All of the 

ideas and comments we received are appreciated and were helpful in refining a proposal for this 

project area. 

The NOI was published in the Federal Register on Thursday, April 21, 2011. The NOI asked for 

public comment on the proposal by May 23, 2011. In addition, as part of the public involvement 

process, the Forest invited public comment and participation through listing the project in the 

Schedule of Proposed Actions (SOPA); posting the scoping packet online 

(http://fs.usda.gov/goto/kaibab/projects); and mailing letters to potentially interested persons, 

tribal governments, and State and other Federal agencies. Three letters and six emails were 

recorded from this effort. A scoping meeting was also hosted at the Williams Ranger District on 

Wednesday May 11, 2011 to discuss the proposed action and accept comments. The Forest 

received nine written comments as well as several oral questions and comments that were 

recorded at the public scoping meeting. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

6 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

Using the comments we received from the public, other agencies, and interested and affected 

Tribal governments and communities during scoping of the proposed action, we identified a list 

of significant and non-significant issues (see Section 1.6 Issues). 

1.6 Issues

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

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

proposed action. Non-significant issues were identified as those: 1) outside the scope of the 

proposed action; 2) already decided by law, regulation, Forest Plan, or other higher level decision; 

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

factual evidence. The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations explain this 

delineation in Sec. 1501.7, “...identify and eliminate from detailed study the issues which are not 

significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review (Sec. 1506.3)...” A list of 

non-significant issues and explanations regarding their categorization as non-significant may be 

found in the Issue Processing Report (Appendix C). 

The Forest Service has identified the following significant issues from our scoping efforts. They 

are grouped as to whether the issue can be remedied by implementing a mitigation measure or an 

alternative to the proposed action and they have been reworded to reflect cause-and-effect 

statements.

Significant Issues Remedied by Implementing Mitigation Measures

Issue 1 – The Proposed Action may cause the loss of pre-settlement trees which will have 

potentially significant impacts on old growth recruitment and critical wildlife habitat. 

A mitigation measure has been developed to generally retain pre-settlement trees (DEIS, Section 

2.3). Some pre-settlement trees may be incidentally taken due to harvesting operability and 

unforeseen circumstances related to health and safety. A pre-settlement tree is generally a tree 

that was living prior to 1870.

Issue 2 – The proposed prescribed burning may increase debris flow and increase surface 

erosion which will result in ash filling a stock tank located on Benham private property and 

negatively affect the water treatment plant for the city of Williams. 

Implementation of Soil and Watershed Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce the 

potential for debris flows and surface erosion to impact a stock tank on Benham private property

and the Water Treatment Plant for the City of Williams (DEIS, Appendix B). 

Issue 3 – The vertical arrangement of strategic fire lines around the proposed burn blocks may 

result in erosion problems. 

Implementation of Soil and Watershed Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce the 

likelihood of erosion problems such as soil loss and downcutting from construction of strategic 

fuels treatment lines (DEIS, Appendix B). 

Issue 4 – The project may negatively impact the growth and productivity of Native American 

medicinal and ceremonial plants.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action 7 

A mitigation measure has been developed to minimize impacts to Native American medicinal and 

ceremonial plants in consultation with the Tribes (DEIS, Section 2.3).

Issue 5 - The proposed project has not been designed to retain a sufficient amount of large logs 

and other dead and down material compatible with MSO needs and primary constituent elements 

of MSO critical habitat. 

A mitigation measure has been developed to retain large down logs and woody debris where 

possible and when needed to meet desired conditions (DEIS, Section 2.3). Where possible we 

will avoid direct ignition of large down logs and woody debris in the project area to meet desired 

conditions.

Issue 6 – The proposed action may degrade wildlife habitat because of the proposed treatments 

in dwarf mistletoe stands.

A mitigation measure has been developed to retain some dwarf mistletoe as a natural component 

in stands (DEIS, Section 2.3).

Issue 7 – The proposed action includes new road construction and temporary road construction 

which may negatively affect the watershed.

Implementation of Soil and Watershed Best Management Practices (BMPs) would reduce the 

potential for impacts from road construction to the watershed (DEIS, Appendix B).

An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would include no new road 

construction or temporary road construction (DEIS, Section 2.4).

Issue 8 – The Proposed Action would not follow all recommendations for management of MSO 

habitat per the Final Rule for designation of Critical Habitat (FWS 2004) because it would 

reduce shade below 40% across a large portion of MSO Critical Habitat.

A mitigation measure has been developed to retain more trees per pre-settlement evidence on 

highly productive sites (DEIS, Section 2.3) in order to retain 40% shade in MSO Critical Habitat.

Significant Issues Remedied by Implementing Different Alternatives

Issue 9 – The Proposed Action would not follow all recommendations for management of 

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) habitat per the MSO Recovery Plan because it would cut trees 

greater than 9” diameter breast height (dbh) in a MSO Protected Activity Center (PAC) and 

other Protected Habitat.

Alternatives 3 and 4 were developed in response to this issue. They do not include a site-specific 

Forest Plan amendment that would allow for thinning trees above 9” dbh, and would follow the 

Guidelines in the Forest Plan and MSO Recovery Plan for MSO protected habitat (DEIS, Section 

2.2). 

Indicator: Acres of PAC and Protected Habitat thinned above nine inches dbh
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

8 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

Issue 10 – The Proposed Action would implement three site specific Forest Plan amendments

that are not needed to meet restoration objectives.

Alternatives 3 and 4 respond to this issue. They do not include any site specific Forest Plan 

amendments (DEIS, section 2.2). 

Indicator: a) Acres of land where land suitability was re-designated, b) Percent canopy 

cover in vegetative structural stage (VSS) 4, 5, & 6

Issue 11 – The Proposed Action would negatively affect wildlife and cultural resources due to 

road construction and its associated impacts (e.g. habitat loss, fragmentation, compaction, etc.).

Mitigation measures have been developed to protect cultural resources (DEIS, Section 2.3).

Alternative 4 was partially developed to respond to this issue. It does not include any new road 

construction (DEIS, Section 2.2). 

Indicator: a) Miles of new road construction, b) Acres of edge habitat created due to new 

road construction

Issue 12 – The Proposed Action would allow cable logging which is not ecologically sound 

because it would harvest old growth trees.

Alternatives 3 and 4 respond to this issue. They do not include the use of cable logging systems to 

treat vegetative conditions on steep slopes within the project area (DEIS, Section 2.2). 

Indicators: a) Acres treated with cable logging, b) Average number of large diameter 

trees per acre over time

Issue 13 – The Proposed Action would allow mechanical treatment in the Arizona (AZ) bugbane 

botanical area which would invite non-native invasive species and damage the populations.

Mitigation measures have been developed to prevent and control the spread of non-native 

invasive species within the project area (DEIS, Section 2.3).

Alternative 4 responds to this issue because it does not include mechanical treatments (except for 

hand-felling techniques) in the AZ bugbane botanical area (DEIS, Section 2.2). 

Indicator: a) Acres of AZ bugbane botanical area potentially impacted by mechanized 

equipment

Issue 14 – The Proposed Action would mechanically treat approximately 15,200 acres, which 

would impact wildlife viability, soil conditions and water resources, when the objectives could be 

achieved primarily through prescribed burning.

An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would only utilize 

prescribed burning techniques (DEIS, Section 2.4). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action 9 

Additionally, the No Action alternative responds to this issue in several ways because it does not 

include any mechanical treatments or prescribed burning on steep slopes within the project area, 

except in those areas already covered under the City and Twin Projects (Decision Notice/Finding 

of No Significant Impact (DN/FONSI) 2005; DN/FONSI 2005 respectively). The No Action 

alternative will serve as the baseline for comparing the effects and anticipated effectiveness of 

each alternative in meeting the purpose and need.

Indicators: a) Wildlife viability, b) Soil erosion hazard, c) Short-term effect on water 

quality and yield, d) Long-term effect on water quality and yield

Issue 15 – The Proposed Action includes mechanical treatments and prescribed burning on steep 

slopes which could cause erosion and sedimentation and subsequently affect water sources and 

properties downstream.

The No Action alternative responds to this issue in several ways because it does not include any 

mechanical treatments or prescribed burning on steep slopes within the project area, except in 

those areas already covered under the City and Twin Projects (DN/FONSI 2005; DN/FONSI 

2005 respectively). The No Action alternative will serve as the baseline for comparing the effects 

and anticipated effectiveness of each alternative in meeting the purpose and need.

Indicator: a) short-term effect on water quality and yield, b) long-term effect on water 

quality and yield

Issue 16 – The Proposed Action includes the use of a helicopter logging system which is 

expensive and a significant disturbance to wildlife and nearby residents.

Alternative 4 was partially developed to respond to this issue. It does not include the use of 

helicopter logging systems to treat vegetative conditions on steep slopes within the project area 

(DEIS, Section 2.2). 

Indicators: a) Acres treated with helicopter logging, b) Estimated cost, c) Wildlife 

viability
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

10 Chapter 1 – Purpose and Need for Action

[This page intentionally left blank]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 11

Chapter 2 – Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action

2.1 Introduction

This chapter describes and compares the alternatives considered for the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project. It includes a description of each alternative considered. Maps for the 

alternatives can be found in Appendix A. This section also presents the alternatives in 

comparative form, sharply defining the differences between each alternative and providing a clear 

basis for choice among options by the decision maker and the public. Some of the information 

used to compare the alternatives is based upon the design of the alternative and some of the 

information is based upon the environmental, social and economic effects of implementing each 

alternative. 

2.2 Alternatives Considered in Detail

The Forest Service developed four alternatives, including the No Action and Proposed Action 

alternatives, in response to issues raised by the public. 

Alternative 1 – No Action 

Under the No Action alternative, current management would continue in the project area. This 

alternative would not implement any new treatments or actions described in the proposed action 

(or other action alternatives described below). The no action alternative would not fulfill the 

purpose and need for action and represents a continuation of the existing conditions and 

management. 

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action

To meet the purpose and need for action, the Kaibab National Forest proposes the following 

actions under Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action: 

Mechanical Treatments

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action includes a combination of commercial timber harvest 

treatments and non-commercial mechanical treatments on approximately 15,200 acres. 

Treatments would thin stands with mechanized equipment to meet or move toward the desired 

conditions; in some stands, non-commercial treatments may be the only treatments 

feasible/necessary to achieve resource objectives.

The operability zones portrayed in Map 1 (DEIS, Appendix A) are used to define the proposed 

action and illustrate the operational feasibility of mechanically treating the project area. These 

zones share common operational attributes such as topography, terrain and potential logging 

system.

Operability Zones 1, 2 & 6: Ground-based logging systems would be used to treat up to 11,1502

acres within these zones and are limited in use to slopes less than 40%. 

 

2 Please note this number was updated from 11,100 acres in the scoping packet to 11,150 acres because of a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

12 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Operability Zones 3 & 43

: Ground-based logging systems would be used to treat up to 70 acres 

within zone 3 and a cable logging system would be used to treat up to 130 acres within zone 4. 

Because of the location of these zones near the top of the mountain and the only roaded access 

along Forest Service Road (FSR) 111 (Bill Williams Mtn. Rd), these zones would require 

specialized equipment (e.g. forwarder and excaliner). Additionally, these zones would require an 

adverse skid to reach FSR 111 and then, due to the switchbacks along FSR 111 near the summit, 

skidding would also be required down FSR 111 to reach a suitable landing. Initial reviews of 

these zones indicate that the proposed ground-based logging system within these zones would be 

the most economically feasible treatment option; however, helicopter logging systems may also 

be utilized.

Operability Zone 5: A cable logging system would be used to treat up to 350 acres within this 

zone. Slopes within this zone are steep ranging from 40-60%, and approximately 1 mile of new 

road (to be closed following harvest) would be needed to facilitate removal of the fuels. Initial 

review of this zone indicates that the proposed cable logging system would be the most 

economically feasible treatment option; however, helicopter logging systems may also be 

utilized.

Operability Zone 7: Helicopter logging would be used within this zone to treat up to 3,500 acres 

due to steep slopes and limited access. Flights would average about 4,000 feet long one-way. 

Post-Mechanical Treatments

Activity slash treatments would be accomplished using whole-tree skidding, machine piling, hand 

piling, mulching, crushing, commercial/personal use fuelwood sales, lop and scatter, and/or 

prescribed burning.

Rehabilitation and reclamation of areas impacted from treatments would occur to ensure the 

health and productivity of the forested ecosystem is sustained.

Strategic Fuels Treatments 

Strategic fuel treatments designed specifically to enhance control lines would be implemented to 

enable land managers to achieve resource objectives with prescribed fire while serving to protect 

important resources. Treatments would reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels (i.e. fuel loading) 

up to 300 feet along both sides of control lines. The potential location of these lines are illustrated 

in Map 2 (DEIS, Appendix A) and mitigation measures (DEIS, Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1) have 

been developed should additional control lines be necessary. Approximately 2,500 acres4 would 

receive non-commercial treatments and fuels would most likely be thinned by hand-felling 

techniques or, where practical, machinery equipped with cutting or grinding heads. These 

 

rounding error.

3 Please note the proposed action in the scoping packet indicated that ground-based logging systems would 

be used within zones 3 & 4. Operability zone 3 would treat approx. 70 acres using a ground-based system 

(e.g. a forwarder). However, in order to move material out of operability zone 4 we would use a cable 

logging system in combination with the ground-based system used in zone 3. This information has been 

clarified in Alternative 2 – the proposed action since scoping. 4 Please note the proposed action in the scoping packet indicated that 1,500 to 2,500 acres would be treated 

as part of the strategic fuels treatment. In order to simplify the analysis, this has been clarified to indicate 

that approximately 2,500 acres would be treated; the maximum acreage that would be impacted.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 13

treatments represent the minimum acreage needed to prepare stands on steeper slopes for 

prescribed burning and would be combined with mechanical treatments where possible.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire would be used on approximately 15,200 acres of the project area within 

Operability Zones 1 through 7. In some areas, prescribed fire would be used in conjunction with 

mechanical treatments to achieve restoration and fuel treatment objectives, such as in Operability 

Zones 1, 2 & 6. In other areas where operability is limited and more costly (Zones 3, 4, 5 & 7), 

only prescribed burning may be used to meet resource objectives; this would be dependent on 

implementation of the strategic fuel treatments designed to enhance control lines (described 

above). 

- Prescribed burning may be implemented across the project area either prior to or 

following the mechanical treatments, with the exception of areas on steep slopes 

requiring the strategic fuels treatments described above. In most areas of the project, 

prescribed fire will follow mechanical treatments. Areas to be burned will be grouped 

into several burn units using natural and man-made features, such as roads, trails, and 

natural rock stringers, for control lines. The size, location, timing, and sequence of 

burning will consider impacts, such as smoke and risk of fire escape, to downwind 

communities and users of the National Forest.

- A combination of firing techniques, including ground and aerial ignitions, would be used 

to accomplish objectives and minimize the risk to human resources. 

- Because the intent of prescribed burning is to reduce fuel loading, raise crown base 

heights and reduce live tree density, maintenance burning would be required every few 

years. 

Transportation

Alternative 2 includes:

- Constructing approximately 23 miles of new roads to provide sustainable access for 

ground-based logging treatments (Map 3, DEIS, Appendix A). Sustainable access is a 

road system that will require less long-term maintenance and is located to allow logging 

access. 

- Constructing approximately 16 miles of temporary roads that would be obliterated after 

use (Map 3, DEIS, Appendix A).

- Obliterating approximately 28 miles of poorly located roads (Map 4, DEIS, Appendix A).

Map 5 (DEIS, Appendix A) illustrates the transportation system after implementation of the 

project. Most of the newly constructed roads would be closed following implementation and 

allowed to re-vegetate naturally; additionally, drainage features such as culverts will be removed 

to minimize the long-term maintenance investment of retaining these roads. The resulting open 

road system after implementation would reflect the June 2011 travel management decision (Map 

6, DEIS, Appendix A). 

Trails

Because of the proposed changes to the transportation system, Alternative 2 would extend the 

Bixler Trail by converting a portion of Forest Service Road (FSR) 45 (from Bixler saddle south) 

to a non-motorized trail, constructing approximately 1 mile of new trail, and constructing a new 

trailhead and parking area along FSR 122 (shown on Map 5, DEIS, Appendix A).

Forest Plan Amendments
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

14 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Alternative 2 - The Proposed Action includes four Forest Plan amendments:

1. Amend the Forest Plan to re-designate the land suitability classification on 8,954 acres of 

ponderosa pine cover type within the project area to allow restoration treatments to move 

vegetative conditions toward the reference conditions for the area. This amendment will 

reduce the acres of land suitable for timber production by 8,954 acres because replanting 

will not occur (see p. 9 of the Forest Plan).

2. Allow a one-time project specific amendment to the Forest Plan to allow the Forest to 

deviate from Forest Plan Guidelines for Mexican Spotted Owls on steep slopes (slopes 

≥40%) and within the Bill Williams Protected Activity Center by harvesting and thinning 

trees greater than nine inches (see Chapter 4, Regionally Consistent Standards and 

Guidelines for the Mexican Spotted Owl, Section B – Protected Areas, page 24).

3. Allow a one-time project specific amendment to the Forest Plan to allow the Forest to 

deviate from Forest Plan Guidelines in ponderosa pine cover type outside of goshawk 

post-fledgling family areas (PFAs) and goshawk nest areas by not meeting the canopy 

cover Guidelines for vegetation structural stages (VSS) 4, 5, and 6 (see Chapter 4, 

Regionally Consistent Standards and Guidelines for the Ecosystem Management in 

Northern Goshawk Habitats, Vegetation Management section, p. 29-30).

4. 5

Allow a project specific amendment to the Forest Plan to allow the Forest to exceed the 

maximum fire size (one acre) and average annual burned area objectives (1/10th acre) 

within Land Use Zone – Special Area 6, the Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area (p. 93).

Implementation

Implementation of the proposed action would begin in 2012 and would occur as funding and/or 

favorable conditions allow. 

Alternative 3 

The main differences from the Proposed Action and Alternative 3 are: no cable logging, (the 

cable logging acres would be added to helicopter logging acres), and no Forest Plan amendments.

To meet the purpose and need for action, the Kaibab National Forest proposes the following 

actions under Alternative 3: 

Mechanical Treatments

Alternative 3 includes a combination of commercial timber harvest treatments and noncommercial mechanical treatments on approximately 15,200 acres. Treatments would thin stands 

with mechanized equipment to meet or move toward the desired conditions; in some stands, noncommercial treatments may be the only treatments feasible/necessary to achieve resource 

objectives.

The operability zones portrayed in Map 7 (DEIS, Appendix A) are used to define Alternative 3 

and illustrate the location of mechanical treatments within the project area. These zones share 

common operational attributes such as topography, terrain and potential logging system.

Operability Zones 1, 2 & 6: Ground-based logging systems would be used to treat up to 11,150 

acres within these zones and are limited in use to slopes less than 40%. 

 

5 This Forest Plan amendment was added to the proposed action in light of comments raised during the 

scoping process regarding the ability of the proposed action to meet the desired conditions within the 

constraints of the Standards and Guidelines for the Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 15

Operability Zones 3: Ground-based logging systems would be used to treat up to 70 acres within 

zone 3. Because of the location of this zone near the top of the mountain and the only roaded 

access along Forest Service Road (FSR) 111 (Bill Williams Mtn. Rd), this zone would require 

specialized equipment (e.g. forwarder). Additionally, this zone would require an adverse skid to 

reach FSR 111 and then, due to the switchbacks along FSR 111 near the summit, skidding would 

also be required down FSR 111 to reach a suitable landing. Initial reviews of this zone indicate

that the proposed ground-based logging system within this zone would be the most economically 

feasible treatment option; however, helicopter logging systems may also be utilized.

Operability Zone 7: Helicopter logging would be used within this zone to treat up to 3,980 acres 

due to steep slopes and limited access. Flights would average about 4,000 feet long one way. 

Post-Mechanical Treatments

Activity slash treatments would be accomplished using whole-tree skidding, machine piling, hand 

piling, mulching, crushing, commercial/personal use fuelwood sales, lop and scatter, and/or 

prescribed burning.

Rehabilitation and reclamation of areas impacted from treatments would occur to ensure the 

health and productivity of the forested ecosystem is sustained.

Strategic Fuels Treatments 

Strategic fuel treatments designed specifically to enhance control lines would be implemented to 

enable land managers to achieve resource objectives with prescribed fire while serving to protect

important resources. Treatments would reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels (i.e. fuel loading) 

up to 300 feet along both sides of control lines. The potential location of these lines are illustrated 

in Map 2 (DEIS, Appendix A) and mitigation measures (DEIS, Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1) have 

been developed should additional control lines be necessary. Approximately 2,500 acres would 

receive non-commercial treatments and fuels would most likely be thinned by hand-felling 

techniques or, where practical, machinery equipped with cutting or grinding heads. These 

treatments represent the minimum acreage needed to prepare stands on steeper slopes for 

prescribed burning and would be combined with mechanical treatments where possible.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire would be used on approximately 14,710 acres of the project area within 

Operability Zones 1 through 7, except within Land Use Zone – Special Area 6, the Arizona 

Bugbane Botanic Area. In some areas, prescribed fire would be used in conjunction with 

mechanical treatments to achieve restoration and fuel treatment objectives, such as in Operability 

Zones 1, 2 & 6. In other areas where operability is limited and more costly (Zones 3 & 7), only 

prescribed burning may be used to meet resource objectives; this would be dependent on 

implementation of the strategic fuel treatments designed to enhance control lines (described 

above). 

- Prescribed burning may be implemented across the project area either prior to or 

following the mechanical treatments, with the exception of areas on steep slopes 

requiring the strategic fuels treatments described above. In most areas of the project, 

prescribed fire will follow mechanical treatments. Areas to be burned will be grouped 

into several burn units using natural and man-made features, such as roads, trails, and 

natural rock stringers, for control lines. The size, location, timing, and sequence of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

16 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

burning will consider impacts, such as smoke and risk of fire escape, to downwind 

communities and users of the National Forest.

- A combination of firing techniques, including ground and aerial ignitions, would be used 

to accomplish objectives and minimize the risk to human resources. 

- Because the intent of prescribed burning is to reduce fuel loading, raise crown base 

heights and reduce live tree density, maintenance burning would be required every few 

years. 

Transportation

Alternative 3 includes:

- Constructing approximately 22 miles of new roads to provide sustainable access for 

ground-based logging treatments (Map 8, DEIS, Appendix A). 

- Constructing approximately 16 miles of temporary roads that would be obliterated after 

use (Map 8, DEIS, Appendix A).

- Obliterating approximately 28 miles of poorly located roads (Map 4, DEIS, Appendix A).

Map 9 (DEIS, Appendix A) illustrates the transportation system after implementation of the 

project. Most of the newly constructed roads would be closed following implementation and 

allowed to re-vegetate naturally; additionally, drainage features such as culverts will be removed 

to minimize the long-term maintenance investment of retaining these roads. The resulting open 

road system after implementation would reflect the June 2011 travel management decision (Map 

6, DEIS, Appendix A). 

Trails

Because of the proposed changes to the transportation system, Alternative 3 would extend the 

Bixler Trail by converting a portion of Forest Service Road (FSR) 45 (from Bixler saddle south) 

to a non-motorized trail, constructing approximately 1 mile of new trail, and constructing a new 

trailhead and parking area along FSR 122 (shown on Map 9, DEIS, Appendix A).

Implementation

Implementation of Alternative 3 would begin in 2012 and would occur as funding and/or 

favorable conditions allow. 

Alternative 4 

The main differences between Alternative 3 and Alternative 4 are: no helicopter logging, no new 

road construction, and no Forest Plan amendments.

To meet the purpose and need for action, the Kaibab National Forest proposes the following 

actions under Alternative 4: 

Mechanical Treatments

Alternative 4 includes a combination of commercial timber harvest treatments and noncommercial mechanical treatments on approximately 11,150 acres. Treatments would thin stands 

with mechanized equipment to meet or move toward the desired conditions; in some stands, noncommercial treatments would be the only treatments implemented to achieve resource objectives.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 17

The operability zones portrayed in Map 10 (DEIS, Appendix A) are used to define Alternative 4 

and illustrate the location of treatments within the project area. These zones share common 

operational attributes such as topography, terrain and potential logging system.

Operability Zones 1, 2 & 6: Ground-based logging systems would be used to treat up to 11,150 

acres within these zones and are limited in use to slopes less than 40%. 

Post-Mechanical Treatments

Activity slash treatments would be accomplished using whole-tree skidding, machine piling, hand 

piling, mulching, crushing, commercial/personal use fuelwood sales, lop and scatter, and/or 

prescribed burning.

Rehabilitation and reclamation of areas impacted from treatments would occur to ensure the 

health and productivity of the forested ecosystem is sustained.

Strategic Fuels Treatments 

Strategic fuel treatments designed specifically to enhance control lines would be implemented to 

enable land managers to achieve resource objectives with prescribed fire while serving to protect 

important resources. Treatments would reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels (i.e. fuel loading) 

up to 300 feet along both sides of control lines. The potential location of these lines are illustrated 

in Map 2 (DEIS, Appendix A) and mitigation measures (DEIS, Chapter 2 Section 2.3.1) have 

been developed should additional control lines be necessary. Approximately 2,500 acres would 

receive non-commercial treatments and fuels would be thinned by hand-felling techniques. These 

treatments represent the minimum acreage needed to prepare stands on steep slopes for prescribed 

burning.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire would be used on approximately 14,710 acres of the project area, except within 

Land Use Zone – Special Area 6, the Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area. In some areas, prescribed 

fire would be used in conjunction with mechanical treatments to achieve restoration and fuel 

treatment objectives, such as in Operability Zones 1, 2 & 6. On steep slopes only prescribed 

burning would be used to meet resource objectives; this would be dependent on implementation 

of the strategic fuel treatments designed to enhance control lines (described above). 

- Prescribed burning may be implemented across the project area either prior to or 

following the mechanical treatments, with the exception of areas on steep slopes 

requiring the strategic fuels treatments described above. In most areas of the project, 

prescribed fire will follow mechanical treatments. Areas to be burned will be grouped 

into several burn units using natural and man-made features, such as roads, trails, and 

natural rock stringers, for control lines. The size, location, timing, and sequence of 

burning will consider impacts, such as smoke and risk of fire escape, to downwind 

communities and users of the National Forest.

- A combination of firing techniques, including ground and aerial ignitions, would be used

to accomplish objectives and minimize the risk to human resources. 

- Because the intent of prescribed burning is to reduce fuel loading, raise crown base 

heights and reduce live tree density, maintenance burning would be required every few 

years. 

Transportation 

Alternative 4 includes:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

18 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

- Constructing approximately 38 miles of temporary roads that would be obliterated after 

use (Map 11, DEIS, Appendix A).

- Obliterating approximately 28 miles of poorly located roads (Map 4, DEIS, Appendix A).

Map 12 (DEIS, Appendix A) illustrates the transportation system after implementation of the 

project. The resulting open road system after implementation would reflect the June 2011 travel 

management decision (Map 6, DEIS, Appendix A).

Implementation

Implementation of Alternative 4 would begin in 2012 and would occur as funding and/or 

favorable conditions allow. 

2.3 Mitigation and Monitoring

The mitigation and monitoring measures designed specifically for the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project are described below in Sections 2.3.1 and 2.3.2. The effectiveness of the 

mitigations measures is disclosed in Chapter 3 of the Environmental Impact Statement as the 

analyses for each alternative assumes the appropriate mitigations have been implemented. 

Monitoring measures are included in the project to ensure best management practices and 

mitigation measures are being implemented and that the objectives of the project are being met. 

2.3.1 Mitigation

The Forest Service employs several measures to reduce or prevent negative impacts to the 

environment in the planning and implementation of management activities. The application of 

these measures begins at the planning and design phase of a project. The Forest Plan Standards 

and Guidelines and the direction contained in the Watershed Conservation Practices Handbook 

(FSH 2509.25) are the first protection measures to be applied to a project. Both of these sources 

are incorporated by reference and are not reiterated here. Additional site-specific mitigation 

measures have been developed for this project, and are presented below. Unless specified 

otherwise, each mitigation measure applies to all action alternatives.

Wildlife6

Mexican Spotted Owls

1. Minimize the loss of oak and other hardwoods >10” diameter at root collar [drc], down 

logs >12” midpoint diameter, trees >18” diameter at breast height [dbh], and snags >18” 

dbh outside of areas where needed to move toward desired conditions.

2. Do not disturb the Bill Williams Protected Activity Center (PAC) and minimize smoke 

impacts to nesting Mexican spotted owls during the breeding season (March 1st

-August 

31st) if it is active. Activity will be determined by conducting surveys in and within a 

 

6 These derive from direction of the 1988 Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan (as 

amended), from internal project development, from recommendations of the US Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Arizona Game and Fish Department, and from public scoping. For the purposes of 

this section, “disturbance” includes mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels, temporary road 

construction, road decommissions, road closures, and trail construction; it does not include the 

use of prescribed fire. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 19

half-mile of the PAC one year prior to implementation or during the year of 

implementation. If surveys are not conducted during the year of implementation or the 

year prior to implementation, assume breeding activity.

3. Work with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) when developing silvicultural 

prescriptions for the 100-acre Core of the Bill Williams PAC. Any prescriptions that may 

occur within the PAC Core would be restricted to thinning the understory and mid-story 

while still retaining substantial vertical diversity within the Core.

4. In areas outside of MSO Protected Habitat, MSO Target/Threshold Habitat, goshawk nest 

areas and goshawk PFAs, retain 1-2 trees per pre-settlement evidence in order to restore 

forests to pre-settlement conditions. In highly productive sites within MSO Restricted 

Habitat but outside Target/Threshold Habitat, leave more trees per pre-settlement 

evidence. In areas where pre-settlement evidence is limited or absent scientific literature 

will inform prescriptions. On highly productive sites, the high end of the historic range of 

variability of trees/acre will be used to inform prescriptions. These measures will allow 

the project to retain at least 40% shade cover in MSO Habitat.

Northern Goshawks

5. Limit human disturbance associated with the project implementation of Post-fledlging 

Family Areas (PFAs) during the breeding season (March 1st-September 30th).

Habitat Attributes

6. Minimize the loss of pre-settlement trees, regardless of mistletoe infection. Where presettlement trees infected with mistletoe exist and where necessary, leave additional postsettlement trees in groups to promote the abundance of VSS 5 (18”+ dbh) and 6 (24”+

dbh) groups across the landscape. Note that pre-settlement trees will be visually 

identified. 

Vegetation

7. Due to potential bark beetle infestation problems, avoid non-commercial thinning that 

will create excessive amounts of activity slash between the dates of January 1 and July 1, 

especially near private property. 

Range

8. When necessary, pastures scheduled for burning will be rested for at least one growing 

season prior to and following burning. Soil stability and plant health will be assessed 

prior to the authorization of grazing in burned areas. 

Rare Plants

9. Known locations of rare plant species will be protected to limit negative impacts (e.g. 

where possible road construction will avoid known plant populations). 

10. Rare plant surveys and surveys for Native American medicinal and ceremonial plants, 

such as Porter's licorice-root (syn. osha root, Ligusticum porteri), within the project area 

will occur where suitable habitat exists. The extent and scale of these surveys will be 

dependent upon funding. 

Noxious Weeds

11. Implement “Appendix B: Design Features, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation 

Measures” identified in the “Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

20 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National 

Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona” (2005).

Mitigations specific to the Bill Williams Botanical Area (Land Use Zone – Special Area 6)

12. There will be an “inner buffer zone” where no timber management activities or 

manual/mechanical removal of fuels will occur. This includes areas where the plant 

currently exists and its adjacent habitat (e.g., root zone). The inner buffer zone, as well as 

the distribution of the existing population, will be determined and mapped by rare plant 

specialists. 

Figure 2. Schematic showing the buffer zones for the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area 

mitigation measures.

13. There will be a “limited treatment buffer zone” surrounding the existing Arizona bugbane 

population (i.e., surrounding the “inner buffer zone”) that is delineated by topography, 

slope, aspect, and potential habitat where the only treatment will be ladder fuel reductions 

to protect the overstory canopy. The only fuels that may be removed in the limited 

treatment buffer zone are those posing an immediate threat from fire to the overstory 

canopy. The buffer will be clearly flagged prior to any project-related activities. The 

exact location of the limited treatment buffer zone boundary will be determined and 

mapped collaboratively on the ground by fuels, silviculture, soils, and rare plant 

specialists. 

14. Existing Arizona bugbane populations would not be directly ignited during prescribed 

burning.

15. Deciduous trees ≥ 5” DBH or shrubs ≥ 5” DRC within the Botanical Area will not be 

removed during thinning operations. Where safe and practical minimize the loss of 

deciduous trees and shrubs >12” DRC. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 21

16. Trees within the Botanical Area that are part of the upper canopy and contribute to 

suitable habitat will not be removed during thinning. Areas within the Botanical Area not 

contributing to suitable habitat where portions of the upper canopy may be removed will 

be identified by silviculture and rare plant specialists. 

17. Fell trees near existing Arizona bugbane populations away from the populations.

18. Treated slash in areas of the Botanical Area with soils at high risk of unacceptable 

erosion will be hand-piled. Grapple piling may be used on stable soils if monitoring

demonstrates acceptably low impacts to soils. 

19. Dozers may be used for fireline construction only on former roads or in consultation with 

the soils and rare plant specialists. 

20. The Botanical Area will not be seeded following thinning or burning treatments in order 

to prevent the introduction of invasive species and to prevent attracting wild ungulates to 

the area.

Cultural Resources

The following mitigation measures are in accordance with Appendix J of the First Amended 

Programmatic Agreement (PMOA 2009) between the Arizona National Forests, Arizona State 

Historic Preservation Officer, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation. Prior to the 

various project implementation phases, project managers must consult with archaeologists who 

will then flag or paint site boundaries for avoidance. If any unrecorded heritage resources are 

discovered during project implementation, all project related activities will cease immediately and 

the consultation process as outlined in Section 800.13 of the Advisory Council on Historic 

Preservation’s regulations 36 CFR Part 800 will be initiated. 

21. Pre-Commercial Thinning, Roundwood and Sawtimber Thinning: These activities “have 

predictable effects and a very low likelihood of affecting historic properties.” (PMOA 

2009). If known historic properties are within these types of project areas, the sites will 

be flagged, then the fuels will be hand carried and piled outside of site boundaries. 

22. Mechanical Timber Harvesting: Prior to any proposed commercial or non-commercial 

harvesting project managers must consult with heritage specialists to ensure that sites will 

not be adversely affected. These sites must either be marked for avoidance or monitored 

in the case of treatment. An archaeologist will meet with the project managers and 

equipment operators prior to project implementation to insure that the project managers 

and operators know how to distinguish the areas to be avoided, and who to contact in the 

event of a last minute project design change or if a previously unrecorded site is 

uncovered due to the project activities. 

23. Prescribed Fire: All fire sensitive sites will be flagged for avoidance. Project and fire 

managers must consult with archaeologists, prior to implementing burn activities, to 

ensure that on-site fuels are such that they will not burn with prolonged or extreme heat.

If necessary, excess fuels will be removed by hand from sites. 

24. Mechanical and Hand Piling: All known eligible or unevaluated heritage resource site 

will be flagged for avoidance, thus all wood piling and heavy machinery activities will be 

conducted outside of site boundaries, except for sites that are bisected by Forest Service 

Roads. In those cases, all activities will be confined to the road prisms. 

25. Fire-line Construction: All planned fire-lines must avoid known heritage resource sites. 

Planned fire lines constructed with bulldozers can occur within previously surveyed areas 

where known sites have been flagged for avoidance by archaeologist. If lines are 

proposed to be constructed in areas that have not been evaluated by archaeologists, these 

area will require additional survey prior to fire-line construction. In the event that 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

22 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

emergency dozer fire-lines are warranted, fire managers must contact the Forest 

Archaeologist immediately so that site avoidance and mitigation measures can be devised 

and employed as needed.

26. Road Maintenance / Construction: Engineers use road graders to conduct routine road 

maintenance activities within existing road prisms and features. No protective or 

mitigation measures are required in areas that have undergone previous surveys and 

where no heritage resource sites are known to exist. New road construction may occur 

only in previously surveyed areas that contain no eligible or unevaluated sites. If new 

roads are proposed in unsurveyed areas, the project area must first be surveyed for 

heritage resources and an amendment to the project clearance drafted. 

Scenic Resources 

The Recreation Opportunity Spectrum/Scenery Management System (ROS/SMS) Guidebook 

states recovery timelines for Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) 2 and SIO 3 of one year and two 

years respectively, after implementation. The Forest Plan, as amended, allows for the SIO to 

drop one level during critical project and management activities, such as the restoration of Bill 

Williams Mountain. It is highly unlikely that the SIO recovery to satisfactory levels will meet the

expected timelines; therefore, SMS direction for the SIO levels 2 and 3 would be met within 5-10

years after project completion. 

27. When thinning forest vegetation geometric shapes will not be introduced and high 

contrast will be avoided between treatment locations. Feather edges of treatment areas to 

reduce the contrasting scenery of these edges.

28. Prescribed burn blocks will not have geometrical shapes and fire lines will be 

constructed, where ever possible, to reduce the contrast so that they are not noticeable in 

the middle and background views. 

29. Control lines will be rehabilitated by re-contouring berms, pulling logs and rocks across 

the lines and disguising entry and exit points. 

30. In grassland restoration treatments, slash needs to be hand piled and burned within the 

first 300 feet of the foreground. Beyond 300 feet in middle-ground and background areas, 

slash must be treated. 

31. Hand pile in the first 300 feet and burn activity generated slash in the foreground areas of 

sensitive travel corridors (County Road ((CR)) 73, Forest Road ((FR)) 173B, FR 106, FR 

111, FR 108, FR 122) and surrounding the new and existing trailheads, Forest Trails (FT 

38, FT 21, FT 72, FT 124, FT 46, FT 130). Beyond 300 feet, slash must be treated. 

32. New and temporary road construction inside of sensitive travel corridors will use native 

materials for riprap. Develop and review slope stabilization materials with the Landscape 

Architect prior to construction. Try to balance cut and fill. If constructed slopes are 

necessary, stabilize slopes using best management practices or rehabilitate slopes by 

roughening surface, seeding with weed-free native species and mulching. Do not leave 

“eye brows” at the tops of cut slopes.

33. Roads that are considered unnecessary for further management of the mountain will be 

decommissioned once work is completed. Roads must be effectively closed at entry/exit 

points preferably with large boulders and/or logs and allowed to re-vegetate naturally, or 

will be scarified, seeded (with native species) and mulched to promote vegetation. Road

bed will be stabilized per best management practices. Berms will only be used if there is 

no other effective means of closing off these roads. 

34. Tree marking within 150 feet from Forest Roads and Forest Trails (includes roads 

number CR 73, FR 106, FR 111, FR 108, FR 122 and trail numbers FT 38, FT 21, FT 72, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 23

FT 124, FT 46, FT 130) shall be done in a manner to minimize visibility. Butt marks may 

face roads and trails.

35. Utilize existing skid roads and landings to the extent possible.

Recreation Resource

36. In Semi-primitive Non-motorized (SPNM) areas (Approx. 2,698 acres):

- Approximately 2/3 of a mile of re-opened Maintenance Level (ML) -1 roads will be 

required for the project. The roads will be closed to continued use and restored to 

original conditions when the projects are completed. The same measures will be in 

place for all landings and skid trails. 

- Activity generated slash must be treated. Slash treatment should generally occur 

within one year after treatment. [For much of the SPNM area it is expected that little 

slash will be generated, as the whole tree will be removed via the helicopter logging 

operations.]

- Flush cut or low cut stumps to 6” in the foreground of travel corridors that will 

remain open. Flush cut or low cut to 8” in middle-ground or background areas.

37. In Semi-Primitive Motorized (SPM) areas (Approx. 4,910 acres):

- Activity slash in foreground areas of SPM will be piled and burned, which will 

include along all new and existing roadways located in this ROS class. Slash will be 

treated throughout the ROS, mostly through burning within 2 years, where possible.

- Flush cut or low cut stumps to 6” in the foreground of travel corridors. This will 

include all the new roads added within this ROS. Flush cut or low cut to 8” in 

middleground or background areas.

- Do not establish personal use or commercial use fuelwood cutting areas in this class. 

Prohibit motorized cross country travel for fuelwood cutting.

38. In Roaded Natural (RN) areas (Approx. 8,776 acres):

- Temporary roads will be obliterated when projects are completed. Roads that are 

considered unnecessary for further management of the mountain will be 

decommissioned once work is completed. Roads must be effectively closed at 

entry/exit points preferably with large boulders and/or logs and allowed to revegetate naturally, or will be scarified, seeded (with native species) and mulched to 

promote vegetation. Road bed will be stabilized per best management practices. 

Berms will only be used if there is no other effective means of closing off these 

roads.

- In foreground areas of travel corridors stumps should be cut as low as possible or 

flush cut. 

- Hand pile slash within the first 300 feet of developed recreation sites, private homes, 

Forest Trails, trailheads and Forest Roads (CR 73, FR 106, FR 111, FR 108, FR 122

and surrounding the new and existing trailheads and Forest Trails (FT 38, FT 21, FT 

72, FT 124, FT 46, FT 130). Beyond 300 feet in middle-ground and background 

areas, slash must be treated. When possible activity created slash in foreground areas

must be treated within one year in areas adjacent to and visible from developed 

recreation sites, private homes, Forest Trails and Forest Roads, and within two years 

in the rest of this ROS class.

39. In Rural (R) areas (Approx. 1,282 acres):

- Temporary roads will be obliterated when projects are completed. ML-1 roads must 

be effectively closed at entry and exit points with large boulders and/or logs and 

pulling debris and rocks across roads.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

24 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

- Stump heights shall be flush cut, generally less than 6”, or as low as possible on 

larger diameter trees. 

- Fire control lines will be disguised in foregrounds of sensitive travel corridors, and 

areas next to communities/private lands, and developed recreation sites by pulling 

debris and rocks across the lines, and disguising entrance/exits.

- Hand pile visible slash within the first 300 feet of developed recreation sites, private 

homes, Forest Trails, trailheads and surrounding the existing trailheads and Forest 

Trails (FT 124, FT 46, and FT 130). Beyond 300 feet in middle-ground and 

background areas, slash must be treated. Where possible activity created slash must 

be treated within one year in areas adjacent to and visible from developed recreation 

sites, private homes, Forest Trails and Forest Roads, and within two years in the rest 

of this ROS class.

40. During project implementation, especially during mechanical treatments, temporary road 

and trail closures will be implemented at the authorized officer’s discretion for health and 

safety. 

Mitigation Measures to Address Tribal Concerns

41. The Kaibab National Forest will consider all requests to issue temporary closures within 

the project area to accommodate ceremonial use as authorized in the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008, SEC. 8104 

42. The Kaibab National Forest will ensure that free-use permits for the collection of tree 

boughs, thinning slash, branches and other non-merchantable timber are readily available 

to tribal members for fuelwood or personal ceremonial use. 

43. The Kaibab National Forest will coordinate with the Hopi Tribe to provide timbers for 

the purpose of rebuilding kivas and clan houses, and for other traditional and cultural 

purposes. The Hopi Tribe will provide for the transport of all such materials. The Forest 

will work with additional tribes to provide forest products for similar requests. 

44. The Kaibab National Forest will maintain the confidentiality of specific ceremonial sites 

and traditional collecting areas. Specific ceremonial sites will be avoided by project 

activities, or the Forest will work with the affiliated Tribe to develop site-specific 

mitigation measures. 

45. The Havasupai Tribe will be invited to monitor the project during the first phase of 

implementation. The Forest will work all tribes to coordinate project monitoring by tribal 

representatives upon request.

46. The Kaibab will work with the Hualapai Tribe to conduct plant surveys within the project 

area. 

47. The Forest will continue to work with tribes to identify traditionally important plant 

species and populations that occur within the project area, and facilitate the sustainable 

collection of these resources for traditional and cultural purposes. Monitoring of known 

collection sites will occur within the project area during implementation. Newly 

documented populations will be recorded and mapped for consideration as collection 

sites. 

2.3.2 Monitoring

Monitoring is gathering information, observing processes, and examining the results of 

management activities to provide a basis for evaluation. Monitoring is done at both the project 

and Forest Plan level. The Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project contains project specific 

monitoring. It also includes Forest Plan monitoring and evaluation items where appropriate. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 25

Monitoring in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project includes implementation 

monitoring and evaluation to guarantee that Best Management Practices and Forest Plan 

Standards and Guidelines are being incorporated during the project activities, as well as 

effectiveness monitoring and evaluation to determine whether objectives of the project are being 

met. Below are monitoring measures that will be incorporated into this project.

Wildlife

Mexican Spotted Owls

1. Survey suitable MSO nesting/roosting habitat in the project area prior to implementation, 

either during the year of implementation or one year prior to implementation.

2. Conduct pre- and post-treatment microhabitat monitoring in MSO Protected and 

Restricted Habitat. Dependent on available resources, post-treatment monitoring will 

occur 1-2 years after the first thinning or burning treatments within Protected Habitat; 

post-treatment monitoring should not be withheld until the entire project area has been 

treated. Attributes to monitor include units/acre and/or basal area of oaks and other 

hardwoods greater than or equal to 10 inches drc, trees 12-18 inches dbh), trees greater 

than or equal to 18 inches dbh, down logs greater than or equal to12 inches midpoint 

diameter, and snags greater than or equal to 18 inches dbh.

Fuels Management

3. Pre- and post-burn monitoring will be accomplished using various fuels surveys to 

determine the success in reducing fuel loads and fire risk (canopy closure, fuel ladders, 

duff and litter layer depths, etc.) of first-entry treatments. Successive maintenance 

burning will be monitored post-treatment to determine success in further reducing fuel 

loads and fire risk.

Rare Plants

4. Known locations of rare plant populations within the project area will be monitored 

throughout project implementation and thereafter to ensure their protection and 

viability. 

Noxious Weeds

5. Monitor the project area for noxious weeds for at least three years following both 

mechanical and burning treatments. Control weeds as necessary.

Monitoring specific to the Bill Williams Botanical Area (EMA 6)

6. The Botanical Area will be monitored throughout project implementation and thereafter 

for invasive plant species until the area has adequate native plant establishment to limit 

future invasions. Invasive plant species will be treated as necessary. 

7. Effectiveness monitoring within the Botanical Area and existing Arizona bugbane 

populations will occur throughout project implementation to ensure adequate protection.

Scenic Resources 

8. Closures of temporary or ML-1 roads will be monitored following closure to ensure 

effectiveness. Additional enforcement and physical measures will be taken to restrict 

unauthorized road use.

9. Treatment of activity created slash will be monitored to assure timeliness and compliance 

with ROS classes and SIO categories. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

26 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

2.4 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. Some of these alternatives may have been outside the scope of the project, duplicative of 

the alternatives considered in detail, or determined to have components that would cause 

unnecessary environmental harm or unnecessary safety concerns. Therefore, a number of 

alternatives were considered, but dismissed from detailed consideration for reasons summarized 

below. 

• An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would only utilize 

prescribed burning techniques to meet the desired conditions. While this alternative 

would partially meet the purpose and need for action, it was determined by the 

Interdisciplinary Team (IDT) that we could not conduct a prescribed burn on the steep 

slopes within the project area safely and without causing an undue risk to life and 

property due to a lack of control features that would help contain the fire to a specific 

area. Even in consideration of the City Project which surrounds the base of Bill Williams 

mountain south and southwest of town, the treatments associated with that project do not 

create a sufficient enough fuel break near Clover Hill (which is just above City and Santa 

Fe reservoirs) and the ski area to safely contain a prescribed burn onto federal lands.

Additionally, this alternative would not meet the purpose and need for action because it 

would not provide for forest products, and would not effectively meet the need to reduce 

stand densities. As Kaufmann et al. (2005) demonstrates, the best way to restore forested 

stands that are denser than historical times is through mechanical thinning. 

• An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would implement a 

permanent campfire ban within the project area. This alternative was eliminated from 

detailed study because it would not meet the purpose and need for action (Section 1.2)

and was outside the scope of the project. It would not reduce hazardous fuels and would 

not move vegetative conditions in the project area towards the desired conditions. While 

escaped campfires pose a hazard to the watershed, forest managers already possess the 

ability and discretion to implement campfire bans and restrict campfire use within the 

project area when conditions warrant. 

• An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would not 

construct any temporary roads or new system roads. This alternative was eliminated from 

detailed study because it would not meet the purpose and need for action (Section 1.2). 

While hand crews can be used in areas that have no roads to treat areas to move toward 

the desired conditions, there is a need to improve the motorized transportation system in 

the project area to provide for a more sustainable road system where poorly located roads 

are relocated. This alternative would not allow the relocation of poorly located roads 

because construction of new roads would be necessary to replace the access to the area. 

Additionally, this alternative was eliminated because Alternative 1, the No Action 

Alternative, does not include any temporary roads or new system road construction and 

addresses this issue. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 27

• An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would conserve 

trees larger than 16 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) outside of a well-defined 

wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone comprising a one-quarter (1/4) mile distance from 

established residential and other community infrastructure. This alternative would 

implement a 16 inch diameter cap on treatments outside of the WUI. This alternative was 

suggested to the Forest Service by the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) and their 

reasons for suggesting the alternative (as written in their 2011 scoping comments) have 

been considered in whole and in part. This alternative was eliminated from detailed study 

for the following four reasons:

1. CBD states “A size threshold of 16-inches dbh consistently defines “large” trees 

in the literature on southwestern ponderosa pine forests (Abella et al. 2006, 

Friederici 2003).” The definition of a large tree is somewhat subjective and 

neither the Forest Service nor the literature CBD cites defines “large” trees as 

those being greater than or equal to 16 inches dbh. Friederici (2003) discusses the 

debate about diameter caps within the context of the experimental plots of the 

Greater Flagstaff Forest Partnership and does not define large trees as those 

greater than or equal to 16 inches dbh, rather discusses how a 16 inch diameter 

cap was implemented to address political concerns at the expense of restoration

objectives. Abella et al. (2006) focuses its research on 16 inch trees because that 

“size has been widely proposed in the Southwest” and states “Consensus 

disintegrates...when attention turns to thinning young, postsettlement trees of 

relatively large diameter (often defined as > 16 in.) emphasis added.” 

Additionally, Abella et al. (2006) states that “[diameter] caps are a one-size-fitsall policy” and recognizes how management decisions regarding diameter caps 

should consider management objectives and desired future stand conditions. The 

Forest Service does not define large trees as those above a certain diameter 

because it recognizes that different sizes of trees provide different functions 

within the ecosystem, which is why the effects to several different diameter 

classes of trees are analyzed in Chapter 3. Chapter 3 discloses the environmental 

effects of thinning trees across varying diameter classes to meet ecological 

objectives.

2. While CBD suggests a wildland-urban interface (WUI) zone comprising a onequarter (1/4) mile distance from established residential and other community 

infrastructure, the Region 3 supplement to Forest Service Manual 5140 (effective 

09/07/2010) states that 

WUI includes those areas of resident populations at imminent risk from 

wildfire, and human developments having special significance. These 

areas may include critical communications sites, municipal watersheds, 

high voltage transmission lines, observatories, church camps, scout 

camps, research facilities, and other structures that if destroyed by fire, 

would result in hardship to communities. These areas encompass not 

only the sites themselves, but also the continuous slopes and fuels that 

lead directly to the sites, regardless of the distance involved.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

28 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Following the regions definition of WUI and the recommendations in the Greater 

Williams Area Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2005), the entire project 

area (≈18,000 acres) is considered within the WUI. 

3. A significant issue was identified from the scoping comments that reflected the 

importance of retaining pre-settlement trees (see Issue 1). In order to address the 

issue, the Forest Service developed a mitigation measure designed to retain 

where possible all pre-settlement trees. Pre-settlement trees are generally defined 

as those trees greater than 140 years old and are more indicative of the vegetative 

reference conditions than an arbitrary diameter cap. The effects analysis in 

Chapter 3 discloses the effectiveness of the mitigation measure for each 

alternative analyzed in detail. 

4. A 16 inch diameter cap would not meet the Purpose and Need for Action (Section 

1.2) and not meet or move vegetative conditions toward the goals and objectives 

of the Forest Plan. The Forest Service has a vast amount of experience analyzing 

and implementing restoration projects (with and without diameter caps) in the 

Southwest. For example, on the Williams Ranger District we have recently 

worked on the Spring Valley Urban/Wildland Interface Fuels Reduction Project 

(decision signed in 1999), the Frenchy Vegetation/Fuels Management Project 

(decision signed in 2003), the Dogtown Fuels Reduction Project (decision signed 

in 2004), the City Project (decision signed in 2005), and the McCracken Project 

(decision signed in 2012). Our experience has shown that projects with diameter 

caps do not adequately reduce the risk for a stand-replacement fire because stand 

density and canopy closure can remain high. Additionally, projects with diameter 

caps are likely to create more of an even-aged forest structure (because more 

trees are retained in the older age classes) and are not likely to create or maintain 

vegetation structural stage (VSS) classes 1 & 2 where openings and young trees 

dominate the landscape. Also, it is difficult to manage for uneven aged 

management when there are too many mistletoe infection centers in the 

overstory; our Forest Plan directs us to manage for uneven-aged forest structure 

and an even distribution of VSS classes (10/10/20/20/20). 

• An alternative was considered but eliminated from detailed study that would represent the 

“Citizen’s Alternative” as suggested by WildEarth Guardians (see their 2011 scoping 

comments for details). It was considered in whole and in part. This alternative would

implement a 12 inch diameter cap and was eliminated for the same reasons as the 

alternative described above that was suggested by the Center for Biological Diversity; A 

12 inch diameter cap would not meet the Purpose and Need for Action (Section 1.2) and 

not meet or move vegetative conditions toward the goals and objectives of the Forest 

Plan. Other portions of the alternative such as treatments in the Wildland-Urban Interface 

(see discussion point #2 above); fuel breaks (Strategic Fuel Treatments); restoring natural 

fire regimes (see Section 1.2 Purpose and Need for Action) and prescribed fire (Section 

2.2); protection of soils (Appendix B Soil and Watershed Best Management Practices); 

mitigation and monitoring measures (Section 2.3) are already incorporated and 

considered in the proposed action.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 29

2.5 Comparison of Alternatives

This section provides a comparison of the key features of the alternatives analyzed in detail 

(Table 1) and a summary of the effects of implementing each alternative (Table 2). Information in 

the tables is focused on activities and effects where different levels of effects or outputs can be 

distinguished quantitatively or qualitatively among alternatives. 

Table 1. Comparison of Alternatives – Key Features**

Key Feature Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed 

Action

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Mechanical 

Treatments

Acres using ground-based 

logging equipment

Acres using a cable logging 

system 

Acres using a helicopter 

logging system

0 acres

0 acres

0 acres

11,220 acres

480 acres

3,500 - 4,050 

acres7

11,220 acres

0 acres

3,980 – 4,050 

acres8

11,150 acres

0 acres

0 acres

Strategic Fuels 

Treatments

Acres of non-commercial 

fuels treatments to 

enhance control lines

0 acres 2,500 acres* 2,500 acres* 2,500 acres

Prescribed Fire Acres of prescribed burning 0 acres 15,200 acres 14,710 acres 14,710 acres

Transportation

Miles of new road 

construction

Miles of temporary road 

construction

Miles of road obliterated

0 miles

0 miles

0 miles

23 miles

16 miles

28 miles

22 miles

16 miles

28 miles

0 miles

38 miles

28 miles

Trails

Conversion of FSR 45 to 

non-motorized trail

Construction of new miles 

of trail

Construction of a new 

Bixler trailhead

No

0 miles

No

Yes

1 mile

Yes

Yes

1 mile

Yes

No

0 miles

No

Forest Plan 

Amendments

Acres of land suitability redesignated

Allow deviation from Forest 

Plan Guidelines 

0 acres

No

8,954 acres

Yes

0 acres

No

0 acres

No

 

7 Within operability zone 7 helicopter logging would be used to treat up to 3,500 acres due to 

steep slopes and limited access. Helicopter logging systems may also be utilized in operability 

zones 3, 4, and 5.

8 Within operability zone 7 helicopter logging would be used to treat up to 3,500 acres due to 

steep slopes and limited access. Helicopter logging systems may also be utilized in operability 

zone 3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

30 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

regarding MSO 

Protected Habitat

Allow deviation from Forest 

Plan Standards and 

Guidelines in ponderosa 

pine stands outside of 

goshawk PFAs and nest 

areas

Allow the exceedance of 

fire planning objectives 

for the Arizona Bugbane 

Botanic Area

No

No

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

Please note that the Strategic Fuels Treatment acres and acres of prescribed burning overlap with the 

mechanical treatments.

** Acreages and mileages are approximate.

* This acreage of treatment over laps with other areas because there is the potential the area may be treated 

with either mechanized equipment or with hand-felling techniques.

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

--- SILVICULTURE ---

Tree Density

Maintains 

highest tree 

density of 

alternatives

Lowest tree 

density of 

alternatives

Reduces tree 

density

Reduces tree 

density except 

on in 

inoperable 

areas for 

ground based 

equipment.

Vegetative Structural 

diversity

Lowest 

diversity; little 

new 

development of 

new tree age 

classes, 

grasses/forbs/shr

ubs

Highest diversity; 

highest 

development of 

new tree age 

classes, 

grasses/forbs 

/shrubs; most 

uneven-aged 

structure over 

time of all 

alternatives

Increased 

diversity; 

develops new 

age classes of 

trees, 

grasses/forbs/sh

rubs; will lose 

uneven-aged 

structure over 

time

Increased 

diversity; 

develops new 

age classes of 

trees, 

grasses/forbs/sh

rubs; will lose 

uneven-aged 

structure over 

time. 

Inoperable 

areas will be 

similar to Alt 1.

Large Trees

Retains all large 

trees initially; 

large oak, aspen, 

and juniper 

would be lost 

over time; large 

trees will remain 

at high risk due 

Largest intial 

reduction of large 

trees of 

alternatives; 

growth increases 

allows higher 

number of large 

trees than noRetains most 

existing large 

trees initially; 

retains and 

develops most 

large trees of 

alternatives in 

40 years; 

Retains most 

existing large 

trees initially; 

retains and 

develops most 

large trees of 

alternatives in 

40 years; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 31

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

to wildfire, bark 

beetle attacks, 

and heavy 

competition

action in 20 and 

40 years; highest 

increase in 

longevity of large 

trees of 

alternatives

increased 

longevity of 

large trees

increased 

longevity of 

large trees. 

Inoperable 

areas will be 

similar to Alt 1.

Forest Health

Poorest forest 

health; mistletoe 

continues to 

increase and 

intensify over 

time; stand and 

individual tree 

vigor and 

growth decrease 

over time; 

highest 

susceptibility to 

epidemic bark 

beetle attack and 

catastrophic 

stand replacing 

fires

Best forest health 

of alternatives; 

lowest mistletoe 

levels; highest 

stand and 

individual tree 

growth and vigor; 

lowest 

susceptibility to 

epidemic beetle 

attack and 

catastrophic stand 

replacing fires

Improved forest 

health; reduced 

mistletoe levels; 

increased tree 

growth and 

vigor; reduced 

susceptibility to 

epidemic bark 

beetle attack 

and catastrophic 

stand 

replacement fire

Improved forest 

health; reduced 

mistletoe 

levels; 

increased tree 

growth and 

vigor; reduced 

susceptibility to 

epidemic bark 

beetle attack 

and 

catastrophic 

stand 

replacement 

fire. Inoperable 

areas will be 

similar to Alt 1.

Old Growth

Meets forest 

plan minimum 

allocation; 

retains most 

area of 

alternatives 

closest to plan 

specified old 

growth 

characteristics

Meets forest plan 

minimum 

allocation; retains 

least area of 

alternatives 

closest to plan 

specified old 

growth

characteristics

Meets forest 

plan minimum 

allocation

Meets forest 

plan minimum 

allocation

Snags and Downed Logs

Retains all snags 

and downed 

logs initially; 

develops most 

snags and 

downed logs of 

all alternatives 

over time

Retains most 

snags and downed 

logs initially 

(some may be lost 

to prescribed 

burning but this is 

mitigated); 

develops fewest 

snags and downed 

logs over time of 

alternatives

Retains most 

snags and 

downed logs 

initially (some 

may be lost to 

prescribed 

burning but this 

is mitigated); 

develops more 

snags and 

downed logs 

over time than 

alternative 2 

Retains most 

snags and 

downed logs 

initially (some 

may be lost to 

prescribed 

burning but this 

is mitigated); 

develops more 

snags and 

downed logs 

over time than 

alternative 2. 

Inoperable 

areas will be 

similar to Alt 1.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

32 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

--- FIRE AND FUELS MANAGEMENT ---

Active Crown Fire Potential

61% of area 

demonstrates 

potential for 

active crown 

fire.

Reduces area for 

potential active 

crown fire to 

18%.

Reduces area 

for potential 

active crown 

fire to 27%.

Reduces area 

for potential 

active crown 

fire to 35%.

Historic Fire Regimes and 

Condition Class

Fire regime is 

significantly 

altered from 

historic range. 

High risk of 

losing key 

ecosystem 

components.

Moves most of 

the area to a fire 

regime within 

historical range. 

Risk is low of 

losing key 

ecosystem 

components.

Moves less than 

half of the area 

to historic fire 

regime range. 

Some of the 

area likely to 

regress more 

rapidly in 

future.

Moves less than 

half of the area 

to historic fire 

regime range. 

Ecosystem 

components 

likely lost in 

future. Some of 

the area likely 

to regress more 

rapidly in 

future.

Firefighter ability to direct 

attack

Provides little 

opportunity for 

firefighters to 

safely attack an 

emerging fire 

directly. This 

affects potential 

costs and 

containment 

size.

Makes over half 

of the project area 

available for 

direct attack. 

Fires likely to be 

contained quickly 

in these areas.

Under half of 

the area 

available for 

direct attack 

tactics.

A third of the 

area available 

for direct attack 

tactics. This 

affects potential 

costs and 

containment 

size.

Effects to the steep slopes of 

Bill Williams Mountain

Heavy fuel 

loadings, low 

canopy base 

heights and 

dense canopy 

bulk densities 

exists. Area has 

high potential 

for catastrophic 

fire which 

directly affects 

wildlife habitat, 

watershed and 

plant 

communities. 

Fuel loadings are 

reduced, canopy 

base heights 

increased and 

canopy bulk 

densities are 

lowered leaving 

less potential for 

large areas of 

crown fire. 

Habitat, 

watershed and 

plants more 

defendable from 

catastrophic fire.

Fuel loadings 

are reduced, 

canopy base 

heights 

increased and 

canopy bulk 

densities are 

lowered leaving 

less potential 

for large areas 

of crown fire. 

Habitat and 

watershed are 

more 

defendable than 

Alt. 1 or 4, but 

not as much as 

2. Rare plant 

species will 

continue to 

Fuel loadings 

are potentially 

increased, 

canopy base 

heights 

increased and 

canopy bulk 

densities are 

lowered. 

Habitat and 

watershed have 

high potential 

of catastrophic 

fire and 

potential 

increase in 

mortality 

during 

prescribed fire 

due to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 33

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

have a high risk 

of catastrophic 

fire as well as a 

large area of 

risk on the 

north face of 

the mountain.

densities. Rare 

plant species at 

high risk of 

high fire 

severity.

--- AIR RESOURCES ---

Particular Matter 2.5 

emissions

Does not 

produce 

emissions 

during 

prescribed fire 

activities of 

mechanical

treatments.

Produces 

emissions from 

prescribed fire 

and mechanical 

treatments during 

implementation.

Produces 

emissions from 

prescribed fire 

and mechanical 

treatments 

during

implementation.

Produces 

emissions from 

prescribed fire 

and mechanical 

treatments 

during

implementation

, but less than 

alternatives 2 

and 3.

--- SOIL AND WATER QUALITY ---

Soil disturbance / 

displacement

No new soil 

disturbance or 

displacement 

would occur

1,600 to 2,300 

acres are expected 

to exhibit some 

level of soil 

disturbance in the 

form of topsoil 

displacement and 

minor profile 

redistributions 

from mechanical 

equipment used to 

fell, bunch, skid, 

yard, and land 

logs and fireline 

installation. These 

disturbances will 

be of short 

duration as sites 

will stabilize and 

revegetate within 

1 to 5 years. 

Adverse 

disturbance will 

be minimized by 

implementation of 

Best Management 

Practices (BMPs)

While the types 

of disturbances 

would be 

similar to 

Alternative 2, 

fewer acres 

(approx. 50-100 

ac.) are 

expected to 

exhibit soil 

disturbance 

since areas 

proposed for 

cable logging 

would be 

excluded under 

this Alternative, 

reducing the 

amount of 

felling, yarding, 

landing, and 

hauling. 

However, this 

alternative 

would not fully 

achieve the 

desired 

Soil disturbance 

types would be 

similar to 

Alternatives 2 

and 3 with 

fewer acres 

(approx. 400-

625 ac.) 

expected to 

exhibit soil 

disturbance 

since areas 

proposed for 

cable and 

helicopter 

logging would 

be excluded 

under this 

Alternative 

reducing the 

amount of 

felling, yarding, 

landing, and 

hauling. 

However, this 

alternative 

would 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

34 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

and Soil and 

Water 

Conservation 

Practices 

(SWCPs) as 

outlined in Table 

3.4.4-1.

This Alternative 

would achieve 

desired condition 

for soils and 

watershed by 

removing 

sufficient canopy 

cover to allow 

sunlight to 

penetrate to the 

forest floor, 

increasing the 

growth response 

of grasses, forbs 

and shrubs. Fine 

roots and 

vegetative ground 

cover provided by 

grasses and forbs 

can more 

effectively protect 

soils from erosion 

by wind and water 

than forest litter 

alone.

condition for 

soils in the 

project area 

since higher 

residual tree 

canopy cover 

would intercept 

more sunlight 

than Alternative 

2 in untreated 

areas and areas 

where diameter 

limits would 

restrict tree 

canopy and 

basal area 

reductions, 

decreasing light 

penetration to 

the forest floor, 

thus decreasing 

the response of 

grasses and 

forbs which 

provide 

maximum 

protection of 

soil surfaces 

from wind and 

water erosion.

substantially 

reduce the 

acreage that 

progresses 

toward desired 

condition for 

soils in the 

project area 

since 

approximately 

4,000 acres 

would exhibit 

higher residual 

tree canopy 

cover that 

would intercept 

more sunlight 

than 

Alternatives 2 

or 3. The 

reduced light 

penetration to 

the forest floor 

would result in 

a corresponding 

decrease in the 

response of 

grasses and 

forbs necessary 

to protect soil 

surfaces from 

wind and water 

erosion.

Soil erosion

No soil erosion 

above current 

levels would 

occur. The 28 

miles of poorly 

located roads 

that would be 

obliterated 

under the Action 

Alternatives 

would continue 

to erode, further 

decreasing soil 

productivity in 

these areas and 

contributing to 

Erosion potential 

is expected to 

increase on 10 to 

15 percent of 

areas treated 

mechanically due 

to removal or 

displacement of 

ground cover. 

This erosion 

would be short 

term (1 to 5 

years), localized, 

and mitigated 

with 

implementation of 

Erosion 

potential is 

expected to 

increase 

approximately 

the same 

amount as 

Alternative 2 on 

areas treated 

mechanically 

since the same 

number and 

lengths of skid 

trails and roads 

and number of 

landings are 

Erosion 

potential is 

expected to 

increase 

approximately 

the same 

amount as 

Alternatives 2 

and 3 on areas 

treated 

mechanically 

since the same 

number and 

lengths of skid 

trails and roads 

and number of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 35

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

downstream 

surface water 

quality 

degradation.

BMPs and 

SWCPs. 

Erosion potential 

on Terrestrial 

Ecosystem Survey 

(TES) map units 

currently in 

unsatisfactory 

condition would 

be reduced due to 

introduction of 

additional Coarse 

Woody Debris 

(CWD) on soil 

surfaces in these 

map units.

expected to 

occur. Since 

fewer trees 

would be 

removed, traffic 

on these areas 

would be 

reduced 

slightly. 

Erosion would 

be short term (1 

to 5 years), 

localized, and 

mitigated with 

implementation 

of appropriate 

BMPs and 

SWCPs. 

Erosion 

potential on 

TES map units 

in 

unsatisfactory 

condition 

would be 

reduced due to 

introduction of 

additional 

CWD on soil 

surfaces in 

these map units.

landings are 

expected to 

occur. Soil 

erosion 

potential would 

not increase in 

areas not 

treated. Since 

fewer trees 

would be 

removed and 

fewer acres 

treated, traffic 

on these areas 

would be 

reduced 

slightly. 

Erosion on 

treated areas

would be short 

term (1 to 5 

years), 

localized, and 

mitigated with 

implementation 

of appropriate 

BMPs and 

SWCPs. 

Erosion 

potential on 

TES map units 

in 

unsatisfactory 

condition in 

operability 

zones 3, 4, 5, 

and 7 (106 ac.) 

would remain 

in 

unsatisfactory 

condition and 

would not be 

improved 

through 

introduction of 

additional 

CWD on soil 

surfaces in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

36 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

these map units.

Soil compaction

No additional 

areas of soil 

compaction 

would occur

Approximately 

1,600 – 2,300 

acres are 

estimated to 

exhibit varying 

degrees of soil 

compaction, 

depending on the 

number and 

locations of skid 

trails, landings, 

and roads, timing 

of activities, and 

types of 

machinery and 

manual treatments 

employed. Some 

dispersed soil 

compaction would 

likely occur in 

areas where trees 

are mechanically 

felled and 

bunched prior to 

skidding, yarding, 

and landing.

Slightly fewer 

acres are 

expected to 

exhibit soil

compaction 

since cable 

logging would 

be excluded 

under this 

Alternative. 

Fewer acres 

would be 

treated and 

fewer large 

trees would be 

felled, bunched, 

skidded to 

landings, and 

hauled. 

However, the 

number of skid 

trails and 

landings would 

be 

approximately 

the same as 

Alternative 2.

Soil 

compaction 

would be 

similar to 

Alternative 3

since cable 

logging and 

helicopter 

yarding would 

be excluded 

under this 

Alternative. 

However, in 

remaining area 

to be treated 

using groundbased 

machinery the 

number of skid 

trails and

landings would 

be 

approximately 

the same as 

Alternative 2.

Soil Nutrient Cycling

No changes to 

nutrient cycling 

would occur.

Soil nutrient 

cycling would 

progress toward 

desired conditions 

as litter layers are 

replaced, CWD is 

increased, and the 

understory of 

grasses, forbs, and 

shrubs improves. 

Fine roots of 

grasses and forbs 

would improve 

soil aggregate 

stability, water 

infiltration, and 

decrease soil bulk 

densities.

Soil nutrient 

cycling would 

progress toward 

the desired 

condition in 

treatment areas, 

but not to the 

extent provided 

by Alternative 

2. Less light 

would penetrate 

the forest 

canopy and 

reach the forest 

floor, resulting 

in a sparser 

understory 

vegetative 

community. 

Duff would 

continue to 

Soil nutrient 

cycling would 

progress toward 

the desired 

condition, but 

not to the extent 

provided by 

Alternative 2. 

Substantial 

acreage would 

remain 

untreated under 

this Alternative, 

limiting the 

acreage of soils 

that would 

progress toward 

desired 

condition. Duff 

would continue 

to provide soil 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 37

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

provide soil 

nutrients and 

contribute to 

soil profile 

development, 

but not to the 

extent that 

grasses, forbs, 

and associated 

litter would.

nutrients and 

contribute to 

soil profile 

development, 

but not to the 

extent that 

grasses, forbs, 

and associated 

litter would.

Herbaceous ground cover

Herbaceous 

ground cover 

would continue 

to decline as 

forest canopies 

continue to 

close, soil duff 

layers increase, 

and fuel loads

continue to 

increase

Herbaceous 

ground cover 

would be greater 

than the No 

Action 

Alternative within 

one to five years 

following 

thinning 

treatments since 

more open stand 

structures would 

occur following 

thinning.

Fewer trees 

would be 

removed during 

thinning, 

resulting in less 

open stand 

structure and 

less light 

penetration to 

the forest floor.

Herbaceous

ground cover 

would therefore 

be less than 

Alternative 2, 

but greater than 

Alternative 1.

Less than 

Alternative 2, 

but potentially 

more than 

Alternative 3.

Soil CWD component

TES map units 

that do not 

currently have 

adequate CWD 

would exhibit a 

gradual increase 

in CWD over a 

long period of 

time through 

tree mortality 

and decadence. 

However, these 

TES units would 

not benefit from 

the introduction 

of CWD that 

would occur 

rapidly through 

vegetation 

treatments 

proposed under 

Alternatives 2 

Vegetation 

treatments will 

increase CWD in 

unsatisfactory 

TES units, 

improving 

nutrient stores and 

protecting soil 

surfaces under 

this Alternative.

On TES map units 

that currently 

have excess 

CWD, prescribed 

burning or piling 

followed by use 

of prescribed fire 

would bring CWD 

levels to desired 

conditions of 5 to 

7 tons per acre.

Vegetation 

treatments will 

increase CWD 

in 

unsatisfactory 

TES units, 

improving 

nutrient stores 

and protecting 

soil surfaces 

under this 

Alternative. 

On TES map 

units that have 

excess CWD, 

treatments 

would achieve 

the same 

desired 

conditions with 

regard to CWD 

Vegetation 

treatments will 

increase CWD 

in 

unsatisfactory 

TES units, 

improving 

nutrient stores 

and protecting 

soil surfaces 

under this 

Alternative. 

On TES map 

units that have 

excess CWD, 

treatments 

would achieve 

the same 

desired 

conditions with 

regard to CWD 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

38 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

through 4. as Alternative 

2.

as Alternative 

2.

With exclusion 

of cable logging 

and helicopter 

use, 

substantially 

fewer acres 

would be 

treated, limiting 

the acreage of 

soils that would 

progress toward 

desired 

condition with 

regard to the 

CWD 

component.

Soil heating and water 

repellency (hydrophobicity)

There would be 

no soil heating 

or additional 

soil water 

repellency 

(hydrophobicity

) under the No 

Action 

Alternative. 

However, 

conditions 

would be 

conducive to 

increased hazard 

of high severity

wildfire that 

would result in 

large areas of 

hydrophobic 

soils that would 

be prone to 

erosion and 

sediment 

delivery to 

ephemeral and 

intermittent 

drainages.

Areas where pile 

burning is 

conducted, and 

some areas where 

prescribed 

burning is 

conducted would 

exhibit 

hydrophobic soil 

conditions and 

soil sterilization 

caused by rapid 

oxidation of soil 

minerals and 

organic matter.

The occurrence of 

these conditions 

would depend 

primarily on the 

timing, duration, 

type, and intensity 

of fire use. 

Vegetation 

treatments would 

produce more 

open stand 

conditions, 

including canopy 

gaps that would 

The effects of 

this Alternative 

are similar to 

those of 

Alternative 2. 

However, there 

would be fewer 

piles to burn or 

less scattered 

activity-related 

woody debris 

under this 

Alternative 

since

fewer trees 

would be 

removed in 

Mexican 

spotted owl 

(MSO) 

protected 

activity centers 

(PACs), 

pine/oak 

habitat, and the 

ponderosa pine 

type where 

slopes exceed 

40 percent. 

The effects of 

this Alternative 

are similar to 

those of 

Alternatives 2 

and 3. 

However, there

are

substantially 

fewer acres 

treated and 

therefore fewer 

piles to burn or 

less scattered 

activity-related

woody debris 

under this 

Alternative 

since

cable logging 

and helicopter 

yarding are 

excluded.

While this 

alternative 

would reduce 

the risk of high 

severity 

wildfire in areas 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 39

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

reduce fire burn 

severity and 

minimize areas of 

hydrophobic soils. 

The greatest risk 

of increased areas 

of hydrophobic 

soils would be 

where prescribed 

burning is 

conducted prior to 

forest thinning. 

These treatments 

would reduce the 

risk of high 

severity wildfire 

and associated 

adverse impacts to 

soils and 

watersheds.

While this 

alternative 

would reduce 

the risk of high 

severity 

wildfire and 

associated 

adverse impacts 

to soils and 

watersheds, it 

would not be to 

the extent 

provided by 

Alternative 2.

where groundbased logging 

occurs, other 

areas would 

remain at risk 

of high severity 

wildfire and 

associated soil 

heating and 

hydrophobicity 

since they 

would not be 

treated.

Soil Organisms

No changes to 

soil organism 

populations 

would be 

introduced as a 

result of this 

project under 

the No Action 

Alternative.

Soil organism 

populations are 

expected to 

decline for short 

periods (1 to 3 

years) in areas of 

soil disturbance, 

compaction and 

where fire is 

introduced. Soil 

organism 

populations are 

expected to 

recover rapidly 

under this 

alternative as 

greater sunlight 

would reach the

forest floor, 

increasing soil 

biological 

activity.

Soil organism 

populations are 

expected to 

decline for 

short periods (1 

to 3 years) in 

areas of soil 

disturbance, 

compaction and 

where fire is 

introduced. Soil 

organism 

populations are 

expected to 

recover more 

slowly under 

this Alternative 

in MSO PACs 

and pine/oak 

habitat where 

slopes exceed 

40 percent since 

less light would

penetrate to the 

forest floor to 

warm soils and 

increase soil 

biological 

Soil organism 

populations are 

expected to 

decline for 

short periods (1 

to 3 years) in 

areas of soil 

disturbance, 

compaction and 

where fire is 

introduced. Soil 

organism 

populations 

would be 

unaffected in 

areas excluded 

from cable 

logging and 

helicopter 

yarding.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

40 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

activity.

Water quality

There would be 

no changes to 

surface water 

quality as a 

result of this 

project under 

the No Action 

Alternative.

No detectable 

change in 

downstream water 

quality is 

anticipated.

No detectable 

change in 

downstream 

water is 

anticipated.

No detectable 

change in 

downstream 

water is 

anticipated.

Water yield

There would be 

no changes to 

water yield as a 

result of this 

project under 

the No Action 

Alternative

Since only a small 

percentage of 

each 6th-level 

watershed is being 

treated, only 

minor increases in 

water yield are 

expected. Within 

the project area, 

increased soil 

moisture and 

groundwater 

recharge can be 

expected as tree 

basal area is 

reduced.

Since only a 

small 

percentage of 

each 6th-level 

watershed is 

being treated, 

no detectable 

change in water 

yield is 

expected. 

Within the 

project area, 

increased soil 

moisture and 

groundwater 

recharge can be 

expected as tree 

canopy and 

numbers are 

reduced. This 

effect will be 

slightly less 

than alternative 

2 as fewer trees 

are removed.

No detectable 

change in water 

yield is 

expected under 

this Alternative. 

While increased 

soil moisture 

and 

groundwater 

recharge can be 

expected in 

treatment area, 

there would be 

substantially 

fewer acres 

treated under 

this Alternative.

---WILDLIFE---

Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO)

Perpetuates high 

probability of 

active crown 

fire that would 

degrade most or 

all MSO habitat. 

Will likely lead 

to a scenario 

similar to 

Pumpkin Fire of 

2000 (where an 

entire Protected 

Activity Center 

Most reduces

probability of 

active crown fire 

in MSO habitat. 

Outside cablelogging areas, 

uneven-aged 

management most 

sustainably 

conserves MSO 

habitat at or 

toward desired 

conditions.

Moderately 

reduces 

probability of 

active crown 

fire in MSO 

habitat. Evenaged 

management 

(9" diameter 

cap on treecutting) 

moderately 

conserves MSO 

Least reduces 

probability of 

active crown 

fire in MSO 

habitat, but is 

still preferable 

over 

Alternative 1. 

Prescribed fire 

alone does little 

to conserve 

MSO habitat at 

or toward 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 41

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

was consumed 

by standreplacing 

wildfire).

habitat at or 

toward desired 

conditions, 

although in an 

unsustainable 

manner.

desired 

conditions.

Northern Goshawk

Perpetuates high 

probability of 

active crown 

fire that would 

degrade most or 

all goshawk 

habitat.

Most protects nest 

areas and PostFledging Family 

Areas (PFAs) 

from active crown 

fire. Most 

restores foraging 

areas toward 

conditions to 

which the species 

adapted and 

evolved. 

Alternatives 2-4 

have identical 

effects on 

goshawk nest 

areas and PFAs, 

in terms of 

vegetative 

treatments.

Moderately 

protects nest 

areas and PFAs 

from active 

crown fire. 

Moderately 

restores 

foraging areas 

(i.e., landscapes 

outside PFAs) 

toward 

conditions to 

which the 

species adapted 

and evolved.

Least protects 

nest areas and 

PFAs from 

active crown 

fire. Least 

restores 

foraging areas 

toward 

conditions to 

which the 

species adapted 

and evolved. 

Alternatives 2-4 

have identical 

effects on 

goshawk nest 

areas and 

PFAs, in terms 

of vegetative 

treatments

Golden Eagle and Sensitive 

Species, Management 

Indicator Species, and 

Migratory Birds that primarily 

use grasslands, meadows, and 

forest/woodland savannas 

with low tree densities and 

more open canopies.

Perpetuates 

encroachment of 

habitat by 

invading 

conifers.

Most restores 

habitat.

Somewhat 

restores habitat. 

Effects of 

Alternatives 3-4 

are identical.

Somewhat 

restores habitat. 

Effects of 

Alternatives 3-4 

are identical.

Sensitive Species, 

Management Indicator 

Species, and Migratory Birds 

that primarily use forests and 

woodlands that are denser or 

with more closed canopies.

Perpetuates high 

probability of 

active crown 

fire that would 

degrade most or 

all densely 

forested habitat.

Most restores 

habitat toward 

pre-settlement 

conditions. Most 

protects 

historically dense 

areas from active 

crown fire. Most 

reduces tree 

density in 

currently dense 

areas that were 

historically open.

Moderately 

restores habitat 

toward presettlement 

conditions. 

Moderately 

protects 

historically 

dense areas 

from active 

crown fire. 

Moderately 

reduces tree 

density in 

currently dense 

Least restores 

habitat toward 

pre-settlement 

conditions. 

Least protects 

historically 

dense areas 

from active 

crown fire. 

Least reduces 

tree density in 

currently dense 

areas that were 

historically 

open.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

42 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

areas that were 

historically 

open.

Road-related concerns for 

general wildlife conservation

Road-related 

habitat 

degradation 

does not occur.

Road-related 

habitat 

degradation 

occurs under this 

Alternative. 

Alternatives 2 and 

3 are identical in 

terms of roadrelated effects on 

wildlife.

Road-related 

habitat 

degradation 

occurs under 

this Alternative. 

Alternatives 2 

and 3 are 

identical in 

terms of roadrelated effects 

on wildlife.

Road-related 

habitat 

degradation is 

least under this 

Alternative.

--- RECREATION RESOURCES ---

Recreation Resources

1. % of area of each 

Recreation Opportunity 

Spectrum (ROS) class in 

treatment (for project area). 

2. Ability to maintain 

recreation settings over time.

3. Displacement of 

Recreationists.

1. 0% for all

ROS Classes, 

inside of the 

project area.

2. Decreased

3. Little to no 

displacement of 

recreationists, 

except due to 

fire activity

1. 30% of Roaded 

(R), 82 % of 

Roaded Natural 

(RN), 95% of 

Semi Primitive 

Motorized (SPM), 

100% of Semi 

Primitive Non 

Motorized 

(SPNM)

2. Increased

3. Short-term 

Increase in the 

displacement of 

recreationists 

during 

implementation

1. 30% of R, 82 

% of RN, 95% 

of SPM, 100% 

of SPNM

2. Increased

3. Short-term 

Increase in the 

displacement of 

recreationists 

during 

implementation

1. 30% of R, 

70% of RN, 

83% of SPM, 

18% of SPNM

2. Slightly 

Increased

3. Slightly less 

Short-term 

Increase in the 

displacement of 

recreationists 

during 

implementation

--- SCENIC RESOURCES ---

Scenic Resources

No short-term 

impacts.

There is the 

potential for 

unnaturally 

large, stand 

replacing 

wildfires to 

dramatically 

change the 

scenic 

attractiveness of 

the area, and to 

the chance of 

achieving the 

Short-term effects 

while 

management 

activities are 

taking place and 

about 5 years 

following 

completion.

Most improved 

ability to protect 

and maintain 

scenic resources 

in the project area. 

Meet forest plan 

scenic integrity 

Short-term 

effects while 

management 

activities are 

taking place. 

Improved 

ability to 

protect and 

maintain scenic 

resources. Meet 

forest plan 

scenic integrity 

objectives in 

project area.

Somewhat 

improved 

ability to 

protect and 

maintain scenic 

resources in the 

project area. 

Makes least 

progress toward 

meeting forest 

plan scenic 

integrity 

objectives in 

the project area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action 43

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

desired 

landscape 

character for 

many decades.

objectives in 

project area.

--- RANGE ---

Potential change in forage 

production

None initially; 

Abundance and 

productivity will 

decrease in the 

long-term; 

Species richness 

may decline in 

the long-term.

Greatest increase 

in understory 

abundance and 

productivity of all 

alternatives; 

Species richness 

may increase.

Increase in 

understory 

abundance and 

productivity; 

Species 

richness may 

increase.

Increase in 

abundance and 

productivity; 

Species 

richness may 

increase. Least 

change of 

action 

alternatives.

--- HERITAGE ---

Cultural Resource Concerns

The continued 

deposition of 

fuels increases 

the likelihood of 

a high intensity 

catastrophic 

wild fire on Bill 

Williams 

Mountain. It is 

likely that many 

of the 

prehistoric and

especially the 

few sites with 

combustible 

features would 

suffer adverse 

effects from 

intense fire 

effects and postfire erosion.

Reducing the 

amount of dead 

and down woody 

debris, ladder 

fuels, and 

unnaturally high 

tree density would 

greatly reduce the 

risk of effects to 

heritage resource 

sites from 

catastrophic 

wildfire.

Same as 

Alternative 2.

Similar to 

effects in 

Alternative 2 

and 3; however, 

because the 

steep slopes of 

Bill Williams 

Mountain 

would not be 

treated, most of 

the heritage 

resources which 

are located 

downslope 

would be 

vulnerable to 

the effects of 

post fire 

flooding and 

erosion 

following a 

high intensity 

catastrophic 

fire.

--- WEEDS AND RARE PLANT SPECIES ---

Rate of introduction and 

spread of invasive weeds 

(short-term)

No effect

Greatest potential 

increase of all 

alternatives.

Potential 

increase

Potential 

increase

Rate of introduction and 

spread of invasive weeds 

(long-term)

Greatest 

increase of all 

alternatives 

following 

intense wildfire.

Potential increase 

or decrease; 

Increase less than 

that of alternative 

1 following an 

Potential 

increase or 

decrease; 

Increase less 

than that of 

Potential 

increase or 

decrease; 

Increase less 

than that of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

44 Chapter 2 – Alternatives Including the Proposed Action

Table 2. Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on Resources. 

Resource and

Unit of Measure

ALTERNATIVES

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed Action Alternative 3 Alternative 4

intense wildfire. alternative 1 

following an 

intense wildfire.

alternative 1 

following an 

intense wildfire.

Rare Plant Species (shortterm) No Effect

Improvement in 

habitat quality for 

Forest Service 

Sensitive species; 

Greatest potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality for 

Arizona bugbane 

of all alternatives.

Improvement in 

habitat quality 

for Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

species; 

Potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality 

for Arizona 

bugbane.

Improvement in 

habitat quality 

for Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

species; 

Potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality 

for Arizona 

bugbane.

Rare Plant Species

(long-term)

Greatest 

potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality 

for all species 

and of all 

alternatives.

Improvement in 

habitat quality for 

Forest Service 

Sensitive species; 

Potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality for

Arizona bugbane.

Improvement in 

habitat quality 

for Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

species; 

Potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality 

for Arizona 

bugbane.

Improvement in 

habitat quality 

for Forest 

Service 

Sensitive 

species; 

Potential 

reduction in 

habitat quality 

for Arizona 

bugbane.

--- LANDS AND MINERALS ---

Threat to communication site

Highest risk of 

loss due to 

catastrophic fire

Least amount of 

risk of all 

alternatives

Less risk than 

alternative 

#1and #4, but 

more risk than 

alternative #2

Less risk than 

alternative #1, 

but more risk 

than 

alternatives #2 

and #3

--- SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC ---

Social Impacts

High-risk of 

undesirable 

consequences

Moderate shortterm impactsModerate shortterm impactsModerate shortterm impacts

Economic Impacts

No cost to 

implement, 

however, the 

risk of high 

costs to mitigate 

high intensity 

fire and flooding 

would be similar 

to costs in 

Alternative 3.

The cost to 

implement is 

approximately 

$17.1 million.

The cost to 

implement is 

approximately 

$56.2 million.

The cost to 

implement is 

approximately 

$7.1 million.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 45

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and 

Environmental Consequences

3.1 Introduction

This Chapter summarizes the physical, biological, social, and economic environments of the project area 

and the effects of implementing each alternative on that environment. It also presents the scientific and 

analytical basis for the comparison of alternatives analyzed in detail (Chapter 2 Section 2.2). The best 

information available was used to discuss the affected environment and environmental consequences of 

the action alternatives and the “best available science” was considered throughout the discussions 

presented within this chapter. The specialist reports in the project record for the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project are hereby incorporated by reference to supplement the sections in this chapter.

3.2 Silviculture

3.2.1 Affected Environment

The vegetative cover types for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project (project area) are displayed 

in Table 3.2-1. Cover types are identified by areas with the highest representation of a vegetative species 

(stands). Depending on the complexity of cover types, stand sizes within the project area range from 1/10 

of an acre to a couple hundred, averaging 45 acres. Smaller stands typically exist on Bill Williams 

Mountain slopes due to the high diversity of abiotic factors such as drainages, soils, slope and aspect. 

Table 3.2-1 Bill Williams Vegetation Cover Types(FS 

Lands)

Vegetation Cover Type Acres % of Project

Ponderosa Pine 10,554 69%

Oak Woodland 717 5%

Douglas Fir 299 2%

White Fir 1,619 11%

Pinyon-Juniper Woodlands 654 4%

Juniper Woodland 947 6%

Mixed-Hardwoods 146 < 1%

Aspen 140 < 1%

Grasslands 64 < 1%

Mountain-mahogany 40 < 1%

Rocklands 22 < 1%

TOTAL Treatment ACRES 15,202
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

46 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The base of Bill Williams Mountain is primarily surrounded by ponderosa pine cover type. The 

southwestern slope of the mountain consists of dry ponderosa pine and gradually transitions to Douglasfir and white fir at higher elevations. The northeastern slope of the mountain consists of Douglas-fir and 

white fir cover types with scattered aspen and ponderosa pine. Stands that average above 40% slope 

represent 17% of the project area. 

Ponderosa Pine and Pine-Oak

The ponderosa pine cover type is approximately 69% of the project area. Some ponderosa pine stands are 

on the steep slopes of Bill Williams Mountain but mainly are on and surrounding the lower slopes. The 

presence of white fir, Douglas fir, woodlands, shrublands and grasslands occasionally occurs as small 

inclusions to the ponderosa pine cover type. Based on the quality and density of gambel oak within 

ponderosa pine cover type defined in the MSO recovery plan and forest plan, stands were classified as 

pine-oak. Within the project area, there are 88 stands of pine-oak, approximately 4,440 acres. Much of 

the ponderosa pine within the project area is dominated by the same age class, approximately 60 to 100 

years old. A high density of even-aged ponderosa pine forest limits forest diversity, sustainability, health, 

and protection in and surrounding the project area (Allen et al 2002, Binkley et al 2007, Cooper et al. 

1960, Fettig et al 2007 Stoddard et al 2011, Triepke et al 2011 Savage and Mast 2005, Strom and Fulé 

2007).

Figure 3.2-1 displays the current distribution of vegetative structural stages (VSS) for the project area’s 

ponderosa pine cover type in Northern Goshawk (goshawk) post –family fledgling area’s (PFAs) and 

landscapes outside goshawk PFAs (LOGPFA) habitats. VSS in the Kaibab Forest Plan (forest plan) 

describes forested areas in the following classification: 1 (Grass/Forb/Shrubs), 2 (Seedling/Sapling), 3 

(Young Forest.), 4 (Mid-age Forest), 5 (Mature Forest), 6 (Old Forest).

Figure 3.2-1 Ponderosa Pine Cover Type by Vegetative Structural Stages (VSS) under Current 

Condition

Figure 3.2-1 shows the current limited forest structural and age diversity in the ponderosa pine cover type. 

There is currently a deficit of VSS 1, 2, 5 and 6 from the desired condition. VSS 3 and 4 are 

approximately twice the desired percentage. Limited forest structure diversity leads to uncertain forest 

5% 6%

33%

38%

15%

3%

1%

6%

42%

36%

12%

3%

10% 10%

20% 20% 20% 20%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

VSS 1 VSS 2 VSS 3 VSS 4 VSS 5 VSS 6

LOGPFAs

PFAs

Desired Condition
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 47

sustainability (Binkley et al. 2007). Figure 3.2-2 shows the project area’s ponderosa pine cover type VSS 

projected for 40 years in the future. 

Figure 3.2-2 40 year Projection of Ponderosa Pine Cover type (LOGPFA) Sustainability in the 

Project Area 

Figure 3.2-2 shows the majority of the ponderosa pine cover type in the project area will remain 

dominated by a mid-aged forest (VSS4) for 40 year analysis period, limiting the sustainability of desired 

VSS 1, 2 and 6 conditions. Figure 3.2-2 assumes disturbances such as fire, insect and diseases are static. 

Depending on the intensity and severity of fire, insect or diseases; the associated mortality would 

contribute to changes in structural diversity and sustainability (Binkley et al. 2007, Fettig et al. 2007, 

Strom and Fulé 2007). The current condition of crown fire risk is discussed in the fuels report. Figure 

3.2-1 and -2 shows the deviation from the desired VSS conditions currently and through time. 

Research on bark beetles shows when trees are stressed from over stocking they are more susceptible to 

attack by Dendroctonus bark beetles (Negrón et al. 2000, Fettig et al. 2007). Ponderosa pine stands with 

a basal area (BA) greater than 120 ft.2

/ac are considered to be high hazard for bark beetle attack, while 

stands with basal areas between 80-120 ft.2

/ac are categorized as moderate risk. Figure 3.2-3 compares 

stand density by basal area (BA) to the risk of a bark beetle attack. Currently the majority of the 

ponderosa pine cover type in the project area is at high risk to bark beetle attacks. For the 40 year 

analysis period, the same areas maintain and increase a high risk of bark beetles attacks. 

4%

5% VSS 1 

6%

4%

VSS 2

33%

26%

23%

VSS 3

38% 40% VSS 4 38%

15%

20%

24%

VSS 5

3%

5% 6% VSS 6

39%

4%

9%

20%

24%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

Present 2023 2043 2053

Desired VSS 3 to 6

Desired VSS 1 & 2
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

48 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-3 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for the Ponderosa Pine Cover 

Type 

The high risk of bark beetle attack in the majority of the ponderosa pine cover type displays concerns of a 

potential bark beetle build up and outbreak. Fettig et al. (2007) summarized research on how 

Dendroctonus, specifically, prefer larger diameter trees when bark beetle risk is high. Dendroctonus

target larger trees in an outbreak due to the increased tree stress brought on from lack of nutrients, water, 

competition and high tree density (Klenner and Arsenault 2009). Depending on the intensity and severity 

of a potential bark beetle outbreak, mortality would contribute the change in structural diversity and 

sustainability (Negron et al. 2009). A bark beetle outbreak would move forest structure away from 

desired conditions by increased fuel loadings and mortality of the oldest tree cohort. During the recent 

severe drought in northern Arizona, a majority of ponderosa pine mortality attributed to bark beetles were 

caused by Ips species (Negrón et al. 2009). Significant correlations were found between increasing tree 

density and the probability and amount of tree mortality caused by Ips attacks.

The project area is a chronic home for dwarf mistletoe (DM). Conklin and Fairweather 2010 recognize 

through various researches that DM affects a variety of insects, birds and mammals. It is also explained 

that DM changes forest structure. Hawksworth and Wiens 1996 explain how infection centers generally 

become more open over time, lowering canopy cover and basal area. The project area consists of 

approximately 5,178 acres of the ponderosa pine cover type exhibiting high infection levels; these are 

areas where greater than 20% of the trees per acre (TPA) in a stand are infected. 20% is a manageable 

level for sustainable uneven aged management over time. 51% of the ponderosa pine cover type consist 

of moderate to low infection levels (lower than 20% of TPA infected). Figure 3.2-4 illustrates the 

intensity of DM within the ponderosa pine stands of high infection levels. 40 years into the future show 

TPA infected increases to 68%. High infection levels would move stands toward decreased canopy 

covers and basal areas, increased fire severities and move forest structure away from desired conditions 

(Hawksworth and Wiens 1996). 

123

134

143 151 158

131

136

142

147

50

70

90

110

130

150

170

Present 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Basal Area > 8" DBH (ft2/Ac)

LOGPFA

PFA

Moderate Bark Beetle Risk

High Bark Beetle Risk Hazard
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 49

Figure 3.2-4 % of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine Cover Type)

Figure 3.2-5 shows the severity of the high DM infected areas. Dwarf mistletoe rating (DMR) is used to 

quantify infection severity (Hawksworth 1977). The severity of DM in areas with high infection levels 

rise above extreme within a 40 year period. DMR is associated with growth and mortality impacts. In 

areas of high DM infection, mortality can be expected due to the added stress leading to tree attacks by 

bark beetles (Kenaley et al. 2008, Conklin and Fairweather 2010). 

Figure 3.2-5 Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine Cover 

Type)

Conklin and Fairweather 2010 explains how DM rarely kills all the trees in a stand or results in sizable 

deforestation but tree growth will decline as trees become dominated by stunted and deformed 

47% 48%

58%

67% 68%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Present 2023 2033 2043 2053

% Trees Per Acre DM Infected

Desired Condition

1.75 1.77

1.84

2.30 2.39

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

Present 2023 2033 2043 2053

Dwarft Mistletoe Rating (DMR)

Mean_DMR

High

Extream
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

50 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

characteristics. Sacrificing productivity and habitat, DM infections beyond the foreseeable future can lead 

to an open, uneven aged forest, changing the structural diversity and sustainability. Due to low forest 

productivity from high and extreme levels of stand DMR, uneven aged silviculture management would be 

difficult and forest structures would not meet desired conditions. 

Mixed Conifer

Mixed conifer is approximately 12% of the of the project area which consist of Douglas-fir and white fir 

stands. The majority of the mixed conifer stands are on the steep slopes of Bill Williams Mountain. 

Mixed conifer consists of white fir, Douglas fir, woodland species, ponderosa pine and small patches of 

aspen. Age classes within the mixed conifer are highly variable due to historic land management 

practices. 

The majority of the mixed conifer in the project area was historically dominated by ponderosa pine and 

Douglas fir, and is considered to be a dry (historic frequent-fire) mixed conifer forest type (Cocke et al. 

2005). Fire exclusion has altered the project area’s mixed conifer by allowing grassy openings between 

forested areas to fill in with younger trees. Historically, fire reduced the density of younger trees 

competing against older trees. Portions of the mixed conifer type are in mid-succession or climax 

condition with an understory of white fir. Over time, species composition within the entire mixed conifer 

type will shift from fire-resistant shade-intolerant species to non-fire-resistant shade-tolerant species 

dominance (e.g., white fir) (Fulé et al 2009). Most of the stands within the mixed conifer have currently 

transitioned to the dominance of shade tolerant species. Some wet mixed conifer (historic infrequent fire) 

forest type can be found in isolated area on the north facing slope and major drainages on Bill Williams 

Mountain. Cocke et al. (2005) show in studies on the San Francisco Peaks, approximately 30 miles west 

of the project area, how mesic species have encroached to lower altitudes and how mixed conifer cover 

types densities have increased since 1876. They explain how these changes have created conditions 

opposite to those suitable for warmer, drier future climates that will display increased fire risk, setting the 

stage for sudden severe change. 

Within the mixed conifer cover type, an increased amount of competition to the older age classes 

decreased their resistance and resilience to insect, diseases and fire under current conditions. Departure 

from forest conditions conducive to low intensity-frequent fire limits forest diversity, sustainability, 

health, and protection in and surrounding the project area (Cocke et al. 2005, Fulé et al 2009). Figure 3.2-

1 displays the current distribution of VSS for the project area’s mixed conifer cover type in goshawk 

LOGPFA habitat.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 51

Figure 3.2-6 Mixed Conifer Cover Type VSS Current Condition

Figure 3.2-6 shows the current departure of forest structural and age diversity to the desired condition in 

the mixed conifer cover type. There is currently a deficit of VSS 5 and 6 from the desired condition. 

Mid-aged VSS 3 and 4 are in excess. There is active regeneration demonstrated in VSS 1 and 2. 

Departure from the desired condition limits diversity in forest structure leading to uncertain forest 

sustainability. Figure 3.2-7 shows the project area’s mixed conifer cover type VSS for the next 40 years. 

Figure 3.2-7 40 year Measure of Mixed Conifer Cover type (LOGPFA) Sustainability

15%

10%

31%

24%

10%

8%

10% 10%

20% 20% 20% 20%

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

VSS1 VSS2 VSS3 VSS4 VSS5 VSS6

MC LOGPFA

Desired Condition

15% 14%

16%

12% 11% 10%

13%

13%

VSS5 

13%

31% 30%

27% 28%

27%

24% 23% 24% 24% 24%

8%

8% 8% 9%

8%

11%

14% VSS1 VSS2 

VSS6 

VSS3 

VSS4 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Present 2023 2033 2043 2053

Desired VSS1 & 2

Vesired VSS3 to 6
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

52 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-7 shows the majority of the mixed conifer cover type in the project area will remain dominated 

by a mid-aged forest (VSS4) and young forest (VSS3) for 40 years, limiting the sustainability of desired 

VSS 5 and 6 conditions. Figure 3.2-7 assumes disturbances such as fire, insect and diseases are static. 

Depending on the intensity and severity of fire, insect or diseases; the associated mortality would 

contribute to changes in structural diversity and sustainability. The current condition of crown fire risk in 

mixed conifer is discussed in the fuels report. 

Mixed conifer species such as Douglas-fir and white fir are capable of living in conditions with higher 

tree densities (Higher Stand Density Index (SDI) maximums). With the ability of some mixed conifer 

species sustaining higher densities, species such as ponderosa pine and gambel oak become the first to be 

stressed and perish from competition. Species lost from mixed conifer stands reduced species diversity 

and risk losing of old trees. This is with the assumption of no interactions of other disturbance agents 

such as bark beetles and DM. Currently the majority of the mixed conifer cover type in the project area is 

at high risk to bark beetle attacks, Figure 3.2-8. Over the 40 years of the projected stand growth, the same 

areas maintain and have increasing high risk of bark beetles attacks. Through time the high risk of bark 

beetle attacks will result in the loss of old trees and increased fuel loadings ultimately reducing forest 

diversity and increasing the risk of stand replacing wildfires. 

Figure 3.2-8 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for Mixed Conifer Cover Type

DM also exists in the mixed conifer cover type. The project area consists of approximately 720 acres of 

the mixed conifer cover type exhibiting high DM infection levels (> 20% Infected TPA). 20% is a 

manageable level for sustainable uneven aged management over time. 64% of the mixed conifer cover 

type consists of moderate to low infection levels (< 20% Infected TPA). Figure 3.2-9 illustrates the 

intensity of DM within mixed conifer stands of high infection levels for Douglas-fir and ponderosa pine. 

40 years into the future show TPA infected increases to 75% for ponderosa pine and 42% of Douglas-fir. 

The reduction of DMR in Figure 3.2-9 is due to the added regeneration of non infected trees combined 

with overstory mortality. Through time the regeneration becomes more infected and trends for Douglasfir increases. 

153

170

183

196

208

100

120

140

160

180

200

220

Present Day 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Basal Area > 8" DBH 

(ft2/Ac)

MC LOGPFA

High Bark Beetle Risk
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 53

Figure 3.2-9 Percent of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Mixed Conifer Cover Type)

Figure 3.2-10 shows the severity of the high DM infected areas. The severity of DM in mixed conifer 

areas of high infection levels rise above extreme after present day. Analysis shows that ponderosa pine 

DMR keeps raising for the 40 year period while Douglas-fir DMR declines below extreme to high DMR. 

This decline is due to the added regeneration of non infected trees combined with overstory mortality. 

Through time the regeneration becomes more infected and trends for Douglas-fir increases. 

Figure 3.2-10 DM Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Mixed Conifer Cover Type)

Aspen

There are 140 acres of aspen stands within the project area. These are stands that consist of aspen. Aspen 

also exist in isolated patches within the mixed conifer cover type and are typically on steep slopes. The 

40%

52%

41% 39% 42%

61% 62%

70% 76% 75%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Present 2023 2033 2043 2053

% of Douglas-fir DM Infected Trees Per Acre

 % of Ponderosa Pine DM Infected Trees Per Acre

Desired Condition

1.91

2.40 2.34

1.57 1.59

2.84

2.56

2.97

3.16 3.18

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Present 2023 2033 2043 2053

Dwarft Mistletoe Rating (DMR)

Mean Douglas-fir DMR

Mean Ponderosa Pine DMR

High

Extream
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

54 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

aspen cover type within the project area have been encroached and suppressed by conifer species 

resulting in a decline to the population (Fairweather et al 2008). 

Woodlands and Shrublands

Oak, juniper and pinyon woodlands consist of approximately 15% of the project area. Stands typed 

mixed hard woods typically consist of gambel oak, choke cherry, mountain-mahogany and cliff-rose. 

Shrublands are primarily mountain-mahogany and cliff-rose. Conifer species are found establishing in 

these stands and are evenly aged. 

Grasslands and Rocklands

Grasslands have been encroached for the past 140 years by ponderosa pine and juniper. In many areas, 

tree encroachment has reduced the grass and forage production below the stands’ potential( USDA 2005, 

Stoddard et al 2011). Rocklands are a minor component of the project area but contain minor inclusions 

of aspen and conifer species. 

3.2.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

Vegetation Structure

The primary forest management direction in the forest plan is to manage for: uneven-age stand conditions, 

old age trees so old forest structure will be sustained over time and a mosaic of vegetation densities, age 

classes and species composition across the landscape. The vegetation structure analysis assumes a 

projected treatment date of 2013. To accurately depict the 3 scales of analysis for vegetation structure, all 

three scales are displayed side by side. Alternatives differ based on biasing toward a certain type of forest 

structure or when creating early seral stage conditions (forest canopy openings of grassy areas and 

seedlings/saplings). Table 3.2-6 shows how the alternatives could differ based on assumptions of how 

much of the area will be moved into an early seral stage. For example, in the ponderosa pine cover type 

alternative 3 and 4 will maintain the 20% of a stands area in an early seral stage. 20% of early seral 

stages in alternatives 3 and 4 are created and maintained for regeneration openings. Alternative 1 will 

generally maintain a low percentage of early seral stage conditions from no treatments. Additional seral 

stages created in alternative 2 are by increasing openings or interspaces between groups which 

emphasizes an open forest strategy (Cooper 1960, Covington and Moore 1994,White 1985, Allen et al 

2002). Assumptions for alternative 2 are based on evidence of historic tree distribution in the project area 

and past projects on the Williams Ranger District that restored forest structure to historic tree distributions 

(Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994). The purpose of Table 3.2-6 is to show, with generalized 

assumptions, on how alternative 2 will represent a pine savanna condition with grassy openings 

surrounding tree groups compared to all the alternatives. Assumptions are bases on aerial imagery of the 

project area and previous treatments. 

Table 3.2-6 Estimated Stand Percentages of Seral Stages Between Alternatives after Treatment 

Year*

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Ponderosa 

Pine*

Early 5% 50% 20% 20%

Mid to Late 95% 50% 80% 80%

d 

Co

nif

Early 5% 40% 20% 20%
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 55

Mid to Late 95% 60% 80% 80%

Pinyon 

Juniper

Early 20% 75% 75% 75%

Mid to Late 80% 25% 25% 25%

Aspen

Early 5% 50% 50% 50%

Mid to Late 95% 50% 50% 50%

* Percentages do not include, Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area, PAC Core, and Goshawk Nest. These 

areas will maintain a higher percentage of mid to late seral stages. 

Ponderosa Pine and Pine-Oak

Vegetation structures for approximately 91% of the ponderosa pine cover type (LOGPFA) are 

demonstrated in VSS through time in Figures 3.2-11 to 3.2-15. Reference the wildlife section for MSO 

Pine oak analysis on evaluation criteria. For the following vegetation structure analysis, pine oak habitat 

is averaged within its overlapping goshawk habitat. The alternative’s effects are being based on direct 

actions/no actions represented in 2014 and how well it meets the desired condition 40 years into time. 

Indirect effects are described as changes due to an increase or decrease of density from another VSS.

Figure 3.2-11 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 1 and 2

Ponderosa pine forested areas of grass/forb/shrub to seedling/sapling stages (VSS1 and 2) would be 

regulated and implemented based on area percentages which would guarantee the amount desired for each 

alternative. Figure 3.2-11 demonstrates the current amount of VSS 1 and 2s with estimated regeneration 

rates, indirect effects from other VSS classes’ excelling in VSS indirectly changes VSS 1 and 2 

percentages. The VSS 1 and 2 analysis biases toward areas dominated with grasses, forbs, seedlings and 

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level):VSS 1 & 2

ALt1

Alt2

Alt3

Alt4

FOREST

PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

56 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

saplings. The main reason the analysis shows low percentages is due to larger yellow pines, larger trees 

and reserve trees among areas designated for regeneration. With larger trees and uneven aged 

management areas designated as VSS 1 and 2, bring VSS classifications higher. Because VSS is area 

based, the creation of areas for VSS 1 and 2 will be established upon implementation. VSS 1 and 2 are 

combined to show the trends through time. The modeled groupie clumpy nature of all the action 

alternatives also shows a lower than desired conditions. Modeling shows direct effects between the 

alternatives on VSS 1 and 2 but future non-modeled events can increase grass/forb/shrub to 

seedling/sapling stages from burning and future tending events (White 1985). It is likely grass/forb/shrub 

and seedling/sapling stages would increase within the project area under action alternatives (White 1985, 

Rleveld 1978). VSS 1 and 2 are underrepresented due to the averaging of multiple sizes with 

grass/forb/shrub to seedling/sapling stages with larger trees, based on basal area of tree sizes, in a group. 

An example is if there is a group dominated by seedling/saplings with one larger tree, the VSS can 

increase. Natural regeneration was modeled every decade in each simulation (Rleveld 1978). Even 

though alternative 2 would exceed the grass/forb/shrub percentage across the ponderosa pine type, it is 

deemed acceptable because the entire grass/forb/shrub stage isn’t intended for regeneration areas. The 

regeneration within alternative 2 will be managed to the overstory ponderosa pine groups, sustaining the 

uneven aged groups. Alternative 1 would maintain even aged conditions across the ponderosa pine cover 

type, limiting the amount of grass/forb/shrub and seedling/sapling stages needed to meet the desired 

conditions. Under alternative 1, grass/forb/shrub and seedling/sapling stages would only increase from 

overstory mortality events triggered from insects and diseases. Alternative 2, 3 and 4 best meet the 

desired conditions for VSS 1 and 2 on the LOGPFA.

Figure 3.2-12 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 3 (Use legend in 

3.2-11)

The action alternatives for VSS 3(young forest), in all three scales, trend to forest plan guidelines directly 

after treatment where no action directly after treatment remains above 10 percent of the desired condition. 

Through time at the tree group and EMA level, all alternatives returned to desired condition, with 

alternative 2 being closest to 20%. Through time at the stand level, all alternatives show decline with 

alternative 1 becoming the best represented. This can be explained with the nature of the initial cutting of 

the action alternatives. Modeling was based on irregular tree spacing and irregular tree group spacing. 

Alternative 1 is left with uniform, even-aged growing condition taking up more growing space than if 

trees were grouped. Through time, the reduction of young forest at the stand level for the action 

alternatives alleviates growing space for VSS 4, 5 and 6. Future vegetative cutting treatments of larger 

VSS classes will bring stand level averages toward desired conditions. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 3

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group 

and EMA Level): VSS 3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 57

Figure 3.2-13 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use legend in 

3.2-11)

Figure 3.2-14 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 5(Use legend in 

3.2-11)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 4 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA (tree group 

and EMA Level):VSS 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA (tree group 

and EMA Level): VSS 5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

58 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-15 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 6 (Use legend in 

3.2-11)

Figures 3.2-13 through 3.2-15 show the effects to VSS 4, 5 and 6 by alternative. For all alternatives, 

stand level VSS 4 shows that direct effects are minor. Even though each alternative provides a unique 

direct effect, the following provides a general summery of all the VSS classes in LOGPFA. Alternative 1 

moves directly away from the desired condition while alternative 2 moves toward it. Alternative 3 and 4 

for each scale eventually meet the desired condition through time. 

Indirectly from the majority of VSS 3 and 4 being treated, alternative 2 builds an access of VSS 5. 

Alternative 1 remains moving away from desired condition through time. The excess of VSS 5 in 

alternative 2 indirectly relates to the future increases in VSS 6. Alternative 3 and 4 directly meet the VSS 

5 desired condition the best. Through time alternative 3 and 4 VSS 5 class will become older and larger, 

moving into VSS 6. Among the alternatives for VSS 6, alternative 2 moves the best toward the desired 

condition directly and through time. 

Goshawk nest and PFA are the remaining ponderosa pine in the project area excluding LOGPFA. Due to 

forest plan direction regarding goshawk nest areas, the analysis for goshawk nest areas will focus on 

mature and old forest VSS classes. Analysis will show primarily forest structure for PFAs, which include 

nest stands. Figures 3.2-16 to 3.2-20 demonstrate the vegetation structures for Goshawk PFAs. 

Figure 3.2-16 Ponderosa Pine PFA (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 1 and 2

-10

0

10

20

30

40

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs (Stand 

Level): Percent VSS 6

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA (tree group 

and EMA Level):VSS 6

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA (tree group and EMA Level):VSS 1 & 2

PFA ALt1

PFA Alt

2,3, & 4

FOREST

PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 59

PFA forested areas of grass/forb/shrub to seedling/sapling stages (VSS1 and 2) would be regulated and 

implemented in action alternatives based on area percentages which would guarantee the amount desired 

for each alternative. Figure 3.2-16 demonstrates the current amount of VSS 1 and 2s with estimated 

regeneration rates, indirect effects from other VSS classes’ excelling in VSS indirectly changes VSS 1 

and 2 percent VSS. The VSS 1 and 2 analysis biases toward areas dominated with grasses, forbs, 

seedlings and saplings. The main reason the analysis shows low percentages is due to larger yellow 

pines, larger trees and reserve trees among areas designated for regeneration. With larger trees and 

uneven aged management areas designated as VSS 1 and 2, bring VSS classifications higher. Because 

VSS is area based, the creation of areas for VSS 1 and 2 will be established upon implementation. VSS 1 

and 2 are combined to show the trends through time. The modeled groupie clumpy nature of all the 

action alternatives also shows a lower than desired conditions. The modeled groupie clumpy nature of all 

the action alternatives shows a lower than desired conditions. Modeling shows direct effects between the 

alternatives on VSS 1 and 2 but future non-modeled events can increase grass/forb/shrub to 

seedling/sapling stages from burning and future tending events(White 1985). It is likely grass/forb/shrub 

and seedling/sapling stages would increase within the project area under action alternatives (White 1985, 

Rleveld 1978). Similar trends are shown in LOGPFA VSS 1 and 2. 

Natural regeneration was modeled every decade in each simulation (Rleveld 1978). Alternative 1 would 

maintain even aged conditions across the PFA limiting the amount of grass/forb/shrub and 

seedling/sapling stages needed to meet the desired conditions. Under alternative 1, grass/forb/shrub and 

seedling/sapling stages would only increase from overstory mortality events triggered from insects and 

diseases or stand replacing fires. Alternative 2, 3 and 4 best meet the desired conditions for 

grass/forb/shrub and seedling/sapling stages in PFAs.

Figure 3.2-17 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 3 (Use legend 

in 3.2-16)

Figure 3.2-17 demonstrates VSS 3 class in ponderosa pine PFA. At all scales, alternative 1 VSS 3 

eventually moves toward the desired condition through time. The stand scale, the action alternatives 

directly move the best toward VSS 3 after treatment. The tree group and EMA level, VSS 3 stabilizes 

within acceptable conditions. The stand level, VSS 3 falls below the desired condition over time. This is 

due to other class becoming more represented. Future thinning treatments can move the stand level VSS 

toward the desired condition. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine Nest & PFA (tree group 

and EMA Level):VSS 3

-10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

60 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-18 show PFA VSS 4 at all scales trend above the desired condition for all alternatives. The 

action alternatives move the closest to the desired condition through time. The increased amount of VSS 

4 is indirectly from VSS 3 groups moving up in classification through time.

Figure 3.2-18 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use legend 

in 3.2-16)

Figure 3.2-19 displays the nest and PFA side by side. Treatments in VSS 5 for PFA and nest directly 

move VSS within desired condition. The trends for action alternatives in nest and PFA move above 20% 

of VSS 5 through time. Trending toward older and mature forest structures is desirable in goshawk nest 

and PFA based on the forest plan. At all scales for alternative 1 in PFA and nest, directly decrease below 

20% VSS5. At the stand level, alternative 1 trends to 20% through time with nest rising at year 2043. 

This is due to VSS 3 moving into VSS 4, indirectly VSS 6 in alternative 1 remains low. 

Figure 3.2-19 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA (tree group and EMA 

Level) :VSS 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 4 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest(tree 

group and EMA Level) :VSS 5

0

10

20

30

40

50

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (Stand 

Level): Percent VSS 5

PFA Alt

1

Nest Alt

1

PFA Alt

2, 3 & 4

Nest Alt

2, 3 & 4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 61

Figure 3.2-20 Ponderosa Pine PFA and Nest (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 6 (Use legend 

in 3.2-19)

Figure 3.2-20 displays VSS 6 for PFA and nest. VSS 6 for all action alternatives, at all three scales, move 

toward the desired condition. The action alternatives in the tree group and EMA level, start trending 

downward after 2033. This is due to an excess of VSS 4 rising. Future thinning of VSS 4 would bring 

VSS 6 up to desired conditions in time. 

The following is the analysis for canopy cover in VSS 4, 5 and 6. Canopy cover guidelines according to 

the forest plan apply to mid-aged to old forest (VSS 4, 5 and 6) and not to grass/forb/shrubs to young 

forest (VSS 1, 2, and 3). For this analysis, canopy cover is represented at the three scales required for 

goshawk habitat using point data representing tree groups, stand and EMA levels. Point data was used 

because stand data will average in VSS 1 to 3 groups. Point data provides higher accuracy and higher 

landscape coverage than stand data. Canopy cover is based on FVS modeling which is measured 

vertically, consistent with the forest plan. Canopy cover calculated in FVS for this analysis is measured 

with overlapping canopies as described in Crookston and Stage 1999. The FVS canopy cover provides 

for a canopy cover measure in groupie clumpy structures, which is the nature of ponderosa pine forest and 

desired conditions rather than an evenly spaced forest. 

Within ponderosa pine LOGPFA canopy cover is close to the desired condition at 2013, represented in

Figure 3.2-21. Alternative 1 for VSS 4 and 5 directly increases above the desired condition after 2013. 

Alternative 1 continues to maintain the highest canopy cover between all of the action alternatives and 

continues through time. This is possible because canopy cover began increasing immediately after 2013, 

with no thinning of trees. The trend of the action alternatives directly reduced canopy cover below 

desired conditions after treatment. However, the action alternatives recovered in VSS 4 and 5 within 20 

to 30 years after treatment. The reduction of canopy cover is due to the reduction of smaller diameter 

trees within VSS 4 and 5 groups, reducing vertical canopy diversity ultimately reducing canopy cover 

density. Not only do the action alternatives recover but they trend within 10% of alternative 1 after 40 

years. The recovery of canopy cover is due to crowns filling in after being released and understory 

recruitment. 

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA (tree group and EMA 

Level):VSS 6

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 6
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

62 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-21 Ponderosa Pine Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): 

VSS 4 and 5 (Use legend in 3.2-22)

Figure 3.2-22 shows VSS 6 canopy cover for LOGPFA with similar trends as VSS 4 and 5. Alternative 1 

best meets the desired condition directly. The existing condition starts at 30% and after the action 

alternatives trends slowly move toward desired conditions. Alternative 4 did not show a reduction but did 

not increase at the rate alternative 1. By 30 years into the future, all action alternatives are above the 

desired condition and 40 years results in 12 percent of each alternative. In 40 years alternative 1 and 2 

canopy covers remained the furthest apart but were over the desired condition of 40%. 

Figure 3.2-22 Ponderosa Pine Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): 

VSS 6

According to the forest plan, canopy cover desired conditions for PFA and goshawk nests are desired to 

be higher than LOGPFA. The forest plan expresses that one of the unique nesting habitat conditions for 

goshawk is high canopy covers. For PFAs, canopy cover for VSS 4 is split into one third and two thirds, 

as specified in the forest plan. VSS 4 canopy cover was measured through time against all alternatives. 

Figure 3.2-23 illustrates the effects of canopy cover for all four alternatives 40 years into the future. One 

third of VSS 4 for alternative 1 directly meets the desired condition of 60% and starts to plateaus through 

time. The action alternatives drop above 55% and recover to the desired condition within 20 years after 

0

20

40

60

80

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS 

Class (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA (tree group, 

stand & EMA Level):VSS4 Canopy 

Cover

0

20

40

60

80

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS 

Class (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA (tree group, 

stand & EMA Level):VSS5 Canopy 

Cover

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS Class (%)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA (tree group, stand & EMA 

Level): :VSS 6 Canopy Cover

ALt1

Alt2

Alt3

Alt4

FOREST

PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 63

the treatment. The rest of VSS4, two thirds, in alternative 1 directly increases and comes close to the 

desired condition after 2013 and exceed it 10 years into the future. The action alternatives, starting at 

42%, reduced down to 40% canopy cover. The recovery rate is slower for the action alternatives and 

recovers 20 years into the future. At the end of the 40 year period canopy covers are within 6% of each 

other. The slow recovery time is due to the thinning of younger smaller trees that are growing underneath 

tree canopies in alternative 1. Crowns filling out and light regeneration helped the recovery. 

Figure 3.2-23 Ponderosa Pine Canopy Cover for PFA and goshawk nests (tree group, stand and 

EMA Level): VSS 4, 5 and 6 (Use legend in 3.2-16)

Canopy cover for VSS 5 and 6 in PFA and nests are also demonstrated in Figure 3.2-23. The trends are 

similar to the previous goshawk habitats. In PFAs VSS 5 and 6 canopy covers of alternative 1 show 

upward trends meeting canopy cover desired conditions within 20 years. The action alternatives in 20 

years come within 5% of the desired condition and slowly recover at the end of the 40 years period. The 

slow recovery of VSS 5 and 6 groups is primarily due to tree crowns filling in slowly and less of 

establishment of regeneration within the group. Specific to the nest stands, alternative 1 meets the 

desired condition within 10 years and plateaus. The action alternatives meet the desired condition in 20 

years thus resulting within 5% of each other after 40 years. The action alternatives in all goshawk 

habitats are deemed to meet the canopy cover objectives due to showing trends toward desired conditions 

through time. 

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS 

Class (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA :1/3 of VSS 4 

Canopy Cover

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS 

Class (%)

Ponderosa Pine PFA : 2/3 of VSS 4 

Canopy Cover

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS Class 

(%) 

Ponderosa Pine PFA :VSS 5 & 6 

Combined Canopy Cover

20

30

40

50

60

70

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS Class 

(%) 

Ponderosa Pine Goshawk Nest:VSS 5 

& 6 Combined Canopy Cover
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

64 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mixed Conifer

Vegetation structures for 100% of the Mixed Conifer cover type (LOGPFA) are demonstrated in VSS 

through time in Figures 3.2-24 to 3.2-28. Reference the wildlife section for MSO mixed conifer analysis 

on evaluation criteria. For the following vegetation structure analysis, mixed conifer habitat is averaged 

in with its overlapping goshawk habitat. The figures demonstrate the variations of alternatives from the 

projected treatment date of 2013. The alternative’s effects are being based on direct actions/no actions 

which are represented in 2014 and how well it meets the desired condition 40 years into time. Indirect 

effects are measured based on reductions or non-reductions of an individual VSS that changes the 

percentage of others in the population making them more or less represented.

Figure 3.2-24 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 1 and 2

Mixed conifer forested areas of grass/forb/shrub to seedling/sapling stages (VSS1 and 2) would be 

regulated and implemented in action alternatives based on area percentages which would guarantee the 

amount desired for each alternative. Figure 3.2-24 demonstrates the current amount of VSS 1 and 2s with 

estimated regeneration rates, indirect effects from other VSS classes’ excelling in VSS indirectly changes 

VSS 1 and 2 percent. The VSS 1 and 2 analysis biases toward areas dominated with grasses, forbs, 

seedlings and saplings. The main reason the analysis shows low percentages is due to larger yellow 

pines, larger trees and reserve trees among areas designated for regeneration. With larger trees and 

uneven aged management areas designated as VSS 1 and 2, bring VSS classifications higher. Because 

VSS is area based, the creation of areas for VSS 1 and 2 will be established upon implementation. VSS 1 

and 2 are combined to show the trends through time. The modeled groupie clumpy nature of all the 

action alternatives also shows a lower than desired conditions. The modeled groupie clumpy nature of all 

the action alternatives shows a lower than desired conditions. Modeling shows direct effects between the 

alternatives on VSS 1 and 2 but future non-modeled events can increase grass/forb/shrub to 

seedling/sapling stages from burning and future forest thinning events. ). It is likely grass/forb/shrub and 

seedling/sapling stages would increase within the project area under action alternatives (White 1985, 

Rleveld 1978). VSS 1 and 2 are also under represented due to the averaging of multiple sizes with 

grass/forb/shrub to seedling/sapling stages with larger trees, based on basal area of tree sizes, in a group. 

0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFA (tree group, stand & EMA Level): :VSS 1 & 2

ALt1

Alt2

Alt3

Alt4

FOREST

PLAN
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 65

An example is if there is a group dominated by seedling/saplings with one larger tree, the VSS can 

increase. 

Mixed conifer VSS3 is illustrated through time in Figure 3.2-24 for all three scales. The action 

alternatives for VSS 3, in all three scales, trend to acceptable levels directly after treatment where no 

action remained above the desired condition. At the tree group and EMA level, all alternatives show a 

reduction in VSS 3 and quickly spike back up in the future. This is indirectly due to the increases and 

decreased of VSS 4, 5 and 6. The increase of VSS 3 indirectly tied to the decrease of VSS 4. The benefit 

of these fluctuations through time can be observed in the stabilization of VSS 5 and 6 groups. The 

majority of the LOGPFA being designated as MSO protected habitat, Arizona Bugbane botanical area or 

in a non-operability zone affected VSS 3 outcomes due to the limitations of the prescriptions. The 

prescriptions for alternatives 3 and 4 focused on thinning conifers from below to the most conservative 

depending on the habitat overlap, 9 inches in MSO protected or 12 inches in Arizona bugbane. In 

alternative 4 areas differed from treatment, excluding strategic fuels locations, based on non-operability. 

Fire was simulated under the various treatments. The high reduction of VSS 3 for alternative 3 is due to 

thinning from below treatments. Conversely, this increased the percent VSS 4, 5 and 6 for alternative 3. 

A similar reduction is shown in alternative 4 due to the increased mortality from prescribed fire, with no 

vegetative treatment. The fire effect of increased fuel created by VSS 3 groups is discussed in the fuels 

section. 

Figure 3.2-25 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 3 (Use legend in 

3.2-24)

Figure 3.2-26 shows at all three levels of analysis how percentages stay above the desired condition, with 

alternative 2 returning the closest to the desired condition at the stand level. 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 3

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFA(tree group, & 

EMA Level): :VSS 3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

66 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-26 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 4 (Use legend in 

3.2-24)

Figure 3.2-27 shows the three levels of analysis for mixed conifer VSS 5. All alternatives trend above the 

desired condition with alternative 4 and 2 directly trending closer. At the stand level, alternative 4 and 1 

maintain below the desired condition. 

Figure 3.2-27 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 5 (use legend in 

3.2-24)

Figure 3.2-28 shows the three levels of analysis for mixed conifer VSS 6. All alternatives trend toward 

the desired condition with alternative 3 and 2 directly trending faster. At the stand level, alternative 3 

meets the desired condition at the end of the 40 year period. At the tree group and EMA level, alternative 

2 rises to the desired condition and maintains itself around the threshold, while alternative 3 fully exceeds 

the desired condition from the reductions of fire mortality VSS 3. Similar trends of alternative 3 could be 

seen in alternative 4 depending on mortality from burning. 

0

10

20

30

40

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 4 

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFALOGPFA(tree 

group, & EMA Level) :VSS 4

0

10

20

30

40

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFALOGPFA(tree 

group, & EMA Level) :VSS 5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 67

Figure 3.2-28 Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): VSS 6(Use legend in 

3.2-24)

Canopy cover guidelines according to the forest plan apply to mid-aged to old forest (VSS 4, 5 and 6) and 

not to grass/forb/shrubs to young forest (VSS 1, 2, and 3). Mixed conifer LOGPFA, canopy cover is 

displayed in Figure 3.2-29 and Figure 3.2-30. Alternative 1 for VSS 4 and 5 directly increases above the 

desired condition after 2013. Alternative 1 continues to maintain its canopy cover and continues through 

time. Alternative 2 and 4 through time, above the desired condition, come close to exceeding alternative 

1. Alternative 2 developed higher canopy cover, 40 years after treatment. Alternative 3 reduced canopy 

cover is due to the thinning of conifers below a specific diameter limit, smaller trees within groups of 

VSS 4, 5 and 6 contributed to the majority of the canopy cover. Similar trends of alternative 3 could be 

seen in alternative 4 depending on mortality from burning. 

 

Figure 3.2-29 Mixed Conifer Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): 

VSS 4 and 5 (Use legend in 3.2-24)

VSS 6 canopy cover displayed in Figure 3.2-30 show similar trends to VSS 4 and 5. Main differences are 

that the no action, alternative 2 and 4 meet the desired condition 20 years into the future. Alternative 3 

shows the same decreased trends from the reduction of small diameter trees.

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent VSS (%)

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (Stand Level): 

Percent VSS 6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Percent of Stand VSS (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFALOGPFA(tree 

group, & EMA Level): VSS 6

40

45

50

55

60

65

70

75

80

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS Class (%)

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

MixedConifer LOGPFA :VSS 4 Canopy 

Cover

30

40

50

60

70

80

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS Class (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFA :VSS 5 Canopy 

Cover
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

68 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-30 Mixed Conifer Canopy Cover for LOGPFAs (tree group, stand and EMA Level): 

VSS 6 (Use legend in 3.2-24)

Woodlands

Approximately 2,464 acres of woodlands are being managed as LOGPFA. This area includes pinyon 

juniper, juniper woodland, oak woodlands, and other hardwood cover types. 

The no action alternative will allow these sites to continue to become denser with overstory vegetation 

overtime. The productivity of grasses, forbs and shrubs in the understory will continue to decline as 

overstory trees become denser and outcompete understory vegetation for sunlight, moisture, and available 

nutrients (Moore et al 2008). Over time, overstory vegetation in woodland sites will become less diverse 

for the following reasons:

• Development of new age classes of trees will be impeded as the density of mid-aged trees 

increases. (Moore et al 2008)

• The longevity of large older trees will be decreased as they have to compete with an increasing 

density of mid-aged trees. (Moore et al 2008)

• Some tree species will be forced out over time as more aggressive, faster growing species overtop 

and outcompete these declining species for moisture and nutrients. (Moore et al 2008)

• As these woodland cover types become denser over time, many stands will be placed at a higher 

risk of having larger stand replacement fires than would normally occur within these vegetation 

types.

The action alternatives will reduce tree density in woodland sites. This will have the following effects on 

these sites:

• Production of grasses, forbs, and shrubs will increase in the understory.

• A mix of trees of different ages and species will be allowed to develop over time.

• The longevity and vigor of larger older trees will increase over time because there will be less 

competition from mid-aged trees (ERI 2006).

• Risk of large stand replacement fires will be reduced.

The action alternatives will release more understory vegetation and new age classes of trees in woodland 

cover types than alternative 1 because there will be more trees removed. The action alternatives will 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Stand Canopy Cover of VSS Class (%)

MixedConifer LOGPFA :VSS 6 Canopy Cover
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 69

create more openings along with a more mixed mosaic of vegetation in woodland cover types because 

some mid-aged woodland trees will be removed. The action alternatives will be much more effective in 

restoring woodland cover types closer to desired conditions by reducing competition and creating a 

historic condition conducive for frequent fire. Due to no treatment in alternative 1 of woodland cover 

types, a greater number of larger diameter trees would persist on the landscape than alternative 2. Snags 

and large downed logs for woodland sites are discussed in the wildlife section.

Grasslands

There are 64 acres of grassland cover type within the project area. Under alternative 1 more trees will 

continue to regenerate and develop within this cover type. The increasing density of trees over time will 

lead to the following effects within the grasslands of the project area:

• Productivity of grasses and forbs will continue to decrease as trees start to out compete 

understory plants for light, moisture, and nutrients.

• The size of open grasslands will continue to decrease as trees invade grasslands from the edges 

and continue to move towards the grasslands center. Some smaller grassland sites may be 

completely converted to forest (Moore and Huffman 2004).

• Grass cover will decrease. When the encroaching trees are junipers, there will be more erosion in 

the upper soil layers as grass coverage declines. If the tree encroachment is ponderosa pine, the 

increasing pine litter will offset the potential increased erosion that could occur with decreasing 

grass coverage. When a wildland fire burns through this cover type, areas where pine litter has 

replaced grasses will have greater potential for surface erosion, at least temporarily, over areas 

where grass coverage is greater. 

The action alternatives propose treatments to reduce tree density in grasslands that will lead to the 

following effects:

• Production of grasses and forbs will be increased.

• Grasslands will be maintained at or close to their historic distributions and sizes. 

• Grass cover will be increased. This will minimize erosion problems, particularly within 

grasslands that are being encroached upon by junipers.

The action alternatives better restores grasslands because it reducing competition from the over story to 

understory grassers by providing more sunlight and nutrients to existing grasses. Diameter growth of 

trees in grasslands is often very rapid because grasslands are often found on more productive sites with 

deeper soil and there are fewer trees per acre thereby reducing competition that slows growth. Leaving 

trees in grasslands in alternative 1, maintains seed source which increases the opportunities for further 

new tree regeneration. The action alternatives will bring seed sources away from grasslands.

Aspen

There are 140 acres of aspen cover type within the project area. Under the no action alternative, most of 

the aspen cover type will continue to decline for the following reasons:

• Conifer species will continue to develop within aspen sites. As these conifers overtop and 

outcompete the aspens, the conifer will start to replace the aspen. Many of the aspen sites will be 

completely replaced by conifers (Cooper 1960).

• Heavy elk and deer browsing within aspen sites will impede development of aspen sprouts. 

Sprouts will not develop into trees. Most aspen sites will vanish from the landscape as older 

aspen die off and younger aspen are not allowed to develop (Fairweather et al 2008).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

70 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The action alternatives provide for removing conifer encroachment within aspen sites and protecting 

newly developing aspen sprouts from elk and deer browsing with fencing and jackstrawing of activity 

slash. These strategies would also be used in smaller aspen clones found within other cover types that are 

not identified as aspen cover types. These alternatives will attempt to restore aspen within some dead 

aspen sites that are no longer sprouting by planting aspen and fencing. These proposed treatments will 

maintain aspen clones in the project area. These treatments will increase the vigor and longevity of 

existing aspens while providing for development of new aspen trees over time. Alternative 2 will best 

meet project purpose and need relative to aspen management.

Forest Health

Ponderosa Pine and Pine-Oak Bark Beetle Risk

Figure 3.2-31 illustrates how bark beetle risk changes by alternatives r based on stand density, basal area 

(BA). All the action alternatives directly decrease bark beetle risk after treatment. An additional decrease 

to all action alternatives after the treatment year is due to the prescribed burn that was simulated in 2017. 

This slight reduction in BA was enough to bring all action alternatives below the moderate bark beetle 

risk threshold into 10 years after treatment. In the action alternatives, additional slash created from 

burning, (creation of snags, burned limbs and needle cast) is not a concern for increasing bark beetle 

populations due the increased tree vigor from the treatments (Fettig 2006). Activity slash would not 

create an increased bark beetle risk due to mitigation measured to treat slash. If a wildfire would happen 

under the no action alternative, additional slash would create a condition for bark beetle populations to 

rise (Fettig 2007). With a combined of decreased vigor in residual trees, resistance to an epidemic would 

be unlikely under alternative 1. 

Through time bark beetle risk remains under the high hazard threshold for all 40 years for alternatives 2-

4. Alternative 2 remains the lowest bark beetle risk throughout the simulation. 

Figure 3.2-31 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for all Alternatives in the 

Ponderosa Pine Cover Type

Mixed Conifer Bark Beetle Risk

Figure 3.2-32 displays how bark beetle risk changes by the different alternatives in the mixed conifer 

forest type based on BA. All the action alternatives result in decreased bark beetle risk after treatment 

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Basal Area ft2/ac

Alt1

Alt2

Alt3

Alt4

Moderate Bark

Beetle Risk

High Bark

Beetle Risk
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 71

with alternative 3 being the lowest. This is due to the prescriptions focusing on thinning to a 9” diameter 

limit. An additional decrease to all action alternatives after the treatment year is due to the prescribed 

burn that was simulated in 2017. This slight reduction in basal area was enough to bring all action 

alternatives below the moderate bark beetle risk threshold into 10 years after treatment, except alternative 

2. Alternative 2 remains slightly above the moderate risk threshold after treatment. This gradual 

reduction in basal area from the burning treatment is due to alternative 2 having the optimal structure for 

minimal mortality during a prescribed burning event (Sánchez Meador et al 2010). Alternative 4 shows a 

slight reduction after thinning treatment and large increase after the burning event. The large reduction 

after burning treatment is due to most of the mixed conifer in alternative 4 not being thinned due to nonoperability. This type of reduction, at a minimum, can be expected if there is a low intensity wildfire 

under alternative 1. Alternative 3 shows a large decrease in risk after thinning treatment and a slight 

decline after burning. The concern with major reductions after a burning event is due to the increased 

slash and dead standing trees providing an optimal habitat for bark beetle populations to increase (Fettig 

2006). Trees weakened by burning have increased susceptibility to attack by bark beetles, particularly 

Douglas-fir trees. Epidemics are likely with the combination of decreased tree vigor, increased 

populations and tree competition (Fettig et al. 2007).

Figure 3.2-32 40 year Measure of Bark Beetle Risk and Sustainability for all Alternatives in the 

Mixed Conifer Cover Type

Ponderosa Pine and Pine-oak Dwarf Mistletoe

The following dwarf mistletoe (DM) analysis does not analyze DM outside of extremely infected stands. 

This is because the analysis recognizes DM has ecological and a wildlife value, therefore eradication was 

not an objective. To meet desired conditions, treatments and the analysis focused on extremely infected 

stands. Figure 3.2-33 demonstrated how the alternatives changed the intensity of DM within the 

ponderosa pine cover type based on percent of TPA infected amongst stands extremely infected. Due to 

the different nature of dwarf mistletoe focus and prescriptions by alternative, trends are different amongst 

alternatives. Alternative 3 and 4 show similar trends, of decreased % of TPA infected. This is due to

vegetative cuts focusing on DM in extremely infected areas. Alternative 3 and 4 drop down to 30% of the 

host trees, not desired for uneven aged management, and increase through time (Conklin and Fairweather 

0

50

100

150

200

250

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Basal Area ft2/ac

Alt1

Alt2

Alt3

Alt4

Moderate Bark

Beetle Risk

High Bark

Beetle Risk
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

72 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

2010). This happened because the diameter limit of 24” in pine oak MSO habitat prevented some 

removal. Due to Alternative 2 focusing on pre-settlement evidence and historic forest structure of a pine 

savanna, DM remained highly represented in the stand structure. The percentage of TPA infected rises 

and trends close to Alternative 1. Even though these two alternatives have similar trends, one major 

difference between the alternatives is how alternative 2 will isolate DM tree groups ultimately reducing 

the spread of infection (Conklin and Fairweather 2010). Frequent fire through time, not modeled, will 

maintain grassy openings between groups, preventing regeneration between groups, reducing the spread. 

The interactions of DM and fire and desired conditions for DM are explained in detail in Conklin and 

Fairweather (2010). They explain where DM currently exist is similar to the historic distribution. The 

increased amount of trees on the landscape increased the intensity and spread. They recognize that 

burning in DM area have a symbiotic relationship by thinning in lower limbs, torching and bark beetle. 

They also express that today’s current departure from historic DM conditions are the decreased amount of 

older trees infected with DM. Their recommendations have the caveat that historic DM conditions might 

not be desirable in areas critical for fire abetment. In the scenario of alternative 2, this is a situation where 

both fire abetment and development of large trees with DM can be met. Even though Alternative 1, 3 and 

4 maintains the existing old infected trees, and provides for maintaining smaller diameter trees next to old 

infected trees, the development of old trees infected with DM into the future is questionable due to fire 

risk. 

Figure 3.2-33 Percent of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine Cover 

Type)

Figure 3.2-34 demonstrates how the alternatives changed the severity of DM within the ponderosa pine 

cover type based on DMR. The similar trends from percent TPA infected can be seen in DMR. 

Alternative 2 maintains a high infection level and gradually increases to extreme at the end of the 

simulation. Alternative 3 and 4 reduce to moderate levels and slowly increase to high, 40 year in the 

future. It is likely with future burning events, the DMR for alternative 2 would stabilize at moderate to 

high levels. 

47%

52%

54%

60%

63%

66%

30%

44%

40%

43%

50%

34%

53%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Desired

Condition
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 73

Figure 3.2-34 Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine Cover 

Type)

Mixed Conifer Dwarf Mistletoe

The following DM analysis does not analyze DM outside of extremely infected stands. Figure 3.2-35 

demonstrates how the alternatives changed intensity of DM for ponderosa pine within the mixed conifer 

cover type based on percent of TPA infected amongst stands extremely infected. Alternative 3 moves the 

closest to the desired condition and stabilizes by the end of the simulation. The percent infected doesn’t 

fall any lower due to the variety of diameter limits in MSO protected, restricted and Arizona bugbane 

habitat. Alternative 2 and 4 fall below alternative 1 through time but steadily increase. The results of 

alternative 4 are directly due to deferral of vegetative treatments in most mixed conifer stands. The 

results for alternative 2 are directly due to maintaining uneven aged groups and not focusing as much on 

DM infection as alternative 3.

1.75

1.56 1.59

1.75

2.00

2.20

0.61

0.92 0.76 0.93

1.22

0.42

0.61 0.70

1.20

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Dwarf Mistletoe Rating (DMR)

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

High

Extream
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

74 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2-35 Mixed Conifer % of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Ponderosa Pine)

Figure 3.2-36 demonstrates how the alternatives change intensity of DM for Douglas-fir within the mixed 

conifer cover type based on percent of TPA infected amongst stands extremely infected. In general, the 

action alternatives trend close or above alternative 1. This is due to diameter limitations from MSO 

protected, restricted and Arizona bugbane habitat management directions. Alternative 4, burn only, 

remains a higher % infected due to the mortality of younger and smaller trees from the burn. This 

changed the population size to have a higher percentage of infected trees. The common reduction after 

2023 was due to regeneration establishing. Then slowly becoming infected over time. 

Figure 3.2 – 36 Mixed Conifer % of TPA infected of extremely infected DM Stands (Douglas-fir)

Figure 3.2-37 demonstrates how the alternatives changed the severity of DM for ponderosa pine within 

the mixed conifer cover type based on DMR. Alternative 2 and 3 bring the DMR below extreme but 

don’t move below the high DMR because of the diameter limits on MSO protected, restricted and 

58%

46%

56%

63%

70%

44%

31% 29% 28% 28%

61% 63% 60%

64%

68% 70%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Desired Condition

40%

50%

69%

45%

50% 59%

39% 41% 40%

41% 49%

42%

69% 57%

77%

78%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

Desired

Condition
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 75

Arizona bugbane habitat. Alternative 3 has the best DMR through time. Alternative 2 slowly recovers to 

extreme levels.

Figure 3.2- 37 Mixed Conifer Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (Ponderosa 

Pine)

Figure 3.2-38 demonstrates how the alternatives change the severity of DM for Douglas-fir within the 

mixed conifer cover type based on DMR. After treatment, in alternative 2 and 4, DMR increases. 

Alternative 2 increases due to prescriptions focusing on multi age development of groups. Conversely 

DM was targeted in in alternative 3 resulting in a decrease of DMR. Alternative 3 doesn’t decrease below 

high due to diameter constraints in MSO and Bugbane habitats. Alternative 4 with the minimal amount of 

thinnings in some mixed conifer and a prescribed burn, DMR increase the highest. The area that was 

thinned in alternative 4 would have been minimal at a small scale which increases the overall DMR after 

the treatment year. The second increase in alternative 4 is due to additional mortality from burning, 

reducing stand densities and leaving trees with severe DMR, resulting in a high stand DMR. The major 

decrease in DMR for alternative 2 and 4 is due to the added regeneration after mortality. As the stands 

regenerated with younger age classes, infection levels of DMR decreased due to regeneration not being 

infected. By the end of the simulation period, the regeneration becomes more infected, causing severity 

to increase. 

2.84

2.30

1.63 1.80

2.06 2.21

1.83

1.39

1.20 1.20 1.23

2.70 2.63 2.64 2.76

2.95

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Dwarf Mistletoe Rating (DMR)

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

High

Extream
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

76 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.2- 38 Mixed Conifer Dwarf Mistletoe Rating of Extremely Infected DM Stands (DouglasFir)

Aspen

Each alternative presents different effects toward aspen health. Alternative 1 would promote minimal 

aspen recruitment within stands. The loss of aspen vigor within a stand would make the clone 

susceptible to disappearing after being affected by insects, diseases or fire. Alternative 2 would promote 

aspen health and longevity the best. For alternative 2, 3, and 4 any treatments proposed around aspen 

stand would promote aspen health by encouraging stand vigor and recruitment. This type of release 

increases aspen resilience to fire, frost events, insects and diseases. Alternative 2 is the best because it is 

anticipated to reduce browsing pressure from aspen due to the increased vigor of shrubs, grasses and forbs 

from the treatments. Alternative 3 is not anticipated have the same ungulate response to the released 

aspen. However aspen in alternative 3 would be equivalent to alternative 2 with ungulate enclosures 

around clones. Aspen effects in treatment areas of alternative 4 would be similar as alternative 3. Areas 

not being mechanically treated but burned only would have similar effects as alternative 1. Burning alone 

will stimulate sprouting of seedlings but recruitment of saplings will be questionable. Coupled with the 

anticipated overstory aspen mortality from only prescribed burning, alternative 4 could reduce aspen 

health.

Old Growth

Direction from the forest plan standard states to “allocate no less than 20% of each forested EMA to old 

growth” as depicted in forest plan Table 15 (Old Growth Habitat Characteristics Table). The forest plan 

also states in a standard to “manage old growth in patterns that provide for a flow of functions and 

interactions at multiple scales across the landscape through time”. “Allocations will consist of landscape 

percentages meeting old growth conditions and not specific acres”. According the Webster dictionary, 

allocate is defined as “apportion for a specific purpose”. This analysis will apportion more at least 20% 

of the EMA for the purpose of managing for old growth habitat characteristics in forest plan table 15. 

Currently, 20% of the forested area in the project area does not fully meet old growth characteristics as 

specified in the forest plan. The most common reason that the forested areas do not fully meet old growth 

characteristics is because very few areas meet the minimum number of trees that are of the specified age 

1.91

2.45

2.69

1.38

1.53

1.85

1.59 1.89 1.76 1.86

1.95

2.38

3.03

1.58

2.36

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Dwarf Mistletoe Rating (DMR)

Alt 1

Alt 2

Alt 3

Alt 4

High

Extream
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 77

or greater. Mitigation measures are in place for the project area to maintain and protect pre-settlement 

trees, the old trees that lived during the time period where natural functions such as frequent fire events 

persisted naturally under historic fuel loadings. The placements of these old trees across the landscape

help define old growth on the ground. Many areas may meet some of the specified old growth 

characteristics. The average number of old trees per acres that meet old growth age specifications is the 

primary characteristic that drops most areas below fully meeting these characteristics. For this reason, 

most allocated old growth areas do not necessarily fully meet specified old growth characteristics but are 

being managed towards these old growth characteristics. 

Analysis of old growth is done at 3 scales for this report: at the Stand level, at the EMA, and at the GA 

level. The project area is used to represent an ad hoc EMA for this analysis. This analysis focuses on the 

effects of spatial arrangement of old growth function from groups to landscapes including de facto 

allocations of MSO protected steep slopes, MSO target threshold, MSO PAC, Goshawk Nest, and 

Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area. De facto is a term that defines areas managed for other habitats which 

can also be managed for old growth. Table 3.2-7 to Table 3.2-8 demonstrates the de facto acres of old 

growth habitat based on MSO, goshawk and Arizona bugbane habitat. 

Table 3.2-7 de Facto acres of Ponderosa pine stands Allocated for Old Growth 

Habitat

Ponderosa Pine MSO Protected Steep Slopes: 376 Acres 376

Ponderosa Pine MSO PAC: 109 Acres 109

Ponderosa Pine MSO Target Threshold: 173

Ponderosa Pine Goshawk Nest: 695 Acres 695

Ponderosa Pine Bugbane Botanical Area(excluding PAC):100 Acres 100

TOTAL de facto Allocated Ponderosa Pine Stands 1,453

Table 3.2-8 de Facto White Fir stands Allocated for Old Growth Habitat

White fir MSO Protected Steep Slopes: 157 Acres 808

White fir MSO PAC: 110 Acres 656

White fir MSO Target Threshold:22 Acres 47

TOTAL de facto Allocated White fir Stands 1,511

Table 3.2-9 de Facto Douglas-fir stands Allocated for Old Growth Habitat

Douglas-fir MSO Protected Steep Slopes: 157 Acres 157

Douglas-fir MSO PAC: 110 Acres 110

Douglas-fir MSO Target Threshold:22 Acres 22

TOTAL de facto Allocated Douglas-Fir Stands 289

Additional allocated old growth was calculated based on forested areas outside of de facto old growth 

stands. Forested areas outside of de facto old growth stands were treated to the most conservative 

prescription based on their habitat designation. At a minimum, goshawk VSS 6 groups would be 

managed for 20% of each stand. 20% of forested areas outside of de facto old growth stands represent old 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

78 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

growth allocations. The amount of forested areas outside of de facto old growth stands are listed in Table 

3.2-10. 

Table 3.2-10 Entire stands NOT Allocated as de facto Stands

Ponderosa Pine Not Allocated as de facto Stands 9,101

Douglas-fir Not Allocated as de facto Stands 10

White Fir Not Allocated as de facto Stands 108

Pinion-Juniper Not Allocated as de facto Stands 1,619

At least 20% of the forested area’s cover types for areas that are not de facto stands are demonstrated by 

acres in Table 3.2-11. Ponderosa pine for alternative 2 differed from alternative 3 and 4 by having a 

reduction of allocated area. This is due to the alternative 2 dominant ponderosa pine prescription for 

restoration of historic ponderosa pine savanna conditions. Estimates were derived from Table 3.2-6, 

where approximately 50% of a change to early seral stages changing the ponderosa pine forested area to a 

forested savanna represented from historic times. 

Table 3.2-11 Allocated Old Growth Habitat from non de facto Stands

Ponderosa Pine 

Alternative 2

Ponderosa Pine 

Alternative 3 and 

4

White Fir Douglas-Fir PinionJuniper

Allocated Old 

Growth Habitat 

from non-de facto 

Stands

910 1,820 22 2 810

Acres from de facto stands old growth habitat stands and allocated old growth habitat from non de facto 

stands were added. Totals were divided against the total cover type acreage and displayed in Table 3.2-

12. Table 3.2-12 shows that the alternatives conserved, developed, and retained old growth habitat on at 

least 20 percent of the naturally forested area by cover type. Even though Table 3.2-12 represents the 

stand and EMA scale. 

Table 3.2-12 Percent of Allocated Old Growth Within Each Cover Type

Ponderosa Pine Alternative 2 22%

Ponderosa Pine Alternative 3 and 4 31%

White Fir 95%

Douglas-Fir 97%

Pinion-Juniper 25%

Table 3.2-13 demonstrates that the forest standard to allocate at least 20 percent of the forested EMA to 

old growth habitat was met under all alternatives.

 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 79

Table 3.2-13 EMA Allocation of Old Growth in all Forested Areas

All Forested Old Growth 

under Alternative 2

All Forested Old Growth 

under Alternative 3 and 

4

Percent of Allocated old Growth 

With the EMA 22% 27%

Extrapolating the old growth percentages by cover type to the GA 2 would not decrease percent of old 

growth allocated. Management direction for in GA 2 will maintain at least 20% of each covers types 

forested area for old growth. GA 2 consists primarily of ponderosa pine. Old growth ponderosa pine 

habitat analysis is displayed in Table 3.2-14. 

Table 3.2-14. Current Old Growth Allocation of Ponderosa Pine within GA 2

A. Site 

Designation

B. 

Structure

C. 

VSS

D. Mistletoe 

Infection Level

E. 

Acres

F. % Allocated 

to Old Growth

G. Acres Allocated to 

Old Growth (E X F)

Ponderosa Pine 

- General

UnevenAgedN/A Mod-hi 19,840 0 0

Ponderosa Pine 

- General

UnevenAgedN/A Low 71,279 40 28,512

Ponderosa Pine 

- General

Evenaged1 - 3 Mod-hi 10,288 0 0

Ponderosa Pine 

- General

Evenaged1 -3 Low 35,823 0 0

Ponderosa Pine 

- General

Evenaged4 - 6 Mod-hi 6,246 0 0

Ponderosa Pine 

- General

Evenaged4 - 6 Low 40,232 80 32,186

MSO PAC N/A N/A N/A 726 100 726

MSO 

Target/threshold

N/A N/A N/A 4,090 100 4,090

Goshawk Nest N/A N/A N/A 6,760 100 6,790

MSO Pine/oak 

>= 40% Slopes

N/A N/A N/A 142 100 142

TOTAL 195,456 72,446

Current % of Ponderosa Pine Allocated as Old Growth 

(72,446/195,456 x 100)

37%

Mixed conifer species reside toward the base of Kendrick Mountain, and to top of Sitgraves Mountain 

and Newman hill. Allocated de facto old growth stands exist in these areas based on the similar habitat 

designations within the project area. Management direction in GA 2 will maintain at least 20% of mixed 

conifer for old growth habitat.

Due to the aspen decline on the Williams Ranger District from the factors identified in the Fairweather et 

al 2008. A major effort is underway for protecting the existence of aspen across the Williams Ranger 

District. The majority of the aspen resides in GA 2. 2011 Aspen CE to restore aspen sites is currently 

being implemented. These activities do not involve removing old growth aspen but focus on creating 

recruitment for future aspen clones and old growth. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

80 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Large Tree Retention

This analysis measures large tree retention as numbers of trees remaining after treatment, growing space 

for allocated large tree and longevity of large trees. Large tree for this analysis will be defined as 18” + 

DBH trees due to the equivalence of VSS 5 groups starting with starting average diameters of 18” DBH. 

VSS 5 group average diameter limits provide an ecological tie to a diameter number. 

Ponderosa Pine 

LOGPFA is analyzed because it represents the majority of the ponderosa pine, excluded PFAs. Table 3.2-

15 provides landscape averages of just ponderosa pine > 18” DBH per acre. There are slight changes 

between the alternatives. Due to alternative 1 depending on a static insect and fire state, promotes a 

higher risk to the loss of large trees due to mortality. Amongst the action alternatives, alternative 3 

represents the largest trees though time and alternative 1 represents the large trees directly after 2013. 

Same trends of large tree retention can be observed in MSO habitat by SDI allocation of 18”+ trees. 

These tables are shown in the wildlife section.

Table 3.2-15 Ponderosa Pine LOGPFA 18"+ Trees Per Acre

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Alt1 8.1 8.3 10.4 13.4 16.4 18.2

Alt2 8.4 7.6 9.3 12.4 14.8 17.0

Alt3 8.3 7.5 9.3 13.5 17.3 20.1

Alt4 8.2 7.6 9.0 13.2 16.5 19.8

Mixed Conifer

LOGPFA is analyzed because it represents mixed conifer as a whole. Table 3.2-16 provides landscape 

averages of just ponderosa pine > 18” DBH per acre. There are slight changes between the alternatives. 

Due to alternative 1 depending on a static insect and fire state makes it less desirable for an alternative of 

large tree retention. Alternative 4 promotes a higher risk to the loss of large trees due to mortality from 

unknown future insect and fire risk in the no thinned area or induced morality for prescribed burning. 

Amongst the action alternatives, alternative 1 and 2 represents the largest trees though time and 

alternative 2 and 3 represents the most large trees directly after 2013. Same trends of large tree retention 

can be observed in MSO habitat by SDI allocation of 18”+ trees. These tables are shown in the wildlife 

section.

3.2-16 Mixed Conifer LOGPFA 18”+ Trees Per Acre

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Alt1 12.4 12.5 14.0 15.8 19.9 23.0

Alt2 12.4 12.6 11.9 14.4 18.9 21.5

Alt3 12.4 12.6 11.9 12.9 16.4 18.9

Alt4 12.4 12.5 8.3 9.9 12.2 14.9
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 81

Treatment Longevity

Treatment longevity out lines future predictions of future management needs within the project area. 

Different alternatives per cover type pose different needs based on the actions of all the alternatives.

Alternative 1 poses a scenario that will keep the ponderosa pine cover type at its current state and allow 

the current state to perpetuate through time. Treatment longevity of this approach would depend on insect 

and disease epidemics and risk of loss from catastrophic wild fires (Donovan et al 2008, Fulé 2008). 

Due to the forest plan amendment in alternative 2 producing timber on these stands would not have a 

timber production emphasis and have a regulated output timber for the future in the majority ponderosa 

pine type. The option to maintain desired conditions using prescribed or natural fire would readily be an 

option. The use of maintaining desired condition with fire can rapidly treat the project area under 

minimal cost (Fulé 2008). 

Alternative 3 and 4 maintains the purpose of timber suitability for ponderosa pine. Alternative 3 and 4 

maintains the option for timber management. The levels managed under alternative 3 and 4 presents a 

condition that would need to be recognized with in the future (Strom and Fulé 2007). Approximately up 

to to 40 years into the future, additional efforts would need to be met to create additional regeneration 

areas under group selection silvicultural uneven aged systems (Grahan et al 2006). This would require the 

use of timber harvesting and prescribed burning. 

Conclusions of Direct and indirect effects

The following tables are a summary of how alternatives best meet desired conditions for the project and 

forest plan. Yes and no classification are based on analysis, most recent available science and 

professional experience. 

Table 3.2-17 Conclusion Table Part 1

 Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Forest Health

PP Bark Beetle Risk N Y Y Y

MC Bark Beetle Risk N Y Y Y

PP DM Levels N Y Y Y

MC DM Levels N Y Y N

Aspen Health N Y Y N

Old 

Growth

20 % of EMA Y Y Y Y

3 scales of Analysis Y Y Y Y 

Large Tree 

Retention

Short Term Y Y Y Y

Mid term N Y Y Y

Long Term N Y N Y 

Treatment 

Longevity 

Short Term N Y Y Y

Mid term N Y Y Y 

Long Term N Y N N 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

82 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.2-18 Conclusion Table Part 2

Alt 1 Alt 2 Alt 3 Alt 4

Vegetative Structure

PP LOGPFA

VSS1 and2 N Y Y Y

VSS 3 N Y Y Y

VSS 4 Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 N Y Y Y

VSS 4 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 CC Y Y Y Y

MC LOGPFA

VSS1 and2 Y Y Y N

VSS 3 N Y Y Y

VSS 4 Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 N Y Y N

VSS 6 N Y Y N

VSS 4 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 CC Y Y Y Y

PP PFA

VSS1 and2 N Y Y Y

VSS 3 N Y Y Y

VSS 4 Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 N Y Y Y

VSS 4 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 CC Y Y Y Y

PP Nest

VSS 5 Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 Y Y Y Y

VSS 5 CC Y Y Y Y

VSS 6 CC Y Y Y Y

Woodlands N Y Y Y

Grasslands N Y Y Y

Aspen N Y Y Y

3.2.3 Cumulative Effects

This section addresses the cumulative effects of the action alternatives combined with past, present, and 

reasonably foreseeable future actions on the forest composition and structure in GA 2. GA 2 was used for 

this cumulative effects analysis because of the upcoming 4Fri proposals. The cumulative effects analysis 

area for this cumulative effects analysis is the predominately ponderosa pine. The cumulative effects 

analysis area is approximately 324,558 acres in size.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 83

There are approximately 15,000 acres that have had some sort of vegetative treatment over the past 10 

years within the cumulative effects analysis area. Vegetative treatments are defined as a variety of 

silvicultural treatments that involve felling trees. These treatments included low thinnings, sanitation 

cutting, group selection cuts, and individual tree shelterwood cuts. The vegetative treatments were 

commercial logging or noncommercial thinning/sanitation, or often a combination of both. Vegetative 

treatments were often combined with follow-up activity slash treatments that included lopping, piling and 

burning, and/or prescribed broadcast burning. Due to the upcoming 4Fri contract, the following 

calculations include potential thinnings from the initiative. In the next 5 years, approximately 19,000 

acres of vegetative treatments are planned within the cumulative effects analysis area. For the 15-year 

period, beginning 10 years ago and ending 5 years from now, an approximate total of 34,000 acres of 

vegetative treatments will be accomplished. This is approximately 10% percent of the cumulative effects 

analysis area.

Over the past 10 years, approximately 35,000 acres of the cumulative effects analysis area have been 

prescribed burned, have had an unplanned ignition managed for resource objectives, or have had a 

wildfire. In the next 5 years, 26,000 acres of these wildland fires are expected to occur within the 

cumulative effects area (this includes 6,000 acres planned for prescribed burning and an estimate based on 

the previous 10 year past occurrences of 20,000 acres of unplanned ignitions managed for resource 

benefits; it does not include an estimate for wildfires). Over a 15 year period, approximately 60,000 

acres have had or will have a wildland fire. This represents 18 percent of the cumulative effects analysis 

area. Some of these burn areas will also have vegetative treatments during the 15 year analysis period.

The greatest change in the cumulative effects analysis area over the past 150 years has been the transition 

from very open pine forests or woodlands dominated by larger trees to much denser forests or woodlands 

dominated by small to moderate sized pine or other tree species. Trends in forest conditions over this 

time period for the cumulative effects area include:

• A greatly increased risk of catastrophic stand-replacing fires

• A vast reduction in forest openings and meadow/savannah areas along with associated understory 

vegetative species

• A more uniform vegetative condition with limited diversity

• Reduced forest health and vigor

• An increase in the amount and distribution of dwarf mistletoe-infected pine

Vegetative treatments and wildland fires over the past 10 years and during the next 5 years have and will 

alter the trends listed above for portions of the cumulative effects area. Vegetative treatments and 

wildland fires for this 15-year period are promoting the following trends in recent forest conditions for the 

cumulative effects analysis area:

• Reduced risk of catastrophic stand-replacement fires by opening up forest canopies and reducing 

understory fuels

• Creation of more openings in the forest canopy; restoration of natural meadows and savannahs; 

increased development of understory grasses/forbs/shrubs; increased vigor and sustainability of 

aspen clones 

• A more diverse forest structure with a broader distribution of tree age classes

• Increased stand vigor; increased forest resiliency; faster growth and development of individual 

trees

• Decreased levels of dwarf mistletoe infections

The above trends are localized throughout the cumulative effects area. Vegetative treatments generally 

have more of an impact in promoting the above trends than wildland fire alone. A combination of both 

vegetative treatments and wildland fire would have the greatest impact in promoting the above trends. In 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

84 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Lou of the upcoming 4Fri contract projected to implement shelf stock the future for timber markets to 

accomplish multiple acres that are projected. Limited budgets, poor timber markets, and other 

management constraints historically have reduced the ability to treat as much of the area as necessary to 

move towards desired conditions. Future vegetative treatment projections may vary substantially based 

on demand for timber and variations in available budget. In 15 years with current trends and foreseeable 

events, only 15% of the cumulative effects analysis area would receive vegetative treatment and 40% of 

the area would have wildland fire occur; the rest of the analysis area would remain untreated even though 

much of it has treatment needs to reduce the risk of catastrophic loss to wildfire, to improve forest health, 

and to increase stand diversity. Many negative trends related to forest condition would still develop 

through the 15-year time period in untreated areas. Scattered treatments throughout the analysis area will 

limit the size and intensity of wildfires. 

The number of large mature pines in the cumulative effects analysis area has been decreasing over the last 

60 years. This has been the result of past harvest practices, increased mortality from heavy competition 

with dense smaller pine, and some loss from wildfires and prescribed burning. This decline has been 

slowed significantly as management direction has moved away from overstory removal cutting and 

selective overstory thinning. During the last 20 years, management in the cumulative effects analysis area 

has concentrated on maintaining large mature pine while rapidly developing pine in the smaller diameter 

classes to act as future replacements for these large trees. Management direction has also moved toward 

increasing the longevity of existing large oak, older large pine, and large juniper by reducing understory 

competition around these trees. Modeling in the areas receiving vegetative treatment in the last 20 years 

shows that current management techniques are actually increasing the number of large trees across the 

landscape and are also increasing the longevity of mature pine. Prescribed burning techniques have been 

refined over the past 20 years resulting in mitigation measures designed to reduce loss of large trees, these

measures are incorporated into burn plans. 

Climate Change

All background information on climate change is from Malmsheimer et al. 2008. The Bill Williams 

Restoration project is proposed on a local scale and is not intended to have cumulative effects that are 

measurable on a global scale in regards to climate change; however management of the Bill Williams 

Restoration project has a small scale effect on mitigating climate change when combined with other 

management actions regionally. Most of the Bill Williams Restoration project area is currently 

considered overstocked and at risk for stand-replacing fires which are the greatest cause of carbon release 

or greenhouse gases. The action alternatives reduce the risk potential for stand-replacing fires.

3.3 Fire and Fuels Management

3.3.1 Introduction

Fire behavior is the manner in which a fire reacts to available fuels, weather, and topography. A change 

in any of these components results in a change in fire behavior (DeBano et al 1998). Fire behavior is 

complex, with many contributing factors in the categories of topography (slope, aspect, elevation), 

weather (climate, air temperature, wind, relative humidity, atmospheric stability) and fuels (size, type, 

moisture content, total loading, arrangement) (Agee 1993). These three elements comprise the fire 

environment, surrounding conditions, influences, and modifying forces that determine fire behavior 

(NWCG 2004).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 85

Topography and weather at a given location are beyond the ability of management to control. Fuel hazard 

is the only controllable factor. Weather conditions such as drought, high temperature, low humidity, and 

high wind play a major role in the spread of wildfires and are influenced by topography and location of 

mountains as well as global influences such as La Niña and El Niño. Weather conditions are a major 

factor in the initiation and spread of all wildfires, but Omi and Martinson (2002), and Strom and Fulé 

(2007) found that stands with prior fuel treatments experienced lower wildfire severity than untreated 

stands burning under the same weather and topographic conditions. Fuel management modifies fire 

behavior, fire effects, and reduces fire suppression costs and danger (DeBano et al 1998). Manipulating 

fuels reduces fire intensity and severity, allowing firefighters and land managers more control of wildland 

fires by modifying fire behavior in the fire environment (Pollet and Omi 2002).

Fuel management can include reducing the loading of available fuels, lowering fuel flammability, or 

isolating or breaking up large continuous bodies of fuels (DeBano et al 1998). Fuels contribute to the rate 

of spread of a fire, intensity, flame length, fire residence time, and the size of the burned area (Rothermel 

1983). Two contributing factors to stand destroying crown fire are surface fuels and canopy fuel 

distribution. Surface fuels play an important role within an ecosystem. Litter and duff layers help protect 

soil from erosion and provide nutrients to the soil. However, layers of duff and litter that are too thick 

suffocate soil and burn with high intensities which create longer flame lengths and residence time 

(amount of time fire is present in one spot). This causes higher severity or damage to existing vegetation. 

Coarse woody debris also has an important ecological role in soil erosion mitigation and for the wildlife 

habitat, but can also contribute to more severe fire behavior. Large diameter woody fuels or coarse 

woody debris have little influence on rates of spread of fire but burn with higher intensity and with longer 

duration that could result in greater damage to soil (Brown et al. 2003, DeBano et al. 1998, Harmon et al. 

1986). The existing surface fuel loading is measured to be approximately 18 tons per acres in ponderosa 

pine and pine-oak forest types. This increases in the dry mixed conifer forest to 30 tons per acre. Desired 

conditions for surface fuels are less than 7 tons per acre in pine-oak and Ponderosa pine forests and less 

than 15 tons per acre in dry mixed conifer forests. 

Canopy fuel distribution and the risk of stand replacing crown fire can be measured by looking at average 

canopy bulk density and canopy base height across an area. Canopy bulk density (CBD) is defined as the 

mass of available canopy fuel per unit volume (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). For any given tree species, 

widely spaced trees have a lower CBD, which makes it more difficult to maintain a crown fire. Stands 

with high CBD can also sustain a crown fire that initiated outside of the stand and becomes independent 

of surface fire intensity. While no definitive single CBD threshold exists, canopy bulk densities below 

0.10kg.m3 are unlikely to support crown fire (Agee et al. 2000). 

Canopy base height (CBH) is the lowest height above the ground at which there is sufficient amount of 

canopy fuel to propagate fire vertically into the canopy (Scott and Reinhardt 2001). The lower the canopy 

base height the easier it is for a surface fire to initiate a crown fire (Van Wagner 1977). Canopy base 

height coupled with canopy bulk density allow managers to understand how likely a crown fire is to 

initiate and sustain itself across a stand. Exiting conditions in the Bill Williams Mountain project area 

demonstrate canopy base height near 10 feet in pine type areas coupled with canopy bulk densities of 

0.07kg/m3. Mixed conifer type area average a canopy base height of 4 feet and a canopy bulk density of 

.16kg/m3. Desired conditions for the Bill Williams Mountain project area would be to have average stand 

canopy base heights above 18 feet with canopy bulk densities below .05kg/m3 in ponderosa pine forest 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

86 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

types and CBH above 10 feet with CBD of .08kg/m3 in dry mixed conifer types. These stand averages 

would mean that groups of trees can have higher densities if surrounded by areas of lower densities which 

would break up the continuity of canopy fuels and therefore crown fire. The desired condition would 

reduce the percent of the Bill Williams Mountain project landscape with potential to burn as passive and 

active crown fire. Passive crown fire refers to fire that does not carry continuously through the crown 

fuels, but burns crown fuels intermittently, such as when individual trees or groups of trees torch. Active 

crown fire carries continuously through the canopy of trees. Current conditions show 61% of the area 

having the potential to burn as an active crown fire and another 21% of the area with potential for passive 

crown fire.

FlamMap analysis results

The effect of changes in canopy openings and distribution of tree groups and clumps on potential fire 

behavior can be seen by looking at maps of potential fire type for the area. The following four maps 

demonstrate the changes in fire behavior type and distribution based on the management alternative. 

Alternative 1, the No Action alternative, would also represent current conditions for this landscape. 

Alternative 1 demonstrates much of the Bill Williams Mountain project area exhibiting active or passive 

crown fire (21% Passive, 61% Active). Alternative 2 shows a marked reduction in active crown fire 

(18%), which would indicate much less resistance to control and less spotting potential. It can also be 

seen that some areas with active crown fire are interspersed with surface fire types which could lead to 

opportunities for fire control during a wildfire. Alternative 3 also exhibits a reduction in active crown fire 

(27%), but includes additional areas south of Bill Williams Mountain as well as on the mountain proper 

than alternative 2. This is important because wind direction is primarily southwest and a fire would be 

lined up with the southern aspect slopes. When wind and slope are aligned, fire spread potential is 

increased. Southern aspects are typically drier (more time exposed to solar radiation) and therefore tend to 

have lower fuel moistures which directly effects combustion. Alternative 4 also shows a decrease in 

crown fire potential, but exhibits a greater area of continuous crown fire, especially on the slopes of Bill 

Williams Mountain. 

Table 3.3-4. Percent of the Bill Williams area demonstrating potential

for types of fire by alternative.

% of Bill Williams Area With Each Fire Type Potential 

Post Treatment

Potential 

Fire Type

Alternative 

1 

No Action

Alternative 

2 

Proposed 

Action

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

No Fire 1 1 1 1 

Surface Fire 17 54 42 31
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 87

The increase of passive crown fire in alternatives 2, 3 and 4 can be assumed that it is areas that have 

transitioned from active crown fire after the proposed treatments (the treatment changed the landscape 

structure in a way that changed it enough to not allow active crown fire, but not enough change to make it 

a surface fire only). Although in general an increase in torching behavior is perceived as potential fire 

control problems, it does represent a change from conditions prudent to active crown fire which has much 

more safety and control issues related to it.

Surface fires typically allow direct firefighting tactics in a safe manner. It should be noted that rates of 

spread would increase over current conditions with more open canopy conditions although fire intensities 

and tree mortality would be much lower. More open canopy conditions allow for additional fine fuels to 

grow (grasses, forbs). Ecologically, this represents historic conditions but also equates to faster moving 

fires. In alternative 1, 15% of the area represents a rate of spread one type 3 engine crew could pick up in 

an hour. With alternative 2, 52% of the area is represented with that rate of spread. Alternative 3 produces 

41% of the area and alternative 4 is 30% of the area. This is assumed equal grass crop production which 

could fluctuate over moist or dry years and produce different results. Fire management for the project 

area would need to take this in to account and aim to have fire represented over parts of the landscape on 

historic mean intervals to eliminate unnatural accumulations of fine fuels that would advance fire rates of 

spread to levels typical district crews could not quickly contain. The increase of fire rates of spread would 

mean potential to spread to areas with values at risk more quickly. Prescribed fire or managing wildfires 

under low or moderate weather and fuel conditions would help alleviate these issues. The action 

alternatives provide managers increased ability to consider these options.

Passive 

Crown Fire 21 27 30 33

Active 

Crown Fire 61 18 27 35
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

88 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-1 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution of fire 

potential for Alternative 1.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 89

Figure 3.3-2 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution of fire 

potential for Alternative 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

90 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-3 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution of fire

potential for Alternative 3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 91

Figure 3.3-4 Map of the Bill Williams Mountain project area demonstrating the distribution of fire 

potential for Alternative 4.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

92 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Wildlife attributes are an important consideration in the project area. Figure 3.3-5 breaks out some of the 

key wildlife strata within the project area and graphically illustrates potential changes per alternative to 

each feature. The Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Protected Activity Center (PAC) is a key feature of 

importance as identified in the Kaibab National Forest plan. If no treatment takes place (alternative 1), 

83% of the PAC exhibits potential for crown fire. Also, with its location (slope), fires becoming 

established below it are likely to adversely affect most or all of the PAC. A consideration of leaving the 

PAC at a dense forest with a heavy accumulation of fuels on the forest floor needs to be weighed against 

the survivability of the PAC as a whole if fire were to become established into it, either directly or from 

downslope. A trade off would have to be recognized in order to meet either of the above desired 

conditions and an understanding of the tradeoffs realized. 

The Botanical area can also be compared from Figure 3.3-5. The area consists of Cimicifuga arizonaica 

(Arizona bugbane). Under alternatives 1, 3 and 4, little or no treatment would take place because the 

Land Management Plan directs 1/10 acre maximum allowable burning annually. With no treatment taking 

place, it can be assumed the plant would unlikely be radically altered by human disturbance. The future 

condition of the plant’s landscape cannot be determined, but its vulnerability to mass loss of current 

vegetation due to wildfire can be assumed. Current conditions of the botanical area are dense stands of 

mostly mixed conifer forest with interlocked crowns and high fuel loadings on steep slopes, conducive to 

crown fires even under moderate fire danger conditions. These are factors directly related to loss of 

vegetation and soil erosion in many fires in the southwest. The tradeoffs to the value must be considered 

and weighed.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Acres

Potential Fire Type by Habitat Strata

Alternative 1 - No Action

Surface Fire

Passive Crown Fire

Active Crown Fire
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 93

Figure3.3-5. Habitat Stratum Fire Type Potential.

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

Acres

Potential Fire Type by Habitat Strata

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

Surface Fire

Passive Crown Fire

Active Crown Fire

0

1000

2000

3000

Acres

Potential Fire Type by Habitat Strata

Alternative 3

Surface Fire

Passive Crown Fire

Active Crown Fire

0

1000

2000

3000

Acres

Potential Fire Type by Habitat Strata

Alternative 4 

Surface Fire

Passive Crown Fire

Active Crown Fire
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

94 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

FVS/FFE Results

All results from FFE are stand averages (but weighted by acres*) and therefore can give a general idea of 

what stand conditions look like but cannot address the spatial distribution of specific metrics. The desired 

conditions are for stand averages and therefore allow for some areas within a stand to be outside of the 

desired condition range but be surrounded with conditions closer to overall desired conditions. For 

example Crown Bulk Density is desirable below .08kg/m3 as an average over a mixed conifer stand. This 

could mean that many patches within the stand have much higher CBD but have interspaces between 

these dense clumps of trees where CBD is much lower than .08 and therefore the average for the stand is 

within acceptable limits. Where CBD is high, it is important to also have higher CBH (crown base 

height). Surface fuel loading is managed with fire and felling techniques to increase or decrease woody 

debris in different size classes. 

Pinyon and juniper woodlands account for less than 10% of the project area. These areas were analyzed 

with FVS/FFE and recorded here to assist the wildlife biologists with their habitat analysis on the Forest’s 

Management Indicator Species.

* The numbers in Table 3.3-5 were weighted by acre rather than stand to better represent actual data. For 

example, 1 stand could be 10 acres and another 100 acres. The average of the 2 stands is 50 acres. That 

doesn’t represent the landscape as well as weighting the 100 acre stand as more (as it is physically on the 

landscape).

Table 3.3-5 Fire and Fuels Extension to the Forest Vegetation Simulator post treatment results by 

alternative.

FVS/FFE Calculation Results Post Treatment

Forest 

Type Criteria Desired Condition

Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Dry Mixed 

Conifer

Canopy Base Height (feet) >10 4 12 20 10

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) <.08 0.15 0.06 0.05 0.07

Surface Fuel Loading 

(tons/acre) <12 30 16 15 19

Ponderosa Pine

/Pine-Oak

Canopy Base Height (feet) >18 10 22 22 21

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) <0.05 0.07 0.03 0.03 0.03

Surface Fuel Loading 

(tons/acre) <6 19 8 8 8 

Pinyon-Juniper 

Woodlands

Canopy Base Height (feet) >10 14 15 15 15

Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m3) <.05 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.01

Surface Fuel Loading 

(tons/acre) <6 8 3 3 3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 95

It is important to consider the model assumptions over time and space as well as the scenarios when 

looking at the outputs in Table 3.3-5. The numbers represent modeling predictions that can be used as a 

comparison after different treatments (since the only differences are the treatments by alternative). The 

table numbers are shown at a common year once all the proposed treatments have been implemented 

(silvicultural thinning, pile burns and broadcast burns). They are used as a tool for potential effects 

comparisons. More discussion of this table and the results outputted by FVS/FFE can be found in 

Appendix D.

FRCC Results

The Bill Williams Mountain project area exhibits three distinct vegetation types in relation to FRCC; 

ponderosa pine vegetation (includes pine-oak types), dry mixed conifer vegetation and juniper woodlands 

(including pinyon pine intermix). Ponderosa pine type ecosystems are composed primarily of ponderosa 

pine, oak, and juniper depending on the stands development. Mixed conifer stands are composed of 

ponderosa pine, Douglas fir, white fir and aspen, with Douglas fir dominating in late stages of succession. 

Pinyon-Juniper vegetation conisists of equal populations of pinyon pine and juniper with open, grassy 

areas intermixed.

According to the western United States Biophysical Settings Key (Comer et al. 2003), ponderosa pine and 

dry mixed conifer forests in the southwest have a dominant fire regime of I and a mean fire interval of 2 

to 10 years in Ponderosa pine and 5 to 25 years in dry mixed conifer. A fire regime I has a frequent fire 

interval with low to mixed severity. Fires typically maintained open areas and replaced or opened up 

areas that exhibited a more closed canopy. With the absence of fire both the Ponderosa pine and the 

mixed conifer stands have accumulated unnatural amounts of fuel primarily in the form of dense trees that 

would cause a natural fire to exhibit more extreme fire behavior. Both the Ponderosa pine and the mixed 

conifer have missed multiple natural mean fire intervals. With the combination of missed burn intervals, 

the encroachment of mixed conifer, and the accumulation of surface fuels, these areas are currently best 

represented as a condition class 3. Under a no action alternative these areas would remain as a condition 

class 3 over time and could be expected to burn with uncharacteristic fire severity. The pinyon-juniper 

woodlands are identified with longer return intervals of mixed severity. These areas are experiencing loss 

of grasses, shrubs and pinyon pine due to drought tolerant juniper trees encroaching and establishing.

In these vegetation types defined by Comer et al. (2003) the ability to create canopy openings, redistribute 

dominance to fire resistant tree species and allow for diversity in age classes are essential in moving 

stands towards a naturally functioning fire regime and therefore FRCC 1. Furthermore, forests in a fire 

regime I are maintained in that state by understory vegetation. Much of the forest structure was open 

canopy which resulted in healthy and vigorous understory plants that served as fuel to carry surface fire 

through these stands. Stands in FRCC 1 would demonstrate little potential for active crown fire and 

would experience relatively little overstory mortality post wildfire. 

Areas where some canopy openings can be created and some sunlight can penetrate and invigorate 

understory forbs and grasses would have decreased threat of crown fire and would have a re-established 

understory that could support surface fire. If these areas do not contain a well balanced mix of strata with 

reproducing fire resilient species they are still considered departed but not as departed as stands with 

closed canopy. These areas are classified as FRCC 2. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

96 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Continuous areas in an even aged condition with closed canopy are considered very departed from 

historical conditions. These areas will not be able to support understory vegetation and have potential for 

continuous crown fire. 

Using data from the silviculture report and looking at FFE and FVS stand data outputs it was determined 

that the action alternatives all alter the current condition class of the project area.

Within the dominant vegetation categories shown in Table 3.3-6, there are distinct habitat features with 

specific attributes linked to them. Within the design of the project, some of these features’ desired 

conditions or restrictions by alternative may not meet historic fire regime characteristics. High density 

requirements (including Mexican Spotted Owl PAC, Restricted, Protected, Target and Threshold habitats 

as well as Northern Goshawk post-fledgling family areas and nest stands) in these areas will decrease the 

ability to reduce canopy fuel continuity or for understory vegetation to respond to treatment. Habitat 

would be subject to diameter limits or basal area requirements which would constrict the ability to open 

canopy gaps and remove much of the uncharacteristic species as well as meet historic fire regime 

characteristics. This limits the potential to move it to a FRCC 1. Some areas have fire intolerant species 

trees that have encroached the understory of the stands and are larger than potential diameter parameters. 

This would remain or continue towards FRCC 3. Allowing for smaller diameter fire intolerant species to 

be removed and have small effects on canopy fuel discontinuity would move to a FRCC 2. No removal 

will meet and stay at FRCC 3 and be unsustainable over time. This section of the report is designed 

specifically towards comparisons to fire regime condition class and not to the potential desired habitat 

condition. Management implications in not returning those areas to historic conditions will be discussed 

in section 3.3.6 – Discussion and Management Implications.

Table 3.3-6 displays the resulting approximate percentage of area in each fire regime condition class one 

year post treatment. 

Table 3.3-6. Percent area in each FRCC by Alternative post treatment.

Approximate Percent of Area by Fire Regime Condition Class

Dominant 

Vegetation 

Type

FRCC Desired 

Condition

Alternative 1 

No Action

Alternative 2 

Proposed 

Action

Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Dry Mixed Conifer 

FRCC 1 100 0 40 20 10

FRCC 2 10 20 15 15

FRCC 3 90 40 65 75

Ponderosa -Pine - Oak

FRCC 1 100 0 80 53 53

FRCC 2 0 20 10 10

FRCC 3 100 0 37 37

yon -Juni

FRCC 1 100 0 50 46 46
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 97

FRCC 2 100 50 54 54

FRCC 3 0 0 0 0 

Private or NonVegetated 

FRCC 1

FRCC 2 FRCC not analyzed.

FRCC 3

The pie charts on page 19 of this report (figure 3.3-6) demonstrate changes in FRCC distribution for the 

entire Bill Williams Mountain Project area for each alternative one year post completion of treatments. 

Alternative 1 (No Action) would maintain the area to 89% significantly altered from their historical range. 

It is likely that this percentage would continue to grow and likely be 100% in condition class 3 within 20 

years. Alternative 2, the proposed action, restores 68% of the landscape to historic states and leaves only 

10% of the area in danger of vegetative condition conversion or potential extreme change due to wildfire 

characteristics. Alternative 3 converts 45% of the area back to historic referenced conditions, but leaves 

42% of the area still in condition class 3. Alternative 4 meets the desired condition the least of the action 

alternatives by moving 42% back to condition class 1 and 45% continuing in condition class 3.

FRCC 1

100%

FRCC 2

0%

FRCC 3

0%

FRCC Desired 

Condition 

FRCC 1

0%

FRCC 2

11%

FRCC 3

89%

FRCC Alternative 1

Post Treatment

FRCC 1

68%

FRCC 2

22%

FRCC 3

10%

FRCC Alternative 2 

Post Treatment
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

98 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-6. Percent FRCC for each alternative.

FOFEM Results - Air Resources

The Arizona Department of Environmental Quality closely monitors, coordinates, and regulates 

prescribed burning to ensure emissions do not exceed federal and state ambient air quality standards. 

Pursuant to Arizona Revised Statute 18-2-15, federal and state land managers must submit an ADEQ 

Burn Plan, smoke dispersion map, and smoke modeling for all burn projects. Daily burn request must be 

submitted and approved prior to any prescribed burning. The Bill Williams Mountain Project area lies 

within the Verde River Airshed. The area contains several smoke sensitive receptors including the City of 

Williams, Sycamore Canyon and the Verde Valley. PM 2.5 estimates were modeled with FOFEM (First 

Order Fire Effects Model) version 5.21. The software default settings were used for equitable 

comparisons. Each of the four alternatives was run using the two main vegetative types and their 

corresponding acreages (ponderosa pine types and mixed conifer).There were some assumptions made 

with the modeling. Under prescribed burning conditions in alternatives 2, 3 and 4, the project would 

likely be burned in blocks. An estimate of 1000 acres in the ponderosa pine type and 500 acres in the 

mixed conifer was used. Under the no action alternative (Alternative 1), no prescribed burning would take 

place. However, if a wildfire would start in typical summer conditions, heavy resistance to control would 

be likely. It is conceivable the entire area would burn in a couple days. Prescribed fire would likely take 

multiple years to achieve the entire project area. The table comparison is for the total acres that would be 

burned within a week. It needs to be noted that the amount of smoke 1000 acres of prescribed fire 

produces is considerably less than 15,200 acres of wildfire smoke in the same short time period. Wildfire 

estimates in the table in the action alternatives is estimated for a wildfire post treatment. Alternative 3 

and Alternative 4 allow for minimal cutting on steep slopes. Without the reduction of fuels via 

mechanical treatment, it is likely more of the tree crowns would burn due to increased ladder fuels 

(vertical propagation) as well as tighter and denser tree canopies. An estimate of 10% was used for 

alternative 2, 15% for alternative 3 and 35% canopy consumption was used to illustrate this. 

In addition to the amount of raw material released into the atmosphere, ventilation, unit size, wind speed 

and direction, and proximity also affect smoke impacts. Ventilation is the degree to which smoke 

disperses into the atmosphere. Proximity is the distance from the source of smoke to the impacted area 

(generally residences). Ventilation would be improved during prescribed fire operations because ignition 

is usually limited to the best ventilation hours of the day. Conversely, wildfires burn during all hours of 

FRCC 1

45%

FRCC 2

13%

FRCC 3

42%

FRCC Alternative 3 

Post Treatment

FRCC 1

42%

FRCC 2

13%

FRCC 3

45%

FRCC Alternative 4 

Post Treatment
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 99

the day, including evenings and mornings, compounding smoke impacts. In addition, the burn day would 

be selected when wind speed and direction would minimize smoke impact. Smoke impacts from 

prescribed burns would be further reduced by burning on days with good ventilation and safe appropriate 

winds.

Table 3.3-7 Particulate Matter 2.5 in pounds per acre of emissions for Prescribed Fire and Wildfire 

by alternative.

3.3.4 Cumulative Effects

Vegetation treatments, and lack of treatments, on the Williams Ranger District have contributed to the 

current vegetation conditions for the area. Over the past 25 years, management surrounding the Bill 

Williams Mountain project area has included prescribed burning, pile burning, mechanical thinning and 

various harvests as well as grazing and wildlife focused projects. Within the Kaibab National Forest 

boundary, three projects are adjacent or in close proximity to the Bill Williams Mountain project area. 

The City Project area (within the north part of Bill Williams Mountain project continuing north of Bill 

Williams Mountain), the Twin project (on the south and west sides of the Bill Williams Mountain Project 

area) and Dogtown project area 2 miles east of the Bill Williams Mountain Project area. All three of these 

areas are being treated for wildland urban interface protection from wildfire. These projects include 

mechanical thinning and prescribed burning in phases over the next several years. The 17,000 acre 

McCracken project area is proposed and currently being analyzed. It lies immediately south of the Bill 

Williams project area. The combined effect of these ongoing projects and many foreseeable projects on 

the Williams Ranger District for restoration and fuel reduction provide for a mosaic of stand conditions, 

allowing for wildlife habitat and vegetative diversity. This same mosaic would allow for a diversity of 

fire effects thereby increasing opportunities for the maintenance of forest structure and function using 

wildfire and prescribed fire in the long term future. All the action alternatives proposed in the Bill 

Alternative 1

Alternative 2

Alternative 3

Alternative 4

0 571500 1039500

1047000

12993900

3500100

8004500

12673500

Particulate Matter 2.5 production by Alternative

Prescribed Fire PM 2.5 Wildfire PM2.5
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

100 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Williams Mountain project area would continue to create a mosaic of fuel conditions on the Williams 

Ranger District and therefore be taking a step in protection of communities and important features of the 

forest. Each project is managed to monitor and evaluate cumulative effects and considered prior to site 

specific implementation.

Alternative 1 would not be consistent with the past and current work of reducing fire severity potential in 

the wildland urban interface. 

The ability to use natural wildfire to maintain desired conditions would likely be used in the future 

management of this project. The cumulative effects of this type of management could greatly decrease 

future impacts to the surrounding area by maintaining fuels and vegetation in a natural state, decreasing 

smoke production from heavy amounts of accumulated fuels as well as lessen the need for future large 

scale mechanical treatments.

3.3.5 Air Resources

The Bill Williams Mountain area is heavily used as a recreation area for many people. This area 

represents clear and clean air for many visitors and is important to the continued health of surrounding 

communities both economically and physically. Smoke, in general, is a nuisance and can be adverse to 

health, but is also part of the natural disturbance associated with these types of ecosystems. Two 

criterion pollutants, carbon monoxide and particulate matter, are produced in wood smoke and are 

regulated by the Clean Air Act. The Arizona State Smoke Management Rule implements the Clean Air 

Act and contains regulations that all State and Federal natural resource agencies must follow before a 

prescribed burn is ignited.

Both prescribed fire and wildfire will create smoke, however the amount and timing of these smoke 

events can be mitigated with prescribed fire. Any prescribed burning will be conducted only with 

approved site specific burn plans with standard smoke management mitigation and approvals. Burning 

would be conducted in favorable atmospheric conditions so as to minimize effects from smoke to nearby 

communities, class 1 airsheds and recreationists. All burning will be conducted according to the Arizona 

State Smoke Management rule to mitigate smoke impacts. These regulations ensure that effects from all 

burning within the area are mitigated and that Clean Air Act requirements are met. The scenarios used in 

the FOFEM analysis of smoke impacts can be used as a benchmark of the types of conditions and fuel 

loading burns should be conducted in. In general, days with good transport winds and ventilation 

categories are ideal to burn on. The community of Williams will have the most smoke impacts due to the 

proximity to the project area and lie line with prevailing winds, therefore measures to mitigate long 

durations of smoke should be implemented. Prescribed fires are initiated under conditions that allow 

managers control and favorable effects. Prescribed fires will be conducted when conditions are such that 

overstory tree mortality will be low, which leaves much of the live-tree carbon pool intact. These results 

in less biomass being combusted than if the area were to burn under higher severity wildfire, therefore 

less carbon emissions are expected in controlled situations (Wiedinmyer and Hurteau 2010). 

Smoke impacts from wildfires are less easily mitigated. Wildfires primarily occur during summer months 

when the Williams Ranger District is most used by recreationists and therefore would most likely have 

more of an impact on recreation values. The amount of biomass consumed during a wildfire is also not 

easily mitigated. The more biomass consumed by fire, the more smoke will be produced. When 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 101

comparing alternatives, all action alternatives propose prescribed burning which will have an impact on 

surrounding communities but in a controllable manner. The outcome of these alternatives would also 

reduce the amount of biomass available to fire during wildfire which would reduce the impact of smoke 

from such a wildfire. The No Action alternative does not propose any prescribed burning; however, it 

will continue to maintain large amounts of biomass available for consumption in the event of a wildfire 

which will have direct and most likely uncontrollable impacts on recreation and surrounding 

communities. 

Prescribed fire is regulated through a permitting process with the Arizona Department of Environmental 

Quality, which considers the overall effect and timing of such activities within each airshed. Following 

the permitting process will ensure that this project does not create regionally significant adverse effects on 

air quality. 

Air Resources Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area includes much of northern Arizona. The project area itself lies 

within the Verde Valley Airshed, which covers much of the Williams Ranger District of the Kaibab 

National Forest, part of the Prescott National Forest, the west half of Coconino National Forest, as well as 

tribal, state, and private lands west of the Kaibab (see Figure 3.3-7). 

The cumulative analysis of air resources is unique in that impacts are transient, and past impacts to air 

quality are usually not evident. On any given day, however, the cumulative impact of the smoke from a 

prescribed burn, combined with impacts from other prescribed burns, wildfires, residential wood 

combustion, traffic exhaust, fugitive road dust, and other sources of pollution can be substantial. In 1999, 

for example, over 200,000 acres in Arizona were treated with prescribed fire, producing about 35,000 

tons of PM-10 emissions. At certain times of the year, especially in the Fall, consideration of the 

cumulative impact is critical, as weather and fuel conditions are most conducive to prescribed burning, 

and multiple federal and state land management agencies are trying to meet their annual burning targets. 

Therefore, each project is managed to monitor and evaluate cumulative effects and considered prior to site 

specific implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

102 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.3-8. Arizona Smoke Management Map

3.6.6 Discussion and Management Implications

All three Action alternatives move the Bill Williams project area toward desired conditions. Alternative 

1, the no action alternative, continues the regression of the ecosystem toward more unsustainable 

characteristics. Canopies will continue to close and provide more continuous fuel across the landscape, 

increasing the potential for high severity crown fires. This can be concluded when comparing the amount 

of passive and active crown fire potential in Alternative 1 compared to Alternative 2, 3 and 4. Alternative 

1 would maintain 82% of the area with potential for high severity fire effects, while Alternative 2, 3 and 4 

reduce this potential to 45%, 57% and 68% respectively. The canopy fuel accumulation has negative 

effects on understory vegetation and will continue to suppress the production of forbs, grasses and shrubs. 

Over time it can be expected that most of the forest will have little to no understory due to sunlight not 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 103

penetrating the canopy. The combination of abundant and continuous canopy fuels, the lack of 

understory vegetation and high severity fire potential maintains the area in a Fire Regime Condition Class 

of 3 into the foreseeable future. Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 begin to restore the area toward the desired 

condition of Fire Regime Condition Class 1. The analyses in this report demonstrate that all action 

alternatives are preferable to the no action alternative; therefore, consideration of each action alternative 

should be weighed carefully. 

When comparing the three action alternatives being proposed, a major difference in proposals on steep 

slopes becomes the ability to cut larger trees versus being limited to only cutting trees less than 9” in 

diameter or not cutting at all. From the silvicuture analysis, the ability to cut trees greater than 9” dbh 

increases the ability to create openings. Alternative 3 is expected to create less than 10% opening on 

steep slopes. Alternative 4 is expected to create 0% openings while Alternative 2 will create 30%-40% 

openings. Several factors are important to consider when looking at management of the Bill Williams 

Mountain Project area and canopy openings. The following are just a few forest ecosystem components 

of importance in the analysis for Bill Williams Mountain project; Canopy continuity, understory 

vegetation and fire behavior. In general canopy openings have been greatly reduced during the 1900’s by 

posettlement trees (Moore and Huffman 2004). Canopy openings provide for wildlife habitat, understory 

diversity (kerns et al. 2003, Moore et al. 1999) and discontinuous canopy fuels, which in turn effect fire 

behavior. In this sense all three of these ecosystem components are interconnected. The ability to create 

canopy opening becomes very important to restoring the function and resiliency of the ecosystem. 

Having tree removal restrictions limits capabilities to create these openings. In looking at the FlamMap 

analysis results, the major difference between Alternative 2 compared to 1, 3 and 4 is the amount of 

crown fire. Alternative 4 exhibits more areas with potential crown fire due to the inability to affect 

canopy fuels without removing more trees. The lack of reduction of canopy spacing is illustrated with the 

FlamMap runs. This will in turn effect how the area can be managed when faced with natural occurring 

wildfires. Fires that exhibit torching (passive crown fire) are more likely to produce lofted embers to 

start more fires, and generally burn hotter than a fire burning only surface fuels. These types of fires will 

cause higher severity and more ecosystem damage. 

Canopy openings and discontinuous canopy fuels also are an integral part of how well ecosystems that 

exhibit frequent low severity fire can be restored to a Fire Regime Conditions Class of 1. Each action 

alternative moves the Bill Williams Mountain ecosystem away from 100% of the area in FRCC 3. 

However, Alternative 2 restores and may maintain 68% of the area in FRCC 1 compared to 45% in 

Alternative 3 and 42% in Alternative 4. Furthermore, of the 13% of the area under Alternative 3 and 4 

that is restored to FRCC 2 immediately post treatment, it is foreseeable some of it will regresses back to 

FRCC 3 over 20 years as canopy cover closes. This difference over 20 years is a function of the ability to 

create canopy openings that are large enough and frequent enough to be maintained in an open state after 

20 years of tree growth. 

When looking at a smaller scale of the project, Bill Williams Mountain retains potential of damage to 

severe wildfires with each alternative. Alternative 2 restores approximately 40% of the mountain. This is 

greatly reduced in Alternatives 3 and 4 (20% and 10% respectively). The lack of the alternatives to allow 

for sufficient canopy openings will affect the ability to move or retain FRCC 1 in the future. Leaving vast 

areas in FRCC 2 and 3 will add difficulties both in safety and meeting objectives for mangers treating 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

104 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

with prescribed fire as well as opportunities to manage wildfires to meet resource objectives and perform 

their natural role in the ecosystem.

Alternatives 3 and 4 do not allow prescribed fire in the Botanical area. This could have direct effects to 

larger areas not receiving prescribed fire due to terrain and features not conducive to keeping fire from 

spreading into the Botanical Area. Every acre in the project not treated is another opportunity for forest 

health degradation and increased risk for uncharacteristic, undesirable fire behavior. Even where areas are 

treated, fires from untreated areas gaining intensity and exhibiting extreme behavior can move into them 

and have more severe fire effects than a fire starting in the treated stand. Without removal of canopy 

density and reducing surface fuel loadings, the Botanical area and adjacent slopes continue to have high 

potential for extreme fire behavior.

Alternative 4 does not allow thinning on the slopes of Bill Williams Mountain. This limits the ability to 

reduce canopy density and create openings that would alter fire behavior and potentially transition a 

crown fire back to the surface. Prescribed burning on the mountain would be very difficult without the 

reduction of smaller diameter trees and the breakup of interlocked crowns. Tree mortality would be more 

likely without mechanical treatment and removal of slash, leaving the area in a state as likely, if not more 

likely, for potential extreme fire behavior and landscape dilapidation. 

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would increase surface fine fuels in the form of understory vegetation (grasses and 

forbs) due to canopy openings. Much of the species diversity in ponderosa pine forests is contained in 

understory vegetation (Moore et al. 1999). Understory vegetation can be >10 times higher in restored 

openings than under even sparse ponderosa pine cover (Clary 1975). This understory vegetation is 

important in supporting fire spread similar to that under which southwestern forests have evolved. This 

carrier of fire is needed in order to maintain forests over time with fire. Surface vegetation will also affect 

fire behavior. More fine surface fuels would increase surface fire rates of spread. Reducing stand density 

can increase surface fire behavior. “Modifying canopy fuels as prescribed in this method may lead to 

increased surface fire intensity and spread rate under the same environmental conditions, even if surface 

fuels are the same before and after canopy treatment. Reducing CBD to preclude crown fire leads to 

increases in the wind adjustment factor (the proportion of 20-ft windspeed that reaches midflame height). 

Also, a more open canopy may lead to lower fine dead fuel moisture content. These factors increase 

surface fire intensity and spread rate. Therefore, canopy fuel treatments reduce the potential for crown fire 

at the expense of slightly increased surface fire spread rate and intensity. However, critical levels of fire 

behavior (limit of manual or mechanical control) are less likely to be reached in stands treated to 

withstand crown fires, as all crown fires are uncontrollable. Though surface intensity may be increased 

after treatment, a fire that remains on the surface beneath a timber stand is generally controllable.” (Scott 

2003).

Alternative 3 and 4 will increase the difficulty to protect trees, including those greater than 24” DBH as 

directed in the Kaibab National Forest Plan. Areas with heavier ladder fuels, greater tree densities and 

canopy characteristics are more likely to increase fire behavior during prescribed fire operations. 

Mortality could drastically increase, putting the trees desired at higher risk. Smaller trees may receive fire 

caused mortality as well. Initially, the crowns of these trees dry out and become a fully cured fine 

diameter fuel. This increases the potential for vulnerability of consumption (highly flammable) and 

initiating fire in the canopy during a wildfire. After a couple years of aging, the needles fall and increase 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 105

the surface fuel loading. Several years later, the trees fall and once again increase the surface fuel loading. 

These conditions do not go towards the desired condition and increases the potential for fire caused 

mortality to all existing vegetation, including the >24” trees, if a wildfire were to enter the area. 

Alternative 1 does not have the chance of fire caused mortality by prescribed fire, but could reasonably 

encounter high levels of mortality in the event of a wildfire.

Alternative 1 leaves fire managers with little opportunity of multiple management strategies other than 

full suppression if a wildfire were to establish in the project area or enter the project area. Safety would 

preclude the chances of fighting the fire from the head, ultimately limiting success of containing the fire 

spread quickly. Wildfires would unlikely be able to be managed for any objectives other than suppression, 

adding cost vs. benefit deficit. Alternative 3 and 4 would have increased difficulty meeting objectives for 

prescribed burning than alternative 2, especially on the slopes of Bill Williams Mountain. The FVS/FFE 

stats shown in Appendix D reflect numbers relating to the increased mortality potential of prescribed 

fires. Without reducing ladder fuels, the fire has an increased opportunity to rise vertically into the tree 

canopy. There, dense canopies transfer heat easier and passive or active crown fire may initiate, creating 

greater tree mortality. These trees eventually fall and become increased surface loading. Over time, the 

increased surface loading along with the residual trees reproducing (adding ladder fuels again) sets the 

stand dynamics back to increase fire behavior and tree mortality. At any of these stages, high mortality or 

intense burning of surface fuels could cause soil erosion, flash flooding to downslope residences, 

degradation of the City of Williams watershed and sediment fill up to water sources used by area wildlife 

and cattle.

Part of the Bill Williams Mountain area falls under Mexican Spotted owl management guidelines. These 

guidelines require that no tree above 24 inches in diameter be cut in restricted habitat and no tree above 9 

inches in diameter be cut in protected habitat (alternative 2 does allow a plan amendment. See silviculture 

report for specifics). Restricted habitat also requires stands to retain high basal area. Under these 

guidelines, protected habitat will have less to no canopy openings. High density requirements will 

reduce the ability to decrease canopy fuel continuity or for understory vegetation to respond to treatment. 

Areas in protected and restricted habitat will remain as FRCC 3 or move to FRCC 2 in situations where 

some canopy can be affected without losing the desired BA. Some habitat can be restored to a FRCC of 1 

where the species composition, structure and function of these stands would be in concert with a surface 

fire regime. Restricted habitat would be subject to diameter limits in Alternative 3 and 4 which would 

constrict the ability to open canopy gaps and remove much of the uncharacteristic species. Therefore, in 

restricted habitat alternative 3 and 4 would not move towards the desired condition of FRCC 1. Areas 

with trees of fire intolerant species that have encroached the understory of the stands and are larger than 

identified cutting diameters would remain as FRCC 3, while those where some smaller diameter fire 

intolerant species could be removed and have small effects on canopy fuel discontinuity would move to 

an FRCC 2. MSO also requires course woody debris as a desirable attribute. None of the action 

alternatives eliminate all course woody debris. A stand replacement type fire could potentially have this 

effect. Alternative 1 would be the most likely to experience this type of fire behavior.

Alternative 2 moves the area the most to conditions that are more likely to allow its maintenance with 

fire. This is an ideal way of management due to its relative decrease in cost compared to mechanical type 

treatments on the same amount of acres. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

106 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Flame lengths less than 8 feet can generally be attacked by engines and dozers, and those flame lengths 

less than 4 feet by hand personal. This is another measure we can use to assess the differences between 

alternatives. FlamMap data computed that currently only 16% of the area likely to burn with flame 

lengths under 8 feet during summer conditions. Alternative 2 alters the landscape to 59% while 

Alternative 3 is 46% and Alternative 4 is 33%. This is a useful factor to consider in understanding the 

chances district resources may have in containing an undesirable fire at a small scale with minimal 

impacts to the landscape.

Table 3.3-7. Flame Lengths under 8 feet in the Project Area.

Flame Lengths 

under 8 feet

Acres

(% of area)

Alternative 1 2525 (16%)

Alternative 2 9114 (59%)

Alternative 3 7016 (46%)

Alternative 4 5121 (33%)

Particle Matter 2.5 (produced in smoke) from prescribed fires would be inevitable. Alternative 2 allows 

for the removal of more secondary layer canopy than alternative 3 or 4 and therefore produces less 

consumption produced emissions in smoke. This is due to a large percentage of the fire being surface fire. 

Alternative 3 limits tree removal to 9” dbh. This will likely increase the amount of crowns that will be 

consumed during burning operations. Alternative 4 would likely have the most amount of additional 

emissions from crowns burning of the 3 action alternatives.

Below is a relative rating by alternative table for quick comparison of how each alternative meets the 

desired condition. A point value of 1 was assigned to the alternative that most closely met the proposed 

action for each element. The other alternatives were given a value of 0. If alternatives had equal values in 

meeting the proposed action, they were both assigned a 1 value. Alternative 2 rates out as the alternative 

that most closely meets the desired condition.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 107

Table 3.3-9. Relative ranking for each alternative.

Relative Rating for Each Alternative

Criteria Alternative 

1 

Alternative 

2 

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Canopy Base Height in mixed 

conifer 0 1 1 1 

Canopy Bulk Density in mixed 

conifer 0 0 1 0 

Surface Fuel Loading in mixed 

conifer 0 1 1 0 

Canopy Base Height in 

ponderosa pine 0 0 1 0 

Canopy Bulk Density in 

ponderosa pine 0 1 1 1 

Surface Fuel Loading in 

ponderosa pine 0 0 1 0 

Surface Fire percentage 0 1 0 0 

FRCC 1 in mixed conifer

0 1 0 0 

FRCC 1 in ponderosa pine 0 1 0 0 

PM2.5 emissions

0 1 0 0 

Flame Lengths under 8’ 0 1 0 0 

TOTAL: 0 8 6 2 

In conclusion the Bill Williams Mountain project area would benefit from each of the action alternatives 

from a potential fire severity perspective. The overall ecosystem health in the form of restoring the 

vegetation types to resilient and historic conditions would also benefit from all action alternatives 

although Alternative 2 provides the most opportunity to meet desired conditions.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

108 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.4 Soils and Watershed

3.4.1 Affected Environment

Soils

Elevations within the project area range from 6,460 feet above mean sea level (amsl) to 9,256 feet amsl. 

Slopes range from 5 to 120 percent with steeper slopes generally occurring at higher elevations on Bill 

Williams Mountain, Bixler Mountain and on hillsides of less prominent knolls within the project area.

Figure 3.4.1-1 displays the locations of TES map units and their current condition. Table 3.4.1-1 provides 

a summary of the taxonomic classifications of TES map units in the project area and their associated 

acreages.

There are 16,107 acres of TES map units within the project area are in satisfactory condition. These soils 

are functioning properly with regard to soil stability, hydrologic regimes and nutrient cycles. 

Approximately 10 percent (1,538 acres) of the TES map units within the project area are in unsatisfactory 

condition. Currently, TES map units 320, 402, 407, 525, 539, and 564 within the project area are in 

unsatisfactory condition due to erosion rates that are exceeding tolerance thresholds. By reducing stand 

densities and increasing the amount of fine to medium woody debris and litter, these map units are 

expected to respond in a positive manner through increased vegetative ground cover which improves soil 

aggregate stability and porosity, decreases soil bulk densities, increases soil water holding capacities, and 

contributes to development of soil A horizons.

Within the project area, there are approximately 8,064 acres of soils having slight erosion hazard, about 

3,212 acres of soils having moderate erosion hazard, and about 3,932 acres of soils having severe erosion 

hazard (Table 3.4.1-2, and Figure 3.4.1-2). Technical definitions of erosion hazard ratings can be found in 

the Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report (MacDonald 2012). Acres presented in Table 3.4.1-2 are for 

each map unit as a whole. There can be, and often are inclusions of different soil types within each TES 

map unit. Soils having single taxonomic classifications rarely, if ever, are mapped without including some 

areas of soils having other taxonomic classifications. As a result, most soils map units are comprised of 

the primary soil for which the unit is categorized and some soils that belong to other taxa. These latter 

soils are called inclusions or included soils.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 109

Figure 3.4.1-1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

110 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.4.1-1. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units located within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project, Kaibab National Forest, Arizona (Brewer et al 1991).

MAP UNIT 

SYMBOL

SOIL TAXONOMIC 

CLASSIFICATION

SOIL PHASE ACRES

006 Pachic Argiborolls Deep clay loam 137

010 Typic Argiborolls Deep loam 262

20 Vertic Haplaquolls Deep clay 144

036 Pachic Argiustolls Deep gravelly clay loam 14

037 Aquic Haploborolls Deep gravelly very fine sandy loam 44

300 Udic Ustochrepts Very gravelly sandy loam 179

302 Typic Dystrochrepts Very gravelly sandy loam 88

304 Typic Eutroboralfs Moderately deep very gravelly loam 248

310 Typic Eutroboralfs Moderately deep very cobbly clay loam 2,008

320 Lithic Ustorthents Very gravelly sandy loam 328

322 Typic Dystrochrepts Moderately deep very gravelly sandy loam 1879

324 Typic Eutroboralfs Very gravelly loam 5,206

325 Udic Ustochrepts Deep gravelly loam 24

401 Mollic Eutroboralfs Gravelly clay loam 464

402 Mollic Eutroboralfs Moderately deep very cindery loam 327

405 Mollic Eutroboralfs Very gravelly clay loam 25

407 Typic Vitrandepts Moderately deep very cindery loam 114

507 Vertic Argiborolls Deep very gravelly clay loam 212

518 Lithic Argiborolls Very cobbly clay loam 463

519 Lithic Eutroboralfs Very cobbly clay loam 874

525 Typic Argiborolls Moderately deep very cobbly loam 118

537 Mollic Eutroboralfs Moderately deep very cobbly clay loam 1,177

539 Typic Argiborolls Moderately deep very cobbly loam 52

563 Mollic Eutroboralfs Moderately deep very cobbly clay loam 130

564 Typic Argiborolls Moderately deep very cobbly clay loam 599

565 Lithic Argiborolls Very cobbly clay loam 80

658 Eutric Glossoboralfs Cobbly loam 416

659 Eutric Glossoboralfs Cobbly loam 909

660 Typic Eutrochrepts Moderately deep very stony fine sandy loam 1,124

N/A Open water/wetland 17

Total 17,662

Typically inclusions have properties and behavioral characteristics that are similar to those of the 

dominant soil or soils in the map unit, and therefore do not affect use and management. These are referred 

to as noncontrasting inclusions. They may or may not be noted in the map unit descriptions. Other 

inclusions may have properties and behavioral characteristics that deviate enough to influence use or 

management. These are referred to as contrasting inclusions. They generally occupy small areas and are 

inseparable on the soil maps due to the scale at which soils are mapped. The inclusions of contrasting 

soils are typically discussed in map unit descriptions. Sometimes inclusions are not mapped as they were 

not observed in the field. This typically occurs where soil patterns are so complex as to preclude a 

sufficient number of observations to identify all of the soils that occur within a given landscape.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 111

Table 3.4.1-2. Predicted Soil Erosion Hazard by TEU within the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project Analysis Area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate)

MAP 

UNIT

SOIL 

CONDITION

EROSION 

HAZARD

CURRENT 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

TOLERANCE 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

POTENTIAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

6 Satisfactory Slight 0.65 2.71 2.10 0-5 137

10 Satisfactory Slight 0.53 2.71 2.47 0-5 262

20 Satisfactory Slight 0.12 3.64 0.93 0-5 144

36 Satisfactory Slight 0.36 2.71 0.85 0-5 14

37 Satisfactory Slight 0.24 3.64 0.85 0-5 44

300 Satisfactory Moderate 2.35 2.71 13.56 15-40 179

302 Satisfactory Severe 2.14 2.71 15.50 15-40 88

304 Satisfactory Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0-15 248

310 Satisfactory Moderate 1.70 2.71 12.38 15-40 2,008

320 Unsatisfactory Severe 1.94 1.82 16.75 40-80 328

322 Satisfactory Severe 1.42 2.71 19.59 40-80 1,879

324 Satisfactory Slight 0.20 2.71 0.93 0-15 5,206

325 Satisfactory Slight 0.20 2.71 1.25 0-15 24

401 Satisfactory Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0-15 464

402 Unsatisfactory Moderate 1.70 2.71 9.96 15-40 327

405 Satisfactory Slight 0.20 2.71 0.61 0-15 25

407 Unsatisfactory Severe 3.60 2.71 14.37 15-40 114

507 Satisfactory Slight 0.16 2.71 0.28 0-15 212

518 Satisfactory Slight 0.24 1.82 0.61 0-15 463

519 Satisfactory Slight 0.20 1.82 25.09 0-15 874

525 Unsatisfactory Severe 3.40 2.71 0.61 15-40 118

537 Satisfactory Slight 0.12 2.71 0.61 0-15 1,177

539 Unsatisfactory Severe 7.49 2.71 14.37 40-120 52

563 Satisfactory Slight 0.20 2.71 0.61 0-15 130

564 Unsatisfactory Severe 3.64 2.71 12.38 15-40 599

565 Satisfactory Slight 0.36 1.82 0.61 0-15 80

658 Satisfactory Slight 0.12 2.71 1.58 0-15 416

659 Satisfactory Moderate 2.71 2.71 24.04 15-40 909

660 Satisfactory Severe 1.86 2.71 14.29 40-120 1,124

Total 17,662
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

112 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.4.1-2. Predicted Soil Erosion Hazard within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 113

Hydrologic Soil Groups

Soils are classified into hydrologic soil groups (HSGs) to indicate the minimum rate of infiltration and 

runoff potential obtained for bare soil after prolonged wetting. This information is important to project 

and watershed planning since runoff determines, to a large extent, the flood hazard, the character and 

amount of stream flow, and the hazard of erosion from rainwater and snowmelt. The HSG designations 

are A, B, C and D, and are defined by Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) as follows: Group 

A soils have low runoff potential and high infiltration rates even when thoroughly wetted. They consist 

chiefly of deep, well to excessively drained sands or gravels and have a high rate of water transmission 

(greater than 0.30 in/hr). Group B soils have moderate infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and 

consist chiefly of moderately deep to deep, moderately well to well drained soils with moderately fine to 

moderately coarse textures. These soils have a moderate rate of water transmission (0.15-0.30 in/hr). 

Group C soils have low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of soils with a layer 

that impedes downward movement of water and soils with moderately fine to fine texture. These soils 

have a low rate of water transmission (0.05-0.15 in/hr). Group D soils have high runoff potential. They 

have very low infiltration rates when thoroughly wetted and consist chiefly of clay soils with a high 

swelling potential, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a claypan or clay layer at or near the 

surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious material. These soils have a very low rate of water 

transmission (0-0.05 in/hr). Table 3.4.1-3 below lists the HSGs for soils that occur within the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project area and their associated acreages. For the analysis area, 

approximately 1% (114 acres) of the soils are in hydrologic soils group A; 26% (4,619 acres) are in 

hydrologic soils group B; 61% (10,811 acres) are in hydrologic soils group C; and 12% (2,101 acres) are 

in hydrologic soils group D. Figure 3.4.1-3 displays the location and extent of soils by their associated 

hydrologic soils groups.

Table 3.4.1-3. Hydrologic Soil Groups and associated acreages for the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate).

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TES MAP UNIT ACRES

A 0407 114

B 0300 179

0302 88

0322 1,879

0325 24

0658 416

0659 909

0660 1,124

C 0006 137

0010 262

0036 14

0037 44

0304 248

0310 2,008

0324 5,206

0401 464

0402 327

0405 25

0525 118

0537 1,177
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

114 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP TES MAP UNIT ACRES

0539 52

0563 130

0564 599

D 0020 144

0320 328

0507 212

0518 463

0519 874

0565 80

Vegetative Ground Cover

Vegetative ground cover is important for protecting soil surfaces from erosion and invasion by noxious 

weeds. The TES includes values for vegetative ground cover for each TES mapping unit. These values 

include both vegetation basal area and litter. Table 3.4.1-4 lists vegetative ground cover and associated 

acreages for each TES mapping unit in the proposed project area. 

Soil Organisms

Knowledge of specific fungal, bacterial, and arthropod populations is not available for analysis in this 

project. Biological soil crusts, commonly found in arid or semi-arid environments (USDA NRCS 1997) 

are not known to exist in the project area. However, cryptogamic crusts have been identified in the same 

ecosystems as those found in the project area, including mixed conifer forests and pinyon-juniper 

woodlands (Beymer and Klopatek 1992). It is possible that biological soil crusts occur within the 

proposed treatment areas. 

In arid and semi-arid native vegetation communities, plants often exhibit patchy distributions that result in 

discontinuous fuel conditions and mosaics of fire intensities (Whisenant 1990). Biological soil crusts do 

not provide adequate fuel to carry a fire through interspaces, thereby serving as “refugia” to decrease the 

spread of fire and its intensity (Rosentreter 1986). The remaining unburned islands of vascular vegetation 

and biological soil crust provide propagules for reestablishment in burned areas. Johansen et al. (1993) 

observed that the structural matrix of soil biological crusts remained intact following low-intensity fire, 

indicating that lightly burned crusts still function to provide stability against erosive forces.

Populations of other soil organisms include mycorrhizal fungi, soil-dwelling arthropods, gastropods, 

nematodes and bacteria. All of these types of organisms are expected to occur within the proposed 

treatment areas.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 115

Figure 3.4.1-3. Hydrologic soil groups within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

analysis area. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

116 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.4.1-4. Estimated Vegetation, Litter, and Total Vegetative Ground Cover within the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project Analysis Area (Brewer et al, 1991).

MAP 

UNIT

VEGETATION

(Basal Area)

LITTER

(%)

TOTAL VEGETATIVE 

GROUND COVER (%)

NATURAL GROUND 

COVER (%)

6 25 5 30 80

10 5 35 40 80

36 15 5 20 85

37 25 5 30 80

300 5 40 45 85

302 10 40 50 70

304 10 35 45 85

310 10 40 50 85

320 3 55 55 85

322 8 60 65 85

324 5 35 40 80

325 10 35 45 75

401 10 45 55 75

402 10 35 45 70

405 10 20 30 80

407 12 22 35 75

507 10 5 15 75

518 20 5 25 70

519 5 25 30 70

525 5 30 35 85

537 5 40 45 85

539 10 20 30 65

563 10 20 30 70

564 10 20 30 70

565 10 5 15 65

658 8 50 60 85

659 11 45 55 85

660 4 45 50 85

Organic Matter

Organic matter in its various forms contributes to soil productivity. Humus is decomposed organic matter 

while duff, or litter, consists of relatively undecomposed or partially decomposed leaves, needles, and 

twigs that are still recognizable on the surface of soils. Coarse woody debris (CWD) consists of woody 

stems greater than 3 inches in diameter. Decomposing coarse woody debris can supply moisture to plants 

and animals after soils have dried. All organic matter provides water and nutrients for soil organisms and 

plants. Because CWD is an important component of a functioning ecosystem, a portion of this material 

must be maintained (Graham et al. 1994). However, excessive accumulations of woody debris can result 

in fires that are extremely hot, resulting in large losses of soil organic matter (Harvey 1994). Currently, 

most soils within the project area exhibit an abundance of organic matter in a variety of size classes. 

Some map units that are currently rated unsatisfactory (i.e., 320, 402, 407, 525, 539, and 564) generally 

exhibit less organic matter than required to maintain soil productivity and prevent soil loss. The locations 

of unsatisfactory TES units are depicted in Figure 3.4.1-1 and their areal extents are summarized in Table 

3.4.1-2.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 117

Revegetation Potential

Revegetation potential refers to the probable success and ease in the establishment of native grasses. This 

potential rating is influenced by climate, soil characteristics, and slope. The rating system is based on use 

of a rangeland drill, broadcast seeder (hand held), and aerial seeding with no consideration for site 

preparation (removal of trees, etc.).

A low or moderate rating alerts the land manager to potential limitations for successful artificial 

revegetation of an area. Soils associated with a "high" rating offer the best opportunity for success. The 

udic/frigid combination offers the optimum soil climate for establishment of vegetation. Conversely, the 

aridic/thermic combination offers the most limiting soil climate for the establishment of vegetation. For 

the project area, Table 3.4.1-5 below displays the artificial revegetation potential. It is important to note 

that these potentials correspond to no site preparation or removal of trees. It is very likely that natural 

revegetation potentials would be higher than these values following vegetation treatments since soil 

moisture and light penetration to the forest floor would be increased. Practices that minimize soil 

disturbance such as churning of soil profiles would preserve native seed banks, thus improving natural 

revegetation. 

Table 3.4.1-5. Revegetation potential within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

analysis area (Brewer et al.1991). (acres are approximate)

REVEGETATION POTENTIAL MAP UNIT SYMBOL ACRES

Moderate 6 44

10 127

300 179

302 50

304 248

324 4,705

325 24

401 269

405 25

407 104

507 11

537 1,074

563 130

658 416

659 854

Moderate Total 8,260

Low 310 1,934

320 328

322 1,779

518 169

519 743

525 74

539 12

564 477

565 80

660 1,109
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

118 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Low Total 6,705

Grand Total 14,965

Timber Harvest Limitations

Timber harvest limitations are limits to be considered when evaluating the impact of timber harvest with 

regard to maintenance of soil productivity. Limits relate to year round or seasonal concerns and use of 

equipment as they relate to climate, soils characteristics, and landforms. A moderate or severe rating 

directs the land manager to areas that require mitigation in order to avoid impairment of soil productivity. 

Logging systems are proposed for this project that will adequately overcome most timber harvest 

limitations. Timing of logging operations can often be used to mitigate soil moisture problems. For 

example, logging can be performed during frozen ground or dry conditions to minimize risk of soil 

compaction and rutting and consequential erosion. Table 3.4.1-6 below summarizes timber harvest 

limitations by map unit within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area. Figure 3.4.1-4 

depicts the locations of TEUs and their associated timber harvest limitations.

Table 3.4.1-6. Timber harvest limitations within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate)

TIMBER 

HARVEST 

LIMITATIONS

MAP UNIT 

SYMBOL

REASON ACRES

Severe 6 Seasonally wet 44

10 Seasonally wet 127

36 Wetland soil <1

37 Seasonally wet <1

320 Severe erosion hazard, shallow soils, steep slopes 328

322 Severe erosion hazard, shallow soils, steep slopes 1,779

407 Severe erosion hazard, inherently unstable cindery soils 104

507 Trafficability problems when wet 11

539 Steep slopes, large surface rocks and rock outcrops common 12

565 Shallow soil depth and rock content inhibits regeneration 80

660 Severe erosion hazard, steep slopes, large rock common 1,109

Severe Total 3,594

Moderate 300 Risk of accelerated erosion 179

302 Risk of accelerated erosion 50

304 Trafficability problems, risk of compaction 248

310 Moderate erosion hazard, high rock content 1,934

324 Low bearing strength/trafficability problems when wet 4,705

325 Low bearing strength/trafficability problems when wet 24

401 Low bearing strength/trafficability problems when wet 269

Moderate 

(cont’d) 402 Erosion hazard increases with removal of ground cover 247

405 Trafficability problems when wet, churning damages soil 25

519 Large rock fragments common, shallow soils 743

525 Trafficability problems when wet, rock outcrops common 74

537

Trafficability problems when wet, large rock fragments 

common 1,074

563 Trafficability problems when wet, churning damages soil 130
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 119

TIMBER 

HARVEST 

LIMITATIONS

MAP UNIT 

SYMBOL

REASON ACRES

564 Severe erosion hazard, trafficability problems when wet, 

churning damages soil productivity 477

658 Trafficability problems when wet, churning damages soil 416

659 Churning damages soil productivity 854

Moderate 

Total 11,446

Slight 518 Large rock fragments and rock outcrops common 169

Slight Total 169

Grand Total 15,210

Effects of Roads to Soils and Watershed Resources

Currently, National Forest System roads within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area 

occupy approximately 60 miles or 87.27 acres based on an average road width of 12 feet, including Forest 

Roads 108 and 122 which generally serve as the western and southern boundaries of the project area, 

respectively. In addition to National Forest System, non-system roads occur within the project area. 

Most of these roads are the result of indiscriminate route proliferation caused by disbursed camping, 

hunting, fuelwood gathering, and similar activities. 

Forest roads are classified by Maintenance Levels (ML) in accordance with Forest Service Handbook 

(FSH) 7709.58,10,12.3. Maintenance levels are defined by the USDA FSH as the level of service 

provided by, and maintenance required for, a specific road. Maintenance levels must be consistent with 

road management objectives, and maintenance criteria. The following criteria are considered when 

selecting road maintenance levels: 

a. Resource program needs, environmental and resource protection requirements, visual quality 

objectives, and recreation opportunity spectrum classes. 

b. Road investment protection requirements. 

c. Service life and current operational status. 

d. User safety. 

e. Volume, type, class, and composition of traffic. 

f. Surface type. 

g. Travel speed. 

h. User comfort and convenience. 

i. Functional classification. 

j. Traffic service level.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

120 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.4.1-4. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units and their associated Timber Harvest Limitations 

within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project analysis area (Brewer et al, 1991).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 121

All roads within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area are classified as Maintenance level 

1, 2, or 3. Maintenance level 1 roads are closed to vehicular traffic. The closure period must exceed 1 

year. Basic custodial maintenance is performed to keep damage to adjacent resources to an acceptable 

level and to perpetuate the road to facilitate future management activities. Emphasis is normally given to 

maintaining drainage facilities and runoff patterns. Planned road deterioration may occur at this level. 

Appropriate traffic management strategies are “prohibit” and “eliminate.” Roads receiving level 1 

maintenance may be of any type, class or construction standard, and may be managed at any other 

maintenance level during the time they are open for traffic. However, while being maintained at level 1, 

they are closed to vehicular traffic, but may be open and suitable for nonmotorized uses. There are 

approximately 20 miles of ML-1 roads within the project area. Maintenance level 1 roads have the 

following attributes:

• Vehicular traffic is eliminated, including administrative traffic.

• Physically blocked or entrance is disguised.

• Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act.

• Maintenance is done only to minimize resource impacts.

• No maintenance other than a condition survey may be required so long as no potential exists

for resource damage.

 

Maintenance level 2 roads are open for use by high-clearance vehicles. Passenger car traffic is not a 

consideration. Traffic is normally minor, usually consisting of one or a combination of administrative, 

permitted, dispersed recreation, or other specialized uses. Log hauling may occur at this level. 

Appropriate traffic management strategies are either to (1) discourage or prohibit passenger cars or (2) 

accept or discourage high-clearance vehicles. There are approximately 31 miles of ML-2 roads within the 

project area. Maintenance level 2 roads have the following attributes:

• Roads have low traffic volume and low speed.

• Typically local roads.

• Typically connect collectors or other local roads.

• Dips are the preferred drainage treatment.

• Not subject to the requirements of the Highway Safety Act.

• Surface smoothness is not a consideration.

• Not suitable for passenger cars.

Maintenance level 3 roads are open and maintained for travel by prudent drivers in standard passenger 

cars. User comfort and convenience are low priorities. Roads in this maintenance level are typically low 

speed, single lane with turnouts, and spot surfacing. Some roads may be fully surfaced with either native 

or processed material. Appropriate traffic management strategies are either “encourage” or “accept.” 

“Discourage” or “prohibit” strategies may be employed for certain classes of vehicles or users. There are 

approximately 9 miles of ML-3 roads within the project area. These include FR108 which forms the 

western boundary of the project area, FR111 which provides access to the top of Bill Williams Mountain, 

and FR106 which provides access to the Elk Ridge Ski Area. Maintenance level 3 roads have the 

following attributes:

• Subject to the requirements of Highway Safety Act and MUTCD.

• Roads have low- to moderate-traffic volume.

• Typically connect to arterial and collectors roads.

• A combination of dips and culverts provide drainage.

• May include some dispersed recreation roads.

• Potholing or washboarding may occur.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

122 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

It is likely that the majority of ML-1 and ML-2 roads are the result of historic logging practices and usercreated recreational access routes. As a result, many of these roads are inadequately engineered, poorly 

located on the landscape and are consequently in a state of disrepair. Some of these roads are located near 

drainage channels or on ridge tops and are subject to erosion and sediment transport. Roads near 

drainages are contributing to degradation of surface water quality during snowmelt and following short 

duration high intensity monsoon storms. Some roads have eroded to the point where roads surfaces are 

below the grade of the surrounding landscape, resulting in stormwater runon that then pools on road 

surfaces or flows down the travelway eroding the roadbed and entraining sediment in the storm flow. 

Where water pools in road surfaces, rutting is a problem. Where stormwater flows down road surfaces, 

rills and gullies are compromising road surfaces and water quality.

System roads convert productive soils to an essentially non-productive condition in the long-term (i.e., 

greater than fifty years). Most of the precipitation that falls on the compacted surfaces becomes surface 

runoff. Implementation of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) and Soil and Water 

Conservation Practices (SWCPs) as outlined in Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 during road 

construction and maintenance activities facilitates road drying, redirects surface runoff onto undisturbed 

areas of the forest floor, and prevents runoff from entering watercourses. 

Road conditions were reviewed during field assessments. Many roads in the project area would not 

provide adequate access for mechanical vegetation treatments. Rutting, compaction, puddling, and 

erosion were observed on several roads in the project area. In some cases, these conditions were found to 

be adversely impacting water quality as a result of inadequate road surface drainage. 

Water Resources

Watersheds

The Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project occurs within six sixth-level (HUC12) hydrologic units 

or subwatersheds as shown in Figure 3.4.1-5. A watershed condition assessment was recently conducted 

for all subwatersheds in the project area as part of a Forest-level assessment of watershed condition. This 

assessment is used to: 1) prioritize watersheds for restoration, 2) identify specific on-the-ground activities 

and the associated costs to maintain or improve watershed condition, and 3) manage the data 

appropriately. Watershed conditions for the subwatersheds in the Bill Williams Restoration Project 

analysis area were classified using a core set of national watershed condition indicators that were updated 

with local data and interpreted by Forest interdisciplinary (ID) teams. These indicators were grouped 

according to four major ecosystem process categories: (1) aquatic physical; (2) aquatic biological; (3) 

terrestrial physical; and (4) terrestrial biological. These categories represent terrestrial, riparian, and 

riverine ecosystem processes or mechanisms by which management actions can affect the condition of 

watersheds and associated resources. Each indicator was evaluated using a defined set of attributes 

whereby each attribute was scored by the Forest interdisciplinary team as GOOD (1), FAIR (2), or POOR 

(3) using written criteria and rule sets and the best available data and professional judgment. Attribute 

scores for each indicator were summed and averaged to produce an overall indicator score. The indicator 

scores for each ecosystem process category were then averaged to arrive at a process category score. The 

overall watershed condition score is computed as a weighted average of the four process category scores 

based on the relative contribution that each process category provides toward watershed condition. The 

watershed condition scores are tracked to one decimal point and reported as Watershed Condition Classes 

1, 2, or 3. Class 1 scores are from 1 to 1.6 and represent good, or properly functioning condition; class 2 

scores are from 1.7-2.2 and represent fair or functioning at risk condition, and class 3 scores are from 2.3-

3.0 and represent poor or impaired function condition (Potyondy and Geier, 2011). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 123

Twelve core watershed condition indicators were evaluated for the watersheds in the project area. 

Aquatic physical indicators included: 1) water quality condition, 2) water quantity (flow regime) 

condition, and 3) stream and habitat condition. Aquatic biological indicators included: 4) aquatic biota 

condition and 5) riparian vegetation condition. Terrestrial physical indicators included: 6) road and trail 

condition, and 7) soil condition. Terrestrial biological indicators included: 8) fire effect and regime 

condition, 9) forest cover condition, 10) rangeland, grassland and open area condition, 11) terrestrial nonnative invasive species condition, and 12) forest health condition. A summary of watershed conditions 

for the six watersheds in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area is included in Table 3.4.1-7 

below.

Table 3.4.1-7. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, codes, condition ratings, acreages, and associated 

percentages of total project area.

WATERSHED NAME HYDROLOGIC UNIT 

CODE (HUC12)

CONDITION

RATING

WATERSHED

ACRES

PROJECT 

AREA 

ACRES

Cataract Creek 

Headwaters 150100040502 Functioning-at risk 16,694 5,148

Devil Dog Canyon 150602020202 Functioning-at risk 11,192 1,331

Dogtown Wash 150100040501 Functioning-at risk 11,659 816

Johnson Creek 150602010302 Functioning-at risk 30,847 2,719

Meath Wash 150602020203 Properly functioning 37,522 1,639

Upper Hell Canyon 150602020204 Impaired 29,239 6,007

Total 137,153 17,660
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

124 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.4.1-5. Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project in relation to subwatersheds (HUC12).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 125

Table 3.4.1-8 below provides a summary by watershed of indicator ratings that resulted in the 

corresponding watershed condition rating found in Table 3.4.1-7.

 

Table 3.4.1-8. Watrshed condition indicator summary for watersheds that occur in the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project area. 

WATERSHED NAME REASON FOR CONDITION RATING

Cataract Creek Headwaters Functioning at risk due to reduced flows to springs and riparian areas; high road 

density; infrequent road maintenance; private septic systems present

Devil Dog Canyon Functioning at risk due to low road maintenance; many stock tanks present

Dogtown Wash

Functioning at risk due to fire regime departed from reference condition; high 

road density; infrequent road maintenance; cinder pits and septic systems 

present; many stock tanks; 3 water wells and 2 reservoirs present.

Johnson Creek

Functioning at risk due to reduced flows to springs and riparian areas; high road 

density; infrequent road maintenance; many roads near water courses; cinder 

pits present; many stock tanks, 1 well, and 4 reservoirs present.

Meath Wash Infrequent road maintenance; many stock tanks present.

Upper Hell Canyon Impaired due to unsatisfactory soils in watershed; reduced flows to springs and 

riparian areas; high road density; infrequent road maintenance

City of Williams Municipal Watershed 

The City of Williams Municipal Watershed is approximately 26,061 acres in size (Figure 3.4.1-6). Table 

3.4.1-9 below lists the eight subwatersheds and their associated acreages that occur within the Williams 

Municipal Watershed. Two of these subwatersheds, Cataract Creek Headwaters and Dogtown Wash, 

encompass more than 96 percent of the total municipal watershed area. 

 

Table 3.4.1-9. Subwatershed (HUC12) names, acreages, and associated percentages of each that 

comprise the City of Williams Municipal Watershed. (acres are approximate).

WATERSHED 

NAME

HYDROLOGIC 

UNIT NUMBER 

(HUC12)

TOTAL

WATERSHED

ACRES

PERCENT OF 

WILLIAMS 

MUNICIPAL 

WATERSHED

ACRES IN 

PROJECT 

AREA

PERCENT OF 

PROJECT 

AREA

Dogtown Wash 150100040501 10,627 40.8 816 8.7

Cataract Creek 

Headwaters 150100040502 14,616 56.1 5,148 33.8

Upper Red Lake 

Wash

150100040503

 681 2.6 0 0

Upper Cataract 

Creek

150100040504

 23 <0.3 0 0

Johnson Creek 150602010302 70 <0.3 2,719 17.9

Upper Hell Canyon 150602020204 25 <0.3 1,639 10.7

Pitman ValleyScholz Lake150602020305

 3 <0.3 0 0

Big Spring Canyon 150602020307 9 <0.3 0 0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

126 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Citizens of Williams, Arizona depend on the Williams Municipal Watershed as a source of public 

drinking water and for other benefits that multiple use management of this watershed provides. The 

objective in managing the Williams Municipal Watershed is to recognize its water supply values and to 

provide management of its lands and resources to harmonize present and foreseeable resource uses with 

domestic water supply needs, protection of its water supply facilities and protection of the citizens of 

Williams from catastrophic floods (Elson 1972).

Runoff impounded in reservoirs serves as the main water supply for the City of Williams. Seven primary 

reservoirs surrounding the City are the source of surface water for municipal uses. These reservoirs have 

a combined water storage capacity of 2,755 acre-feet (897 million gallons) of water. Approximately 

2,026 acre-feet or 73.6 percent of the available water storage occurs in the two largest impoundments, 

Dogtown Reservoir and Kaibab Lake. However, the majority of the City’s water supply (i.e., 

approximately 90 percent) originates from Dogtown Reservoir and City Dam. Groundwater from wells 

located near Dogtown Reservoir supplements surface water in the City municipal water supply. Table 

3.4.1-10 provides a summary of reservoirs used for the municipal water supply for the City of Williams 

and their associated water storage capacities and percentage of total water storage capacity. Water from 

these reservoirs originates from snow melt and summer precipitation.

The annual water demand of the City of Williams is approximately 198,184,868 gallons or 101.37 acrefeet which includes billed water to customers, unmetered water used at city-owned facilities and 

landscapes, unaccounted-for water, process water used at the drinking water treatment plant, raw water 

used for golf course irrigation, and reclaimed water used for golf course irrigation. Process water used at 

the drinking water treatment plant is non-potable raw water used for filter backwash, sediment removal, 

and chemical feed, which amounts to approximately four percent additional water above total production 

(Pinkham and Davis 2002). Since the City of Williams does not recycle this water back into the water 

supply system, it is considered a water use. Monthly municipal water demand is highly variable. 

However, the months of highest water demand are typically June, July, and August of most years. Water 

demand is lowest during winter months and increases through spring, with highest usage occurring during 

summer. There has been an upward trend (11 percent) in water usage by the City of Williams between 

2005 and 2010. 

Table3.4.1-10. Reservoirs, associated water storage capacities, and percentages of total municipal 

surface water in the City of Williams Municipal Watershed.

RESERVOIR NAME WATER STORAGE 

CAPACITY

(Million Gallons)

WATER STORAGE 

CAPACITY

(Acre-Feet)

PERCENT OF TOTAL 

WATER STORAGE 

CAPACITY

Dogtown Reservoir 360 1,105 40.2

Kaibab Lake 300 921 33.4

Cataract Lake 109 335 12.2

Santa Fe Reservoir 70 215 7.8

City Dam 36 111 4.0

Upper and Lower Saginaw 22 68 2.4
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 127

Figure3.4.1-6. Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area in relation to the City of Williams 

Municipal Watershed 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

128 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Water that enters reservoirs either remains in storage, is withdrawn for use, is lost through dam spillage, 

or is lost through evaporation and infiltration. Evaporation and infiltration from the reservoirs is 

substantial every year. These losses exceed the city’s current annual water use (Pinkham and Davis 

2002). When the reservoirs are full, they provide a 2.5 year water supply, given current average rates of 

water use. A two year drought results in significant stress on the City of Williams surface water supply. 

This occurred in 1996-1997, and again in 1999-2000. Most of the water lost as spillage from reservoirs is 

lost from the water supply system. Although Kaibab Lake is downstream from Dogtown Reservoir on the 

same drainage, or stream channel, it is usually filled by surface runoff at approximately the same rate as 

Dogtown Reservoir. Most of the water that spills from Dogtown Reservoir is therefore subsequently 

spilled from Kaibab Lake (Thomsen 1969).

Since the 1996-1997 drought, the City of Williams has aggressively pursued development of reliable 

groundwater supplies. This program exemplifies the risks and costs of groundwater supply development 

in the region. The first well boring targeted a expected perched aquifer at 500-600 feet deep located west 

of the City. The well was dry. A second attempt, below the Santa Fe Dam, resulted in technical 

difficulties at approximately 2,000 feet of depth and was subsequently abandoned. A third attempt nearby 

struck water at 1,400 feet. This well is now producing at a peak flow of 110-120 gallons per minute 

(GPM), but only 20-25 GPM at maximum pumpage for more than 12 hours. A fourth boring on KNF 

Land in the vicinity of Dogtown Reservoir was also successful and now produces 220-240 GPM. The 

most recently developed well was drilled on the city’s rodeo grounds. This well produces approximately 

220-230 GPM. The Dogtown and rodeo grounds wells are over 3,000 feet deep. To date, Williams has 

spent roughly seven million dollars for three producing wells and three dry wells. The three successful 

wells produce a combined 500 GPM. Williams intends to continue well development in coming years, 

depending on the City’s growth rate.

Some regional water stakeholders, including the Havasupai Tribe, have expressed concern regarding 

impacts of the City of Williams well development program on springs and seeps in the Grand Canyon 

area. The City of Williams and the Havasupai Tribe have entered into an agreement regarding regional 

ground water management and water conservation efforts by the City of Williams. The agreement 

includes discussions of tribal sovereignty, the significance of the Coconino Plateau to the tribe, the 

importance of water on the Coconino Plateau, the importance of water conservation, and the affect of 

drought on the water resources of the City of Williams. Specific agreement clauses address conditions 

under which the tribe would not contest or may contest well permits from the U.S. Forest Service and the 

city’s right to respond to opposition, monitoring of well levels and production, restrictions on provision of 

water by the city to residents outside the city, city opposition to Coconino County allowing home 

development in areas without water supply, mutual support for development of other water supplies, 

mutual opposition to large-scale development proposals that rely on groundwater development, 

continuation of water conservation efforts by the City of Williams, and the City’s support in principle for 

the tribe’s position that any decrease to the natural flow of Havasu Creek cannot be tolerated (Pinkham 

and Davis 2002).

Water Quality

Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires states to assess and report on the water quality status of 

waters within the states. Section 303(d) requires states to list waters that are not attaining water quality 

standards. This is also known as the list of impaired waters. This information is reported to Congress on a 

nationwide basis. Arizona Department of Environmental Quality is responsible for conducting 

monitoring, assessment, reporting under CWA Sections 303(d) and 305(b), and TMDL development for 

the State of Arizona.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 129

Arizona's most recent Integrated Report (305(b) Water Quality Assessment and 303(d) list) is available 

from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ). The Arizona Impaired Waters List can 

be found at:

http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/assessment/download/2008/2006_2008.pdf

There are no perennial running waters within the project area; there is therefore no surface water quality 

data for the project area. No water bodies are listed as impaired within the project area on the Arizona 

2006/2008 Impaired Waters List. 

Stream Channels

Due to the relatively steep terrain, the Bill Williams Mountain vicinity exhibits a radial drainage pattern 

with high-gradient ephemeral and intermittent drainages flowing in all directions from the upper slopes of 

Bill Williams Mountain. Approximately 68.92 miles of streamcourses occur within the analysis area, 

with none having riparian reaches. Most of the streamcourses in the proposed project area are best 

characterized as ephemeral, or dry washes. However, three drainages that exhibit intermittent flow do 

occur within the project area. These include Cataract Creek, Dogtown Wash, and West Cataract Creek. 

These washes flow primarily during spring snowmelt and, to a lesser extent, during the summer monsoon. 

Refer to Table 1 in Appendix A of the Soils and Watershed Specialist’s Report for a summary of stream 

reaches and their associated lengths and names within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

area.

Wetlands and Springs

There are 32 livestock ponds, reservoirs, and natural depressions within the project boundary that 

impound water for a sufficient duration to exhibit some wetland characteristics and are therefore listed in 

the National Wetlands Inventory database of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Table 3.4.1-11 lists 

these water bodies and their associated size and wetland habitat classification. Twenty one of the listed 

water bodies occur on the Kaibab National Forest while eleven (highlighted in the table) occur on other 

land ownerships inside the overall project boundary.

Table3.4.1-11. Wildlife and livestock watering ponds and reservoirs within the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project area. (acreages are approximate)

NAME WETLAND HABITAT CLASSIFICATION SIZE 

(Ac.)

LOCATION

Bear Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 0.13

112°14’14.97” W

35°11’11.87” N

Berham Tank No. 

1

Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally 

flooded, diked/impounded 1.14

112°10’23.54” W

35°11’58.29” N

Berham Tank No. 

2

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 0.61

112°10’26.83” W

35°12’1.01” N

Bixler Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, diked/impounded 0.15

112°13’28.31” W

35°11’42.63” N

Black Mesa Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, diked/impounded 0.41

112°13’51.29” W

35°10’13.57” N

Borrow Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 0.35

112°12’41.92” W

35°10’19.10” N

Caffrey Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, excavated 0.08

112°16’15.61” W

35°10’14.28” N
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

130 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

NAME WETLAND HABITAT CLASSIFICATION SIZE 

(Ac.)

LOCATION

City Reservoir

Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, 

permanently flooded, diked/impounded 6.14

112°11’24.62” W

35°13’57.30” N

Coyote Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, excavated 0.43

112°10’41.69” W

35°10’56.21” N

EK Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, excavated 0.31

112°16’0.66” W

35°10’42.48” N

FS Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 0.13

112°13’10.63” W

35°14’10.39” N

Hat Tank No. 1

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 0.19

112°15’40.24” W

35°12’21.91” N

Hat Tank No. 2

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, diked/impounded 0.07

112°15’38.90” W

35°12’23.17” N

Heiffer No. 1

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, excavated 0.15

112°15’56.05” W

35°10’33.87” N

Heiffer No. 2

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, excavated 0.08

112°15’56.19” W

35°10’32.42” N

JC Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 0.41 

112°15’10.81” W

35°9’51.38” N

JJ Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, diked/impounded 0.19

112°14’6.70” W

35°9’44.63” N

Saginaw 

Reservoir 1

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 1.40

112°11’20.34” W

35°14’25.52” N

Saginaw 

Reservoir 2

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, diked/impounded 1.93

112°11’20.96” W

35°14’18.89” N

Mesa Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, diked/impounded 0.63

112°11’6.25” W

35°10’20.69” N

Mountain Spring 

Tank No. 1

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, excavated 0.17

112°13’22.87” W

35°14’09.21” N

Mountain Spring 

Tank No. 1

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, excavated 0.12

112°13’26.21” W

35°14’09.32” N

Santa Fe 

Reservoir

(Upper Portion)

Palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved 

deciduous, temporarily flooded, 

diked/impounded 0.59

112°11’0.15” W

35°14’15.35” N

Santa Fe 

Reservoir

(Lower Portion)

Palustrine, unconsolidated bottom, 

permanently flooded, diked/impounded 14.12

112°11’5.52” W

35°14’25.73” N

Stump Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, excavated 0.14

112°16’34.61” W

35°12’49.32” N

Unnamed

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, excavated 0.13

112°10’33.02” W

35°13’27.55” N

Unnamed

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, excavated 0.21

112°15’45.16” W

35°10’29.25” N

Unnamed

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

intermittently flooded, diked/impounded 0.21

112°11’58.54” W

35°14’45.19” N

Unnamed

Palustrine, emergent, persistent, temporarily 

flooded, diked/impounded 0.69

112°10’42.27” W

35°13’39.15” N
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 131

NAME WETLAND HABITAT CLASSIFICATION SIZE 

(Ac.)

LOCATION

Unnamed

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

temporarily flooded, diked/impounded 0.12

112°10’13.28” W

35°12’55.41” N

Unnamed

Palustrine, emergent, persistent, seasonally 

flooded, diked/impounded 0.63

112°13’14.49” W

35°14’12.84” N

XA Tank

Palustrine, unconsolidated shore, 

seasonally flooded, excavated 0.21

112°15’56.10” W

35°10’22.11” N

There are three known springs located within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project analysis 

area. These include Clover Spring (112°12’12.94”W, 35°13’53.48”N), Bennett Spring (112°12’46.80”W, 

35°13’52.94”N), and Andrews Spring (112°15’22.76”W, 35°9’33.18”N). There is no information 

available regarding historic flow or water quality from these springs. The springs are best characterized 

as rheocrene – they flow directly from the ground resulting in a small stream. The three springs were 

surveyed on October 13, 2011 to assess spring conditions. Clover Spring has been altered through 

installation of a spring box. This infrastructure helps protect the spring source from potential 

contamination. Clover Spring flows for approximately 35 feet from the spring box to a small, oblong 

basin approximately 6 feet long and 4 feet wide. Water continues to flow at the surface for an additional 

45-50 feet in a narrow channel before water infiltrates into the soil. Hydrophytic (i.e., wetland) 

vegetation occurs within and along the fringe of the channel and for an additional 15-20 feet below the 

location where surface flow terminates. Bennett Spring is undeveloped with no surface flow evident at 

the time of site investigation. Andrews Spring is also undeveloped with no observed surface flow at time 

of site visit. It is possible that Bennett and Andrews Springs flow only after winter snowpack has 

recharged groundwater and during or shortly after the summer monsoon season. 

Flood Zones

Flood zones are geographic areas defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 

according to varying levels of flood risk. These zones are depicted on a community's Flood Insurance 

Rate Map (FIRM) or Flood Hazard Boundary Map. Each zone reflects the severity or type of flooding in 

the area. Moderate to low risk areas in the project vicinity are identified as flood zone X and C and X. 

Flood zones B and X are defined as areas of moderate flood hazard, usually these areas are between the 

limits of the 100-year and 500-year floods. These designations include base floodplains of lesser hazards, 

such as areas protected by levees from 100-year flood, or shallow flooding areas with average depths of 

less than one foot or drainage areas less than 1 square mile. Flood zones C and X are areas of minimal 

flood hazard, usually depicted on FIRMs as above the 500-year flood level. High risk areas are 

designated as zones A, AE, AH, and AO. Flood zone A includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of 

flooding and a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 30-year mortgage. Because detailed 

analyses are not performed for such areas; no depths or base flood elevations are shown within these 

zones. Flood zone AE are areas of the base floodplain where base flood elevations are provided. Flood 

zone AH includes areas with a 1 percent annual chance of shallow flooding, usually in the form of a pond, 

with an average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over the 

life of a 30-year mortgage. Base flood elevations derived from detailed analyses are shown at selected 

intervals within these zones. Flood zones AO are river or stream flood hazard areas, and areas with a 1 

percent or greater chance of shallow flooding each year, usually in the form of sheet flow, with an 

average depth ranging from 1 to 3 feet. These areas have a 26 percent chance of flooding over the life of a 

30-year mortgage. Average flood depths derived from detailed analyses are shown within these zones. 

 

Within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project boundary, there are approximately 17,511 acres of 

flood zone X (minimal flood hazard), 68 acres of flood zone A (high flood risk, depth and base flood 

elevation unknown) and 69 acres of flood zone AE (high flood risk, depth and base flood elevation 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

132 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

known). Flood zone A is located in the southwestern portion of the project area and is associated with 

Devil Dog Canyon. Flood zone AE is located near the northeastern boundary of the project area in the 

City of Williams and is associated with Cataract Creek.

3.4.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

Direct effects of an action are caused by the action and occur on site and affect only the area where they 

occur. Indirect effects are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but 

are still reasonably foreseeable. In general, direct and indirect effects to soils and forest hydrology as a 

result of the Action Alternatives include: 

• Reduction of the forest canopy would decrease interception (precipitation captured by leaves, 

branches, and boles) and increases net precipitation reaching the soil surface.

• Partial removal of the forest overstory reduces transpiration (water lost from plants to the 

atmosphere).

• Reductions in interception and transpiration increase soil moisture content, water available for 

plant uptake, and water yield.

• Increased soil moisture and loss of root biomass can reduces slope stability.

• Increases in water yield after forest thinning are transitory and decrease over time as forests 

regrow unless subsequent treatments maintain initial post-treatment conditions.

• When young, dense forests with high interception rates (or higher annual transpiration losses) 

replace mature forests with lower interception rates (or lower transpiration losses), water yield is 

reduced until the young forest matures and thins naturally or is thinned in treatments.

• Impervious surfaces (roads and trails) and altered hillslope contours (cutslopes and fillslopes) 

modify water flowpaths, increase overland flow, and deliver overland flow directly to stream 

channels.

• Impervious native surfaces increase soil erosion.

• Altered hillslope contours and modified water flowpaths along roads increase risk of landslides.

Alternative 1 – No Action

Since no activities are proposed under Alternative 1, there would be no direct or indirect effects to soils or 

watershed conditions as a result of this Alternative. Trends indicate that fuel loading would continue to 

increase in both living biomass and woody detritus through natural forest ingrowth and tree encroachment 

into existing openings, resulting in increased risk of high severity wildfire. Ingrown understories can 

create ‘ladder fuels’ which allow ground fires to ascend and spread quickly as crown fires. Coarse woody 

debris would be expected to increase over time as small, medium, and large diameter material falls to soil 

surfaces and begins to decay. While the increased organic matter would improve soil quality in some 

regards (organic matter accumulation in subsurface horizons, microhabitat for soil organisms, increased 

short-term water holding capacity, improved nutrient status, etc.) it would also result in an increased risk 

of high severity wildfires where fuel loading becomes excessive. The location, size and intensity of 

future wildfires cannot be estimated with reasonable accuracy, although some generalizations can be 

made. High intensity wildfires tend to occur in areas where fuel loading and fuel distributions are 

sufficient to carry a fire. Typically, uncontrolled wildfires occur during the drier times of the year, 

yielding higher severity fires than would occur under prescribed fire conditions. The adverse effects of a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 133

high severity fire, such as the loss of forest floor organic matter, increased soil erosion, and changes in 

soil biota would be more widespread in an uncontrolled wildfire than under prescribed fire conditions 

where the size and intensity of the fire can be controlled. The primary impact of high intensity fire on soil 

productivity is the removal of surface organic matter, exposing soils to erosion by wind and rain. If 

surface organic matter is reduced (as happens with a high-intensity, long-duration fire) the cation 

exchange capacity, a measure of soil fertility, is also reduced and the ability of the soil to retain nutrients 

leached from ash decreases. 

There have been many examples of recent catastrophic wildfires occurring in the southwestern United 

States in areas that were originally open, fire-maintained forests (Rodeo-Chediski, Schultz, Horseshoe 2, 

Wallow, Las Conchas, etc.). Such events can have profound negative effect to soil properties and 

watershed conditions including: a) decreased soil productivity through loss of nutrient sources, b) soil 

hydrophobicity (i.e. the inability of soils to absorb water following precipitation resulting in increased 

overland flow c) increased susceptibility of soils to erosion by both wind and rainfall, d) sediment 

delivery to stream channels, e) surface water quality degradation, and f) downstream flooding, to name a 

few. Large stand-replacing fires on the Kaibab National Forest historically have 10-25% of the burn 

acreage exhibiting high severity fire conditions. Therefore, if a 10,000 acre wildfire were to occur within 

the analysis area, approximately 1,000 to 2,500 acres of high severity fire would be expected to adversely 

affect soil properties.

The introduction of weeds and unwanted flora following a wildfire could lead to increased competition 

between less desirable invasive and noxious weeds and desirable native vegetation. Weeds can increase 

erosion, reduce soil moisture, and deplete nutrient levels (DiTomaso 2000). Because the roots of many 

noxious weeds are deeper than native grasses, they also contribute less organic matter near the soil 

surface than native vegetation.

Under the No Action alternative, there would be no obliteration of roads that are currently contributing to 

loss of soil productivity and degradation of water quality. These roads would remain at risk of 

unauthorized use, further contributing to soil destabilization, loss of productivity, and adverse impacts to 

surface water quality. Ongoing road maintenance of ML-2 and ML-3 roads within the project area would 

continue as it has in the past.

This alternative would result in no additional acres of ground disturbance from mechanical vegetation 

treatments, piling of activity-related woody debris, construction and maintenance of permanent or 

temporary roads, construction and maintenance of trails and trailheads, fireline clearing, and the use of 

prescribed fire. 

Direct and Indirect Effects to Soils and Water Resources Common to All Action Alternatives

Potential effects of the Action Alternatives on soil productivity would include soil compaction, puddling, 

displacement, erosion, areas of high soil burn severity, loss of soil organic matter, short-term changes in 

soil moisture content, changes in nutrient cycles, changes in soil fauna, and introduction of invasive and 

noxious weeds. These effects can result from mechanical and non-mechanical vegetation treatments (i.e., 

forest thinning), mechanical and non-mechanical piling of activity-related debris, fireline installation, use 

of prescribed fire, fuelwood gathering, and road construction, maintenance, and obliteration activities. 

Mechanical forest vegetation treatments and fuelwood gathering have the potential to adversely affect 

water quality through introduction of sediment and additional nutrients from decomposing woody debris, 

particularly in thinned areas adjacent to stream courses. Implementation of BMPs and SWCPs as 

specified in Table 3.4.4-1 would minimize adverse impacts to soils and water quality from these 

activities.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

134 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soil compaction, puddling and displacement would primarily be limited to the transportation systems and 

high traffic areas within mechanical vegetation treatments such as existing National Forest System roads, 

temporary access roads, skid trails, log landings, debris piling areas, and areas where fireline construction 

and dispersed fuelwood gathering occur. Road closures and curtailment of mechanical vegetation 

treatments during wet weather conditions, implementation of timing restrictions for fuelwood gathering 

during wet weather, and designation of authorized access routes (skid trails and temporary roads) and log 

landing sites within the project area prior to project implementation would minimize adverse effects to 

soil productivity caused by these activities. With implementation of applicable BMPs and SWCPs as 

outlined in Table 3.4.4-1, most adverse effects to soils would be minimized or mitigated. Additionally, 

pedoturbation of soils caused by seasonal wetting and drying, freezing and thawing, and soil organism 

activity would naturally ameliorate some adverse effects to soils caused by the proposed Action 

Alternatives.

The effects of the proposed forest restoration activities on erosion and sediment yields depend on methods 

and equipment used, skills of the equipment operators and personnel conducting the treatments, sitespecific conditions, storm event timing and intensity, and prescribed fire locations and burn severities. 

The risk of short-term accelerated soil erosion would be expected to increase in areas where forest 

thinning and use of prescribed fire results in soil disturbance or complete removal of vegetative ground 

cover. These areas are expected to include skid trails, log landings, temporary access roads, cable yarding 

corridors, obliterated roads, areas where dispersed fuelwood gathering occurs, installed firelines and 

strategic fuels treatment areas to support prescribed burning efforts, and National Forest System roads. 

Since forest vegetation treatments would be conducted using both mechanical and non-mechanical means, 

adverse impacts to soils resulting from vegetation treatments would be minimized or mitigated to the 

greatest extent practicable through use of appropriate treatment methods and machinery designed for sitespecific conditions. As previously noted, operability zones have been developed to illustrate the 

operational feasibility of mechanical treatments. Operability zones share common attributes such as 

topography (slope steepness) and terrain (surface roughness) and therefore guide the type of harvesting 

operation and equipment to be used within each zone. With appropriate and effective implementation of 

BMPs and SWCPs as outlined in Table 3.4.4-1, most adverse effects to soil productivity caused by forest 

vegetation treatments would be minimized or mitigated. 

The removal of forest cover can decrease raindrop interception and evapotranspiration, which can 

increase water yields from treated areas (Bosch and Hewlett 1982, Stednick 1996). In areas where the 

annual precipitation is less than 20 in (500 mm), removal of the forest canopy does not typically increase 

annual water yields (Bosch and Hewlett 1982). In drier areas, such as the proposed project site, the 

decrease in interception and transpiration caused by forest thinning is usually offset by the increase in soil 

evaporative losses, resulting in no net change in runoff as long as factors affecting runoff processes are 

not changed (for example, soil compaction which causes a shift from subsurface flow to overland flow) 

(MacDonald and Stednick 2003). Evapotranspiration rapidly recovers with vegetative regrowth in 

partially thinned forests. Increases in runoff due to thinning operations rarely persist for more than 5 to 

10 years.

Thinning of forest cover on soils currently characterized as unsatisfactory would improve soil conditions 

over the long-term by improving soil moisture and allowing greater sunlight penetration to the forest floor 

(i.e., sunflecks) resulting in an increase in grasses, forbs and shrubs in the forest understory. The 

increased herbaceous vegetation would reduce soil erosion rates by providing vegetative and litter ground 

cover that would intercept rain before it can reach soil surfaces and detach and entrain soil particles in 

runoff water. Woody debris from forest thinning (i.e., slash) would be lopped and scattered where doing 

so would not result in excessive fuel loads and increased wildfire risk, further mitigating potential adverse 

effects to these soils. Fine woody debris that is incidental to forest vegetation treatments (i.e., needles, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 135

leaves, twigs, cones, bark, etc.) would also remain on the ground following mechanical treatments to 

protect soil surfaces from wind and water erosion.

Prescribed fire has the potential to impact water quality by increasing sediments, dissolved solids, and 

nutrients in streams. Dissolved nutrients in stream flow primarily originate from weathering of parent 

materials and soils, decomposition of plant material and other organic matter, and anthropogenic sources. 

Vegetative communities accumulate and cycle nutrients (Tiedemann et al. 1979, 1980). Fire can disrupt 

nutrient cycling and cause nutrient volatilization, leaching, and transformations. When vegetation is 

consumed by fire, some of the soil and organic matter nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus, copper, 

iron, manganese, and zinc are volatilized and lost from the system, while other nutrients such as calcium, 

magnesium, and potassium are converted into oxides and accumulated in ash (DeBano et al. 1998).

The mobility and concentration of nutrients in soils determines whether or not nearby water sources are at 

risk of contamination when prescribed fire is used. Nitrate is highly mobile and is therefore subject to 

risk of being leached from burned areas and transported to either surface or ground water. Phosphorus 

adsorbs readily to sediment and organic materials. Thus, phosphorus is usually transported to streams and 

water bodies through soil erosion. Rates of soil erosion and phosphorus contamination are generally 

dependent on soil characteristics and topographic relief of the site. 

Prescribed fire has the potential to alter short- and long-term soil productivity and moisture content by 

changing the amount and type of vegetation, the amount of forest floor organic matter, and surface soil 

texture and wettability. Prescribed fires typically leave greater amounts of organic matter (duff, forest 

litter, and large and small woody debris) on soil surfaces than uncontrolled fires. These materials serve as 

nutrient sinks, prevent soil particle detachment caused by raindrop impact, and capture sediments that 

would otherwise be transported to stream channels and waterbodies. Following low-intensity prescribed 

fires, an increase in grasses and other herbaceous vegetation often occurs. This rapid regrowth of ground 

cover further immobilizes nutrients in plant material.

Prescribed fires that remove large amounts vegetation from a site have potential to alter watershed 

hydrology. As vegetation is removed, evapotranspiration in the watershed decreases, thus providing 

greater stream flow and overall water yield within the watershed. Water uptake from trees is speciesspecific. Conifers, which are the dominant vegetation type within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project area, generally transpire greater quantities of water than hardwoods such as oaks and aspen. 

Dense foliage and longer growing seasons promote the higher overall water uptake in conifers. 

Additionally, conifers have relatively dense crowns that intercept rainfall and allow for greater 

evaporative losses. 

Once a site has undergone loss of vegetation and removal of the litter layer, surface water can cause 

erosion problems and result in higher stream discharges. Fires not only consume portions of the litter 

layer, but at high temperatures fires can also cause hydrophobic soil conditions, thus making soils more 

susceptible to erosion. DeBano and Krammes (1966) and Robichaud (2000) observed that water 

repellency was dependent on the heating temperatures of the soils. At typical wildfire soil profile 

temperatures (less than 500°F) when the soil was dry, soil hydrophobicity occurs at shallow depths (less 

than 1 inch). When soils are moist (i.e. conditions that commonly occur during prescribed fire in the 

spring and fall), soil hydrophobicity was less pronounced and only occurred after long heating times 

which would typically only occur during smoldering fires. Therefore, soil hydrophobicity under a 

prescribed fire scenario would likely be minimal throughout the majority of the treatment area.

Fire in southwestern ponderosa pine forests has been shown to generally increase soil moisture content 

(Ryan and Covington 1986, Ower 1985, Haase 1986). In a review of literature, Hungerford and others 

(1991) reported that burning can kill many kinds of bacteria, fungi and arthropods but the extent of this 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

136 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

effect is dependent on the amount of heat generated by the fire and soil moisture content. To what extent 

these changes result in an impairment or degradation of soil productivity is not clearly understood. 

Hungerford suggests that low to moderate intensity prescribed fires may have minimal long-term negative 

effect on soil microorganisms. Kaye and Hart (1998) found that microbial nitrogen transformation rates 

increased under restored forest conditions, relative to the controls, suggesting higher microbial activity in 

the restored areas. Neary and others (1999) caution against the adverse effects to soil microorganisms 

caused by fires that become intense or are too frequent. Researchers have recommended maintaining soil 

carbon pools to maintain biologic activity (Stark and Hart, 1997), and recommend maintaining 

heterogeneity in burned areas to provide suitable sites from which the microflora and microfauna can 

reestablish in burned areas (Moldenke, 1999). Prescribed fires proposed under the action alternatives are 

expected to be of low severity with small areas of medium and high severity, retaining unburned islands 

and creating a mosaic of fire effects. Low and medium severity fires burn only a portion of the surface 

organic matter – leaving adequate soil cover over much of the burned area. In general, low severity 

prescribed fire does not cause excessive erosion or sediment transport since soil cover is retained in a 

discontinuous pattern across the landscape. This type of prescribed fire would not have a long-term 

adverse impact on soil moisture content or biota. The increase in understory vegetation would improve 

long term soil structure and porosity through increased fine root volume and vegetative litter, which are 

important habitat components for soil fauna that then incorporate organic matter into soil profiles and 

facilitate nutrient cycling. 

Installation of firelines where they do not currently exist would expose soil surfaces, increasing the risk of 

erosion by both wind and rain. Areas of high severity fire may consume forest floor organic matter, 

leaving soil surfaces hydrophobic (i.e., repellant to water) and susceptible to erosion. Initially, the 

greatest risk of soil erosion would be expected to occur in areas where prescribed fire is implemented 

prior to forest thinning treatments. This is due to greater amounts of woody debris on the ground, higher 

stand densities and crown bulk densities at these locations, resulting in increased risk of high severity fire. 

Rehabilitation of firelines installed during prescribed burning would minimize adverse impacts to soil 

productivity from fireline installation. Implementing prescribed burning under conditions that would 

minimize high severity fire would minimize areas where soil organic matter is totally consumed and 

prevent hydrophobic soil conditions.

Piling of activity-related debris (slash) would disturb soil surfaces, exposing them to direct raindrop 

impact and wind. On steep terrain this would increase localized, short-term erosion rates in areas where 

pile burning is conducted. These areas will constitute a very small percentage of the overall treatment 

area (i.e., less than 5 percent), so these impacts are expected to be minor. Use of appropriate BMPs and 

SWCPs as outlined in Table 3.4.4-1 would mitigate most adverse effects from piling of woody debris 

created during forest thinning operations. Additionally, use of excavators with hydraulic bucket thumb 

attachments would minimize soil disturbance resulting from machine piling more effectively than dozer 

piling.

Burning of slash piles has been shown to negatively affect soil biotic and chemical properties due to 

intense soil heating (Korb et al, 2004 and Seymour and Tecle, 2004). It can result in soil sterilization, 

increased erosion risk and an increased risk of invasive and noxious weeds that displace native vegetation. 

Pile burning sites would constitute a very small portion of the project area (i.e., less than 5 percent). 

Monitoring of these sites for the presence of invasive or noxious weeds following pile burning, and 

treatment of any infestations found would mitigate most adverse effects to soils caused by pile burning of 

slash.

Soil organic matter serves as the long-term nutrient supply for all vegetation occupying a site. It also 

provides microhabitat for most soil organisms and improves soil chemical and physical properties 

including soil aggregate stability, increased porosity, improved water holding capacity, lower bulk 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 137

densities, and nutrient cycling. Initially, there would be an expected short-term increase in soil organic 

matter as a result of mechanical vegetation treatments as woody debris is deposited on soil surfaces 

during treatments. Forest thinning would also allow greater light penetration to soil surfaces resulting in 

warmer soil temperatures. The reduction in tree vegetative cover as a result of forest thinning would 

decrease evapotranspiration rates and therefore increase soil moisture. Warmer soil temperatures and 

greater soil moisture content would result in increased soil biological activity. Increased soil biological 

activity results in a proportional decrease in soil organic matter as organisms consume soil detritus. The 

eventual increase in understory vegetation would result in increased litterfall and deposition of organic 

matter onto soil surfaces. Broadcast prescribed fire would result in rapid oxidation of surface organic 

matter and living understory biomass, causing a release or transformation of some soil nutrients. 

Runoff from road surfaces can detach and transport the fine material from road prisms and ditches. 

Sediment delivery directly from road surfaces to water courses is difficult to estimate since it occurs as 

non-point runoff. Sediments delivered to streams from roadside ditches may have originated from sheet 

or rill erosion prior to entering road surfaces or drainage ditches. In the absence of vehicle traffic, 

sediment concentrations in road runoff decreases over time. However, vehicle traffic, particularly trucks, 

can pulverize road surface aggregates, resulting in more fine particles that are easily transported in runoff. 

Additionally, the pressure of vehicular tires on saturated road surfaces can force fine particles from below 

the surface to move upward to the surface (Truebe and Evans 1994). Road proximity and connectivity to 

drainages can strongly influence sediment delivery to watercourses and peak flows in streams. Roads 

within the project area intersect numerous ephemeral drainages. These points of intersection occur as 

both culverted crossings and low-water crossings. Road-stream intersections are the primary location 

where sediments are delivered to stream courses.

Approximately 28 miles of poorly located and infrequently maintained roads would be decommissioned 

under all Action Alternatives. Road decommissioning would entail obliteration whereby road surfaces 

would be ripped and seeded or mulched, inside ditches would be filled, road prisms outsloped, culverts 

and fill materials removed, stream crossings re-contoured, unstable sidecast or cutslopes removed or 

stabilized, and entrances blocked to prevent future access. These activities would return unproductive or 

marginally productive soils to a more stable, productive status over the long term by improving water 

infiltration and vegetative ground cover and reducing erosion hazards. Sixteen stream crossings would be 

returned to a more natural condition, thus reducing runoff and sediment delivery into ephemeral stream 

channels. Adverse impacts to surface water quality caused by stormwater runoff from road surfaces 

would also be minimized. Current erosion rates for roads proposed for obliteration are at or above 

tolerance erosion rates. Upon completion of road obliteration activities, erosion rates for these roads are 

expected to approach natural erosion rates for TEUs where these roads occur. Approximately 40 acres 

currently occupied by roads would be returned to productive status under all Action Alternatives. Table 

3.4.2-2 summarizes TES units and their associated acreages and erosion hazard ratings that would be 

improved through road obliteration. Based on the values in Table 3.4.2-2, an estimated 100 tons of soil 

loss per year could be eliminated as a result of road obliteration activities. With implementation of 

appropriate BMPs and SWCPS as outlined in Table 3.4.4-1, sediment delivery to water courses from road 

construction and maintenance can be minimized, but not eliminated entirely. 

An additional indirect effect may result from the spraying of noxious weeds as a mitigation measure prior 

to or following proposed vegetation treatments that may affect water quality, however the lack of 

perennial flowing water in the analysis area limits direct effects of spraying. The effects of spraying 

noxious weeds are covered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of 

Noxious or Invasive Weeds (2005).

While there would likely be some short-term, localized adverse effects to watersheds from the Action 

Alternatives in the project area in the form of increased runoff from treated areas, increased sediment 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

138 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

delivery to ephemeral drainages, and increased turbidity in surface water; long-term direct and indirect 

effects to watersheds would be improved of soil and watershed function due to greater ground cover of 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs which would improve soil stability, water holding capacity, increase sediment 

capture in surface runoff, and minimize runon to travelways and roadside ditches. Since treatments 

would be temporally sequenced (i.e., not occurring simultaneously, but instead implemented over time), 

the likelihood of large-scale soil erosion or sediment delivery to streams is minimal.

Table 3.4.2-2. Predicted soil erosion hazard by TEU where road obliteration would occur within the 

Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Analysis Area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are 

approximate)

MAP 

UNIT

EROSION 

HAZARD

CURRENT 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

TOLERANCE 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

POTENTIAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

NATURAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

ACRES

300 Moderate 2.35 2.71 13.56 0.28 0.75

304 Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0.04 2.93

310 Moderate 1.70 2.71 12.38 0.68 7.26

320 Severe 1.94 1.82 16.75 0.36 0.13

322 Severe 1.42 2.71 19.59 0.44 0.33

324 Slight 0.20 2.71 0.93 0.04 24.16

401 Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0.04 1.14

402 Moderate 1.70 2.71 9.96 0.26 0.39

507 Slight 0.16 2.71 0.28 0.00 0.21

518 Slight 0.24 1.82 0.61 0.04 0.05

519 Slight 0.20 1.82 25.09 0.00 0.88

525 Severe 3.40 2.71 0.61 0.23 0.35

537 Slight 0.12 2.71 0.61 0.00 0.40

658 Slight 0.12 2.71 1.58 0.04 0.94

659 Moderate 2.71 2.71 24.04 0.52 0.17

660 Severe 1.86 2.71 14.29 0.33 0.16

Total 40.26

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Forest thinning

Under the Proposed Action, ground based logging systems would be used to treat up to 11,000 acres on 

slopes less than 40 percent in operability zones 1, 2, and 6 and approximately 200 acres in operability 

zones 3 and 4. Cable yarding would be employed in operability zone 5 to treat approximately 350 acres 

and helicopter logging would be used in operability zone 7 to treat up to 3,500 acres. Ground disturbing 

activities such as construction and maintenance of permanent and temporary roads, clearing of log 

landings, and use of skid trails and cable yarding corridors would be necessary to effectively implement 

mechanical treatments. 

Approximately 23 miles of permanent roads, 16 miles of temporary roads, 230 acres of log landings 

(based on an estimated average of one log landing of 0.25 acres in size per 12 acres of land treated), and 

1,377 miles (1,669 acres) of skid trails and cable yarding corridors (based on estimated area of 

disturbance of 15 percent) would be necessary in these seven operability zones to complete proposed 

mechanical vegetation treatments. Cable yarding corridors are estimated to be 12 feet wide with 80 feet 

between corridors. Additionally, helicopter logging would require a log landing of approximately 2 acres 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 139

in size and a service landing for helicopter fueling and maintenance of approximately 1 acre.

Mechanized felling can disturb and compact soils, and the use of such machines is a potential source of 

erosion. However, since felling machines do not skid logs on the ground, they typically produce less 

potential for soil erosion than tractor or rubber-tired log skidders. The effects of felling on soil erosion 

rates are not usually studied independent of skidding and yarding. Soil disturbance caused by trees 

striking the ground during felling is generally considered negligible. 

Soil erosion rates resulting from forest thinning treatments tend to be positively correlated with the 

percentage of bare soil and the amount of surface soil disturbance, and these two factors are typically 

proportional to the number of trees being harvested (Haupt and Kidd 1965). In general, soil erosion rates 

are acceptably low when the proportion of bare soil is less than 30 percent (Robichaud 2010, BenavidesSolorio and MacDonald 2005; Swank et al 1989). In northern New Mexico, a series of rainfall 

simulations (6 in per hr. for one hour on successive days) was performed on control plots, lightly thinned 

plots with the slash piled, and lightly thinned plots with the slash scattered (Madrid 2005). The results 

indicate that thinning had no effect on runoff or the amount of bare soil, but the mean sediment yields 

from the second (wet) simulation on the thinned plots was up to three times higher than the mean 

sediment yield of 1.8 tons per acre from the control plots.

The amount of soil disturbance caused by fuel reduction thinning will depend, to a large degree, on the 

amount and type of skidding and yarding activities. Tractor skidding generally requires an extensive 

network of skid trails and roads, while full suspension cable yarding causes substantially less ground 

disturbance and typically requires a less dense road network. Helicopter logging typically results in the 

least soil disturbance since trees are lifted from the sites where felled and fully suspended over the ground 

until placed at the log landing. In a review of detrimental soil disturbance associated with timber harvest 

systems in the northern region of the USFS, Reeves, et al. found that the frequency of detrimental soil 

disturbance was greatest for ground-based logging systems followed by skyline, then helicopter logging 

systems (USDA 2011). Tractor skidding, therefore, is expected to produces the greatest amount of soil 

disturbance during logging, followed by excaline/high lead cable, then helicopter yarding (Rice and 

others 1972; Stednick 1987). While thinning a stand of trees to a desired residual density requires access 

to the entire stand, pre-commercial thinning typically requires little or no yarding and can be one of the 

least disturbing forest management practices (Robichaud 2010). The amount of disturbance caused by 

skidding and yarding will depend on site-specific characteristics, timing of operations, and the percentage 

of each stand that is thinned. Table 3.4.2-3 below summarizes modeled hillslope erosion and sediment 

delivery rates by TES mapping unit based on slope classes for forest thinning treatments under the 

Proposed Action. Table 3.4.2-4 provides a summary of hillslope erosion and sediment delivery for each 

watershed in the project area as a result of forest thinning activities.

Table 3.4.2-3. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield by TES mapping unit in the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project area where forest thinning treatments would be conducted

(USDA 2010).

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

6 0-5 38 0.0 0.0

10 0-5 126 0.0 0.0

37 0-5 179 0.0 0.0

300 15-40 50 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

302 15-40 248 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

304 0-15 1,934 0.0 0.0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

140 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

310 15-40 328 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

320 40-80 1,779 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6

322 40-80 4,687 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6

324 0-15 24 0.0 0.0

325 0-15 238 0.0 0.0

401 0-15 247 0.0 0.0

402 15-40 25 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

405 0-15 104 0.0 0.0

407 15-40 8 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

507 0-15 167 0.0 0.0

518 0-15 737 0.0 0.0

519 0-15 73 0.0 0.0

525 15-40 1,070 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

537 0-15 12 0.0 0.0

539 40-120 130 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6

563 0-15 477 0.0 0.0

564 15-40 80 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

565 0-15 416 0.0 0.0

658 0-15 854 0.0 0.0

659 15-40 1,109 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

660 40-120 38 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6

Table 3.4.2-4. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for watersheds in the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project area where forest thinning treatments would be conducted (USDA 

2010).

WATERSHED 

NAME

PROPOSED

TREATMENT 

ACRES

TOTAL SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/WATERSHED)

AVERAGE ANNUAL HILLSLOPE 

EROSION

(TONS/WATERSHED)

Cataract Creek 

Headwaters 3,726 34.52 1.83

Devil Dog Canyon 868 4.89 0.41

Dogtown Wash 553 4.46 0.27

Johnson Creek 2,630 18.46 1.32

Meath Wash 1,564 8.83 0.74

Upper Hell Canyon 5,797 46.14 9.14

Grand Total 15,138 117.30 13.71

Modeled soil erosion rates indicate that forest thinning could result in a slight increase in short term 

erosion for TEUs within treated areas followed by improved soil stability ove the long term (Table 3.4.2-

3). A predicted maximum of 117.3 tons of sediment delivered to ephemeral stream courses throughout 

the entire treatment area (15,138 acres) could occur as a result of forest thinning treatments under the 

proposed action (Table 3.4.2-4). These erosion rates do not exceed tolerance erosion rates for any of the 

TES units within the project area as outlined in the Kaibab National Forest TES (Brewer et al. 1991). As 

grasses, forbs, and shrubs begin to occupy openings, a proportional decrease in accelerated erosion is 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 141

expected. Many of the proposed vegetation treatment areas currently have relatively dense overstory 

conditions with ground cover consisting primarily of forest litter, including coarse woody debris, rather 

than herbaceous vegetation. These conditions do not afford the level of soil protection as provided by 

vegetative ground cover and the associated fine root biomass that tends to bind soil aggregates and 

prevent soil particle detachment and transport. Forest thinning would provide more open tree canopies 

and stand structures that encourage development of vegetative ground cover, and logging debris such as 

tree limbs, tops, and non-merchantable woody material would add to existing surface organic matter. 

Forest canopy openings would allow sunlight and wind to penetrate, warm, and dry the debris, which 

could increase potential fire intensity and severity until the residual woody debris is treated or sufficiently 

decomposed to abate fire hazard. Overall, the long-term risk of stand-replacing wildfire that adversely 

affects soils would be reduced. Use of appropriate BMPs and SWCPs as outlined in Table 3.4.4-1 during 

project implementation would minimize or mitigate any adverse effects to soils or watersheds from forest 

vegetation treatments. It is very unlikely that all thinning treatments would be conducted concurrently, 

minimizing the potential for soil erosion from large areas and associated sediment delivery to ephemeral 

stream channels. 

Permanent and Temporary Roads

Roads represent the greatest risk of accelerated soil erosion throughout the proposed project area. 

Although some roads within the project area have been installed and are maintained using Best 

Management Practices designed to prevent and minimize erosion and sedimentation from road surfaces, 

some roads in the project area exhibit excessive erosion and sediment delivery due to poor location and 

design of some roads combined with infrequent road maintenance. Practices such as broad-based dips, 

waterbars, lead-out ditches (turnouts), aggregate fill on road surfaces, filter fabric, sediment traps, seeding 

of ditches with native grasses, and filter barriers/check dams are commonly used to minimize soil particle 

detachment from road prisms and prevent surface water quality impacts from roads. These practices have 

been shown to be effective at mitigating erosion from road surfaces and protecting water quality 

(Burroughs and King 1989). 

Permanent road construction would require activities such as clearing, grubbing, sidecasting, cutting and 

filling, grading, compacting, and piling and burning of woody debris. Permanent road construction would 

commit areas incorporated into road prisms to non-productive status for the forseeable future (i.e., at least 

50 years). Based on a traveled way width of 14 feet and a clearing width of 6 feet on each side of the 

traveled way for ditches and fill slopes, approximately 72 acres of land would be removed from timber 

and forage production within the project area under the Proposed Action. Road surfaces typically have 

much lower infiltration rates than undisturbed forest soils (Robichaud 2000) and therefore contribute to 

increased overland flow which can detach and entrain soil particles in stormwater runoff. 

Temporary roads are generally minimum-standard roads designed for short-term use during a specific 

project. Usually, temporary roads are simply a bladed lane pushed into the project area with BMPs and 

SWCPs installed during construction. Use of temporary roads is typically limited to dry or frozen 

conditions to minimize rutting and compaction. Temporary roads would be stabilized and obliterated 

upon completion of activities. Based on a traveled way width of 12 feet and a clearing width of four feet 

on each side of the traveled way, approximately 27 acres of land would be temporarily removed from 

timber and forage production. Obliteration activities such as decompacting, removal of temporary fill 

material, recontouring, placement of woody debris, and seeding with native grasses and forbs would 

facilitate rapid return of temporary roads to productive status.

Tables 3.4.2-5 and 3.4.2-6 provide predicted sediment delivery from construction and maintenance of 

permanent and temporary roads in the project area, respectively. The range of values given for road 

sedimentation represent the amount of sediment delivered across a buffer, and the amount delivered to a 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

142 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

stream crossing. Roads with buffers greater than 1 ft. will generate less sediment. The summary table 

shows that roads generate significant amounts of sediment within a watershed, even when traffic is low. 

Road management strategies such as minimizing rutting, minimizing stream crossings, maximizing the 

use of buffers between roads and streams, and implementation and maintenance of BMPs and SWCPs 

have been shown to minimize soil erosion and sedimentation. Another alternative to reduce sedimentation 

from the road network is to reduce the road density within the watershed by removing roads that are no 

longer needed for modern timber operations. Sediment delivery associated with fuel management 

activities can be offset with a decrease in sediment from improved road management or a reduction in 

road density. Note that average annual erosion rates are the same as those for the year of disturbance. 

This is because roads generally have no protetive ground cover, so erosion rates from road surfaces 

generally remain constant throughout the life of the road. Temporary roads would be stabilized with 

BMPs and SWCPs designed to prevent erosion of road surfaces and sediment delivery to ephemeral 

channels. Therefore, average annual erosion rates following decommissioning of temporary roads are 

expected to be substantially lower than those predicted by the model. 

Table 3.4.2-5. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for Terrestrial Ecosystem Units where 

permanent roads would be constructed and maintained (USDA 2010).

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

OF 

ROADS

PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL HILLSLOPE 

EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

0010 0-5 0.24 0.0 – 7.7 0.0 – 7.7

0300 15-40 0.75 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0302 15-40 0.12 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0304 0-15 0.16 7.7 – 9.3 7.7 – 9.3

0310 15-40 24.38 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0320 40-80 1.00 18.5 – 56.8 18.5 – 56.8

0322 40-80 0.81 18.5 – 56.8 18.5 – 56.8

0324 0-15 33.43 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0518 0-15 0.25 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0519 0-15 0.52 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0537 0-15 2.49 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0564 15-40 5.20 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0658 0-15 1.78 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0659 15-40 0.65 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

Table 3.4.2-6. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for Terrestrial Ecosystem Units where 

temporary roads would be constructed and maintained (USDA 2010).

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

OF 

ROADS

PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL HILLSLOPE 

EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

0010 0-5 0.82 3.6 – 7.7 3.6 – 7.7

0310 15-40 1.76 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0320 40-80 0.19 18.5 – 56.8 18.5 – 56.8

0322 40-80 0.09 18.5 – 56.8 18.5 – 56.8

0324 0-15 11.02 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 143

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

OF 

ROADS

PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL HILLSLOPE 

EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

0401 0-15 0.45 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0402 15-40 0.17 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0405 0-15 0.18 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0507 0-15 0.08 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0518 0-15 1.36 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0519 0-15 4.58 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0537 0-15 3.16 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0563 0-15 0.37 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0564 15-40 0.49 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0565 0-15 0.14 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0658 0-15 1.73 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0659 15-40 0.19 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0660 40-120 0.01 18.5 – 63.7 18.5 – 63.7

Predicted hillslope erosion and sediment delivery rates would not exceed tolerance thresholds for any 

TEUs within the project area as a result of road construction, maintenance or use. Decommissioning of 28 

miles of poorly located and infrequently maintained roads and temporary roads would improve overall 

soil condition within the project area by returning unproductive areas to productive status. 

Bixler Trailhead and Trail

Conversion of approximately 1 mile of Forest Service Road (FSR) 45 (from Bixler saddle south) to a nonmotorized trail would improve soil condition by eliminating motor vehicle traffic from this road segment, 

which occurs in TES map units 302 (0.31 ac.), 310 (0.26 ac.), 322 (0.12 ac.), 659 (0.06 ac.), and 660 

(0.003 ac.). Pulverization of soil aggregates on the road surface and entrainment of soil particles in 

stormwater runoff would therefore be decreased on approximately 0.77 acres, or half of the existing road 

width of this segment of FSR 45 under this alternative. Implementation of recreational trail BMPs and 

SWCPs during construction and maintenance of the trail would minimize or mitigate any adverse effects 

to soils or watershed resources.

The proposed Bixler Trailhead and parking area would be approximately 0.25 acres in size and 

constructed in TES map unit 537. This portion of TES map unit 537 would therefore be removed from 

productivity for the foreseeable future (i.e., 50 years). The parking area would consist of native fill 

material and would be constructed using appropriate BMPs and SWCPs to minimize adverse impacts to 

surface water. 

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Strategic fuel treatments to reduce surface, ladder, and canopy fuels would extend for up to 300 feet on 

each side of prescribed fire control lines. An estimated 2,500 acres would receive non-commercial 

vegetation treatments such as hand-felling techniques or, where practical, treatments would be conducted 

using mechanized equipment. These treatments would be necessary to prepare stands on steeper slopes 

for prescribed burning. Where strategic fuels treatments are conducted using mechanical means, effects 

to soils resources would be approximately the same as mechanical forest thinning treatments.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

144 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.4.2-7 below summarizes approximate TES map unit acreages where strategic fuel treatments 

would be implemented. These treatments would result in removal of much of the woody vegetation and 

woody debris that contributes to soil stability and nutrient availability. However, these treatments would 

also reduce soil burn severity by removing materials that contribute to smoldering fire conditions 

resulting in soil hydrophobicity and increased stormwater runoff. Long term soil conditions would be 

improved as strategic fuels treatment areas naturally revegetate with grasses, forbs and shrubs following 

use of prescribed fire. 

Sediment delivery rates for prescribed fire within each HUC12 watershed were modeled using the 

Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) (Robichaud et al. 2006). Tables 3.4.2-8 through 3.4.2-10 

provide a summary of predicted erosion rates and associated acreages within each HUC 12 subwatershed 

based on soil burn severities that bracket the possible range of effects from prescribed burning. Sediment 

yield estimates are based on a ten percent probability that calculated sediment yield rates would be 

exceeded in any given year following treatment for the five years modeled. This means that over the long 

term approximately 10 percent of precipitation events would result in sediment yields above those 

predicted. It does not mean that one out of every 10 events would result in sediment yields above those 

predicted by the model. 

Table 3.4.2-7. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map unit acreages and associated erosion hazard 

ratings for areas where strategic fuels treatments would be conducted (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are 

approximate)

MAP 

UNIT

SOIL 

CONDITION

EROSION 

HAZARD

CURRENT 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/

YR

TOLERANCE 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

POTENTIAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/Y

R

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

10 Satisfactory Slight 0.53 2.71 2.47 0-5 9

300 Satisfactory Moderate 2.35 2.71 13.56 15-40 104

302 Satisfactory Severe 2.14 2.71 15.50 15-40 29

304 Satisfactory Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0-15 2

310 Satisfactory Moderate 1.70 2.71 12.38 15-40 206

320 Unsatisfactory Severe 1.94 1.82 16.75 40-80 135

322 Satisfactory Severe 1.42 2.71 19.59 40-80 778

324 Satisfactory Slight 0.20 2.71 0.93 0-15 248

401 Satisfactory Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0-15 1

402 Unsatisfactory Moderate 1.70 2.71 9.96 15-40 40

537 Satisfactory Slight 0.12 2.71 0.61 0-15 7

539 Unsatisfactory Severe 7.49 2.71 14.37 40-120 2

658 Satisfactory Slight 0.12 2.71 1.58 0-15 132

659 Satisfactory Moderate 2.71 2.71 24.04 15-40 377

660 Satisfactory Severe 1.86 2.71 14.29 40-120 397

Total 2,467

The model resulted in 7,341 precipitation events and an annual average precipitation of approximately 22 

inches based on 100-year mean annual averages. Approximately 650 precipitation events resulted in 

runoff estimates ranging from 1.3 inches to 2.0 inches. Annual runoff from winter snowmelt ranged 

between 0.65 and 1.4 inches.

As shown in Table 3.4.2-8, low severity prescribed fire would result in minor increases in sediment 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 145

delivery rates within each HUC12 subwatershed. Based on estimated sediment yield rates over the five 

year period following treatment, approximately 17,425 tons of soil loss is possible as a result of low 

severity prescribed fire treatments for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project. Since prescribed 

burning treatments would be implemented in phases and not all within a single year, it is unlikely that 

large pulses of sediment would be transported from treated areas to drainages or downslope locations. 

Also, since forest thinning would be conducted in some of the prescribed fire treatment areas prior to 

burning, resulting in increased size and extent of forest openings and increased ground cover of grasses 

and forbs that help to carry fire and provide a mosaic of fire effects, recovery of areas treated with low 

severity prescribed fire is expected to be rapid. Low severity fire rarely consumes all of the forest floor 

litter, leaving some protective ground cover intact. Some of the nutrients contained in the organic matter 

would be converted to inorganic forms which are then available for plant uptake. The increase in plant 

available nutrients would improve short-term soil productivity, resulting in a rapid growth response of 

herbaceous vegetative cover. Low severity prescribed fire is therefore expected to result in a minor shortterm increase in soil erosion rates followed by long-term improvement in the stability, function, and 

productivity of forest soils in the project area. Since low severity fire has historically been a natural 

occurrence in these ecosystems, these impacts do not necessarily need to be construed as negative, as they 

could also occur after a naturally-caused wildfire. These vegetation types and associated soils are thus 

ecologically adapted to low severity fire, and to resulting fire impacts. Predicted five-year average 

erosion rates do not exceed tolerance erosion rates as outlined in Table 3.4.1-6 for any watersheds within 

the proposed project area.

Table 3.4.2-8. Predicted sediment delivery rates for watersheds in the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project area under low severity prescribed fire treatments (USDA 2010). Sediment 

delivery rates were modeled for the year of prescribed fire use and four years following prescribed fire 

treatments.

WATERSHED

NAME

TOTAL 

ACRES

TOTAL SEDIMENT DELIVERY

(TONS/WATERSHED)

FIVE YEAR 

AVERAGE

(TONS/AC) YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Cataract 

Creek 

Headwaters 5,148 2,899.04 2,424.25 556.42 526.25 259.64 0.26

Dogtown 

Wash 816 185.88 156.18 36.84 34.99 17.68 0.11

Johnson 

Creek 2,719 1,188.57 995.21 232.56 218.69 107.05 0.20

Upper Hell 

Canyon 6,007 3,334.53 2,770.03 618.63 577.63 284.64 0.25

Grand Total 14,690 7,608.02 6,345.67 1,444.45 1,357.56 669.01 0.82

The potential for moderate severity prescribed fire increases in areas where excessive fuel loads currently 

exist, where forest thinning does not adequately reduce tree density, and where forest thinning results in 

large amounts of woody debris within a given treatment area. There would be an increased risk of 

accelerated soil erosion where moderate severity prescribed fire occurs. Table 3.4.2-9 provides an 

estimate of sediment delivery based on moderate burn severity over 25 percent of the total prescribed 

burn treatment area with 75 percent representing low burn severity in each watershed. This is an unlikely 

scenario, but was included in this analysis since some areas may exhibit moderate burn severity and these 

potential impacts should be analyzed and disclosed. A more likely scenario would be the occurrence of 

small areas (0.10 – 3 acres) that exhibit moderate burn severity intermingled with areas dominated by low 

burn severity conditions. It cannot be predicted with accuracy where such conditions would occur within 

proposed treatment areas. With appropriate fuels management techniques such as lopping and scattering 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

146 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

of activity-related woody debris and piling and burning debris where necessary, adverse impacts to soils 

caused by moderate severity fire would be minimized.

As shown in Table 3.4.2-9, prescribed fire that results in an average of 25 percent of treated watersheds 

exhibiting moderate burn severity would result in a proportional increase in sediment delivery to water

courses of approximately 12 percent above low burn severity prescribed fire conditions for the five year 

average following treatment. Sediment yields calculated by the ERMiT model indicate that erosion rates 

for moderate soil burn severity will begin to stabilize by the third year following treatment and become 

equal to sediment yields produced by low soil burn severity by year 3. Under this scenario, soil erosion 

rates would not exceed tolerance thresholds as outlined in Table 3.4.1-2 for any of the watersheds 

proposed for prescribed fire treatment.

 

Table 3.4.2-9. Predicted sediment delivery rates for watersheds in the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project area where 75 percent of each prescribed burn treatment results in low burn 

severity and 25 percent results in moderate burn severity (USDA 2010). Sediment delivery rates were 

modeled for the year of prescribed fire use and four years following prescribed fire treatments.

WATERSHED

NAME

TOTAL 

ACRES

TOTAL SEDIMENT DELIVERY

(TONS/WATERSHED)

FIVE YEAR 

AVERAGE

(TONS/AC) YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Cataract Creek 

Headwaters 5,148 3,336.19 2,840.96 556.42 526.25 259.64 0.29

Dogtown Wash 816 212.62 181.58 36.84 34.99 17.68 0.12

Johnson Creek 2,719 1,371.46 1,163.86 232.56 218.69 107.05 0.23

Upper Hell 

Canyon 6,007 3,871.80 3,279.80 618.63 577.63 284.64 0.29

Grand Total 14,690 8,792.07 7,466.2 1444.45 1357.56 669.01 0.93

High severity prescribed fire would result in considerable risk of accelerated soil erosion where such 

conditions occur. While very unlikely, this would represent a worst case scenario with regard to the use 

of prescribed fire and would more accurately reflect soils response to wildfire. It is possible that small, 

isolated occurrances of high severity burn conditions would occur where excessive fuel loads exist or 

where conditions result in atypical fire behavior for brief periods. Such areas would likely exhibit 

accelerated soil erosion for longer periods and at greater rates than low or moderate soil severity burn 

areas due to high levels of consumption of forest floor fuels, vegetative cover, and soil seed banks leaving 

such areas unprotected and potentially hydrophobic. Predicted accelerated soil erosion rates for 

watersheds where 25 percent of each treatment area is subjected to moderate soil burn severity and 25 

percent is subjected to high soil burn severity, with remaining watershed acreages subjected to low soil 

burn severity are summarized in Table 3.4.2-10. 

As outlined in Table 3.4.2-10, prescribed fire that results in 50 percent of treated areas subjected to low 

soil burn severity, 25 percent subjected to moderate soil burn severity, and 25 percent subjected to high 

soil burn severity would result in a proportional increase in sediment delivery to water courses of 40 

percent above the low soil burn severity values. While these rates would not be above tolerance erosion 

threshold rates outlined in Table 3.4.1-2, they would result in substantial detrimental effects to soil 

productivity and stability as well as ephemeral and intermittent water courses and downstream 

waterbodies within and outside of the project boundary. These effects would include loss of soil A 

horizon thickness, soil hydrophobicity, increased stormwater runoff, stream sedimentation, channel 

embeddedness, increased surface water turbidity, and changes to surface water chemistry and temperature 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 147

in drainages and impoundments.

Table 3.4.2-10. Predicted sediment delivery rates for watersheds in the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project area where 50 percent of prescribed burn treatment results in low soil burn 

severity, 25 percent results in moderate burn severity, and 25 percent results in high burn severity

(USDA 2010). Sediment delivery rates were modeled for the year of prescribed fire use and four years 

following prescribed fire treatments.

WATERSHED

NAME ACRES

TOTAL SEDIMENT DELIVERY

(TONS/WATERSHED)

FIVE YEAR 

AVERAGE

(TONS/AC) YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5

Cataract Creek 

Headwaters 5,148 4,727.90 3,925.30 1,040.37 842.55 397.78 0.42

Dogtown Wash 816 309.79 260.73 72.95 59.46 30.34 0.18

Johnson Creek 2,719 4,727.90 3,925.30 1,040.37 842.55 397.78 0.42

Upper Hell 

Canyon 6,007 2,002.00 1,660.52 453.61 364.79 173.39 0.34

Grand Total 14,690 11,767.59 9,771.85 2,607.3 2109.35 999.29 1.36

Direct and indirect effects to soils and watershed resources from prescribed fire treatments in Ecosystem 

Management Area 6 – the Arizona Bugbane (Actaea arizonica) Botanical Area (490 acres) would be 

similar to the use of prescribed fire in other watersheds in the analysis area. However, site-specific design 

features and mitigation measures have been developed to minimize or mitigate adverse effects to soils, 

vegetation, and water quality in this special habitat. Table 3.4.2-11 provides a summary of TES units that 

occur in the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area and their associated acreages and erosion hazard ratings. 

With implementation of BMPs, SWCPs, and site specific design features and mitigation measures, direct 

or indirect adverse effects to these TES map units are not anticipated.

Table 3.4.2-11. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units within the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area 

(Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate)

MAP 

UNIT

EROSION 

HAZARD

CURRENT 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

TOLERANCE 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

POTENTIAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

302 Severe 2.14 2.71 15.50 15-40 4

322 Severe 1.42 2.71 19.59 40-80 280

324 Slight 0.20 2.71 0.93 0-15 10

658 Slight 0.12 2.71 1.58 0-15 41

659 Moderate 2.71 2.71 24.04 15-40 73

660 Severe 1.86 2.71 14.29 40-120 83

Total 490

Alternative 3 

Forest thinning

Under Alternative 3, direct and indirect effects from forest thinning would be similar to those of 

Alternative 2 with the following exceptions: There would be no log landings, cable yarding corridors, or 

road use in operability zones 3, 4, and 5 where cable and excaline logging systems are proposed. There 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

148 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

would therefore be no soil disturbance associated with these logging systems within the project area. 

Cable yarding corridors would constitute approximately 15 percent of the area proposed for cable and 

excaline logging treatment under Alternative 2 (based on yarding corridor widths of 12 feet and distances 

between corridors of 80 feet). Therefore, a projected maximum of 72 acres of potential soil disturbance 

from cable and excaline yarding would not occur as a result of selection of Alternative 3. Additionally, 

10 acres of soil disturbance from log landing installation and use (based on 0.25 acres of landings per 12 

acres of land treated) would not occur under this alternative. If helicopter logging is employed in these 

operability zones in lieu of cable yarding systems, minimal damage to soils would be expected as a result 

of log extraction since logs would be fully suspended during transport from the sites where trees are felled 

to the log landing. Table 3.4.2-12 provides TES map unit acres and associated erosion hazard ratings in 

areas that would be excluded from treatment using cable and excaline yarding systems under Alternative 

3.

Modeled hillslope erosion and sediment delivery rates for TES map units that would be excluded from 

cable and excaline yarding treatments under Alternative 3 are summarized in Table 3.4.2-13. Based on an 

anticipated area of disturbance of approximately 15 percent within each TES unit, predicted reductions in 

sediment delivery to water courses through exclusion of cable and excaline yarding would range from 

0.62-1.34 total tons. Reduction in average annual hillslope erosion through exclusion of cable and 

excaline yarding treatments would range from 0.029 to 0.063 tons per acre per year.

Table 3.4.2-12. Terrestrial Ecosystem Units and associated erosion hazard ratings that would be 

excluded from cable and excaline yarding systems under Alternative 3 within the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project Analysis Area (Brewer et al, 1991). (acres are approximate)

MAP 

UNIT

EROSION 

HAZARD

CURRENT 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/

YR

TOLERANCE 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

POTENTIAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/Y

R

PERCENT

OF CABLE

YARDING

TREATMENT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

300 Moderate 2.35 2.71 13.56 1.90 15-40 9

310 Moderate 1.70 2.71 12.38 0.16 15-40 1

320 Severe 1.94 1.82 16.75 14.89 40-80 70

322 Severe 1.42 2.71 19.59 55.94 40-80 264

659 Moderate 2.71 2.71 24.04 12.04 15-40 57

660 Severe 1.86 2.71 14.29 15.07 40-120 71

Total 472

As can be seen in Tables 3.4.2-12 and 3.4.2-13, adverse impacts to soils from cable yarding systems are 

minimal when compared to ground-based rubber tire and track skidding. Since no wheels or tracks are 

disturbing soils in cable yarding operations, area of disturbance is generally limited to areas where logs 

are dragged along the ground (approximately 4 feet wide) and log landings (0.25 acres per 12 acres 

treated). Cable yarding typically results in much smaller landing areas than other ground-based logging 

systems since logs are either landed adjacent to or directly on access roads and stacked high, thus limiting 

soil disturbance. Log landings for rubber tired and track skidding operations are typically larger in order 

to provide space for skidders to maneuver when landing logs. 

Table 3.4.2-13. Predicted sediment delivery in year of disturbance and annual hillslope erosion by 

TES mapping unit where forest thinning treatments using cable and excaline yarding systems 

would be excluded (USDA 2010).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 149

MAP 

UNIT

ACRES PREDICTED 

SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR 

OF DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE 

ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE 

EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

PREDICTED

SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY

(TONS/AC)

PREDICTED

HILLSLOPE 

EROSION

(TONS/AC/YR)

300 8.89 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3 0.0-0.1 0.000-0.001

310 0.78 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3 0.0 0.0

320 70.28 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6 0.11-0.22 0.005-0.010

322 264.04 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6 0.40-0.81 0.019-0.038

659 56.84 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3 0.0-0.9 0.000-0.004

660 71.15 6.4 – 12.8 0.3 – 0.6 0.11-0.22 0.005-0.010

It should be noted that under Alternative 3, forest restoration would not be fully achieved as removal of 

trees greater than 9 inches DBH in MSO PACs and pine/oak habitat where slopes exceed 40 percent 

would not occur. Soil stability and ecologic function in these areas would therefore not be improved. 

Soil stability would continue to depend primarily on forest litter to protect soil surfaces rather than 

vegetative ground cover. As previously discussed, vegetative ground cover provides better water 

infiltration, percolation, soil porosity, aggregate stability, and nutrient cycling than forest litter alone.

Permanent and Temporary Roads

Direct and indirect effects to soil resources from road construction, maintenance, and use would be 

similar to the Proposed Action. However, Alternative 3 would include construction of 22 miles of 

permanent roads, which is one mile less than under the Proposed Action. A one-mile-long road segment 

proposed under Alternative 2 for cable yarding access would not be required under this alternative since 

no cable yarding systems would be used. Based on a road width of 12 feet, soil disturbance for 

permanent road access in TES map units 320 (0.71 acres) and 322 (0.75 acres) under Alternative 3 would 

be 1.46 acres less than under Alternative 2. Therefore, a combined total of 1.46 acres in TES map units 

320 and 322 would remain in productive status rather than being converted to unproductive status as a 

permanent road. 

Direct and indirect effects to soils resources caused by obliteration of approximately 28 miles of poorly 

located roads would be the same as Alternative 2.

Bixler Trailhead and Trail

Since Alternative 3 is the same as the Proposed Action with regard to the Bixler trailhead and trail, direct 

and indirect effects to soils resources would be the same as the Proposed Action.

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Direct and indirect effects to soils resources from prescribed fire treatments would be similar to the 

Proposed Action with the exception that Ecosystem Management Area 6 – the Arizona Bugbane (Actaea

arizonica) Botanical Area (490 acres) would not be subjected to prescribed fire. There would therefore 

be no direct or indirect adverse effects to soils or watershed resources within the Arizona Bugbane 

Botanical Area as a result of prescribed fire use under Alternative 3.

Alternative 4 

 

Forest thinning
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

150 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Under Alternative 4, a combination of commercial timber harvest and non-commercial mechanical 

treatments would occur on approximately 11,150 acres. Treatments would be conducted only in 

Operability Zones 1, 2 and 6 and would be limited to slopes less than 40 percent. Table 3.4.2-14 provides 

a summary of TES map unit acreages and their associated erosion hazard ratings for areas where fuel 

reduction treatments would be conducted under Alternative 4. Areas where slopes exceed 40 percent 

were excluded from the analysis of this alternative.

Table 3.4.2-14. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey map units and associated erosion hazard ratings for 

operability zones 1, 2, and 6 with slopes less than 40 percent.

MAP 

UNIT

EROSION 

HAZARD

CURRENT 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

TOLERANCE 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

POTENTIAL 

EROSION 

RATE

TONS/AC/YR

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

6 Slight 0.65 2.71 2.10 0-5 38

10 Slight 0.53 2.71 2.47 0-5 123

300 Moderate 2.35 2.71 13.56 15-40 113

302 Severe 2.14 2.71 15.50 15-40 17

304 Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0-15 247

310 Moderate 1.70 2.71 12.38 15-40 1,599

324 Slight 0.20 2.71 0.93 0-15 4,587

401 Slight 0.16 2.71 0.93 0-15 232

402 Moderate 1.70 2.71 9.96 15-40 179

405 Slight 0.20 2.71 0.61 0-15 25

407 Severe 3.60 2.71 14.37 15-40 76

507 Slight 0.16 2.71 0.28 0-15 8

518 Slight 0.24 1.82 0.61 0-15 166

519 Slight 0.20 1.82 25.09 0-15 725

525 Severe 3.40 2.71 0.61 15-40 46

537 Slight 0.12 2.71 0.61 0-15 1,059

563 Slight 0.20 2.71 0.61 0-15 130

564 Severe 3.64 2.71 12.38 15-40 444

565 Slight 0.36 1.82 0.61 0-15 79

658 Slight 0.12 2.71 1.58 0-15 336

659 Moderate 2.71 2.71 24.04 15-40 287

Total 10,514

Table 3.4.2-15 below presents modeled sediment delivery and hillslope erosion rates by TES map unit 

based on slope classes for forest thinning treatments under Alternative 4. Table 3.4.2-16 provides a 

summary of hillslope erosion and sediment delivery for each watershed in the project area as a result of 

forest thinning activities under Alternative 4.

Table 3.4.2-15. Predicted sediment yield in year of disturbance and annual hillslope erosion by TES 

mapping unit in operability zones 1, 2 and 6 (USDA 2010).

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

TREATMENT

ACRES

PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

 6 0-5 38 0.0 0.0

10 0-5 126 0.0 0.0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 151

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

TREATMENT

ACRES

PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

300 15-40 130 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

302 15-40 18 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

304 0-15 248 0.0 0.0

310 15-40 1,681 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

324 0-15 4,637 0.0 0.0

401 0-15 238 0.0 0.0

402 15-40 219 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

405 0-15 25 0.0 0.0

407 15-40 104 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

507 0-15 9 0.0 0.0

518 0-15 167 0.0 0.0

519 0-15 737 0.0 0.0

525 15-40 53 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

537 0-15 1,070 0.0 0.0

563 0-15 130 0.0 0.0

564 15-40 477 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

565 0-15 80 0.0 0.0

658 0-15 342 0.0 0.0

659 15-40 344 0.0 – 6.4 0.0 - 0.3

Table 3.4.2-16. Predicted soil erosion rates and sediment yield for watersheds in the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project area where forest thinning treatments would be conducted under 

Alternative 4 (USDA 2010).

WATERSHED 

NAME

ACRES TOTAL SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/WATERSHED)

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE EROSION

(TONS/WATERSHED)

Cataract Creek 

Headwaters 2,261 42.70 7.11

Devil Dog Canyon 833 5.32 5.94

Dogtown Wash 476 4.81 5.48

Johnson Creek 1,884 18.46 4.72

Meath Wash 1,426 8.93 3.49

Upper Hell Canyon 4,243 46.37 1.92

Grand Total 11,123 126.59 28.66

Permanent and Temporary Roads

Alternative 4 would include constructing approximately 38 miles of temporary roads that would be 

obliterated after use as well as obliterating approximately 28 miles of poorly located roads within the 

project area. 

Based on a travelway width of 12 feet and a clearing width of four feet on each side of the travelway, 

approximately 55.3 acres of land would be temporarily removed from timber and forage production for 

temporary road access. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

152 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.4.2-17 provides a summary of modeled sediment delivery from construction, use, and 

maintenance of temporary roads under Alternative 4. As previously noted, the range of values given for 

road sedimentation represent the amount of sediment delivered across a buffer, and the amount delivered 

to a stream crossing. 

As shown in Table 3.4.2-17, temporary roads would result in an increased risk of short-term hillslope 

erosion and sediment delivery to surface waters during project implementation under Alternative 4. 

Temporary roads would be stabilized with BMPs and SWCPs designed to prevent erosion of road 

surfaces and sediment delivery to water bodies during road use. 

Table 3.4.2-17. Predicted sediment yield and hillslope erosion rates and for Terrestrial Ecosystem 

Units where temporary roads would be constructed and maintained under Alternative 4 (USDA 

2010).

MAP 

UNIT

SLOPE

(%)

ACRES

OF 

ROADS

PREDICTED SEDIMENT 

DELIVERY IN YEAR OF 

DISTURBANCE

(TONS/SQ MI)

AVERAGE ANNUAL 

HILLSLOPE EROSION

(TONS/SQ MI/YR)

0010 0-5 0.81 0.0 – 7.7 0.0 – 7.7

0300 15-40 0.35 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0302 15-40 0.06 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0304 0-15 0.07 7.7 – 9.3 7.7 – 9.3

0310 15-40 12.78 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0322 40-80 0.10 18.5 – 56.8 18.5 – 56.8

0324 0-15 24.95 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0401 0-15 0.38 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0402 15-40 0.15 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0405 0-15 0.15 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0507 0-15 0.07 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0518 0-15 1.28 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0519 0-15 4.17 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0537 0-15 3.87 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0563 0-15 0.32 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0564 15-40 2.84 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

0565 0-15 0.12 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0658 0-15 2.32 0.0 – 9.3 0.0 – 9.3

0659 15-40 0.47 7.7 – 28.2 7.7 – 28.2

Obliteration activities would be the same as those proposed under Alternatives 2 and 3 and would hasten 

recovery of temporary road surfaces and return them to productive status over the long term. As a result, 

average annual hillslope erosion and sediment delivery rates following decommissioning of temporary 

roads are expected to be substantially lower than those predicted by the model. Since temporary roads 

would not all be constructed at once, but instead would be constructed as access to treatment areas is 

necessary, it is very unlikely that large pulses of erosion and sediment delivery from temporary roads 

would occur over a short timeframe (i.e., within a single year).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 153

Bixler Trailhead and Trail

There would be no construction of the new Bixler trailhead or proposed new trail segment under 

Alternative 4. There would therefore be no direct or indirect effects to soils resources as a result of these 

proposed activities under Alternative 4. 

Prescribed Fire Treatments

Direct and indirect effects to soils as a result of strategic fuel treatments would be the same as 

Alternatives 2 and 3 while direct and indirect effects to soils from use of prescribed fire would be the 

same as Alternative 3 since the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area would be excluded from prescribed fire 

under Alternative 4.

3.4.3 Cumulative Effects 

Cumulative effects include the impacts on the environment which result from the incremental impact of 

the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what 

agency (Federal or non-Federal) or person undertakes such other action (40 CFR § 1508.7). The 

geographic setting for the cumulative effects analysis for soils and watersheds includes all of the 6th-level 

(HUC12) hydrologic unit watersheds where the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project is located, 

which comprises approximate 137,153 acres. The timeframe for past actions is 10 years, based on soil 

productivity, vegetative response, and coarse woody debris recovery within treated areas. Surface 

disturbing activities that are older than 20 years are assumed to be contributing negligible or no 

measurable cumulative effect within the analysis area

Following is a partial listing of actions considered in the cumulative effects analysis for this project:

• Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, recreational 

activities, and other management activities (e.g. noxious weeds treatments) have occurred in the

past, are occurring, and are reasonably foreseeable actions on the Williams Ranger District. These 

activities could occur on private lands as well. 

• Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue in the foreseeable future on 

the District and private lands within watersheds that include the project area. 

• Private landowners may harvest timber on their lands for lumber, fuelwood, or to reduce fire 

hazards. 

• Urban development and interface growth will continue on private lands. 

• Road construction, maintenance and right-of-way clearing can be expected to continue on nonNational Forest System land. 

• Road maintenance, reconstruction, or decommissioning may occur with future vegetation 

management projects on National Forest System land. 

• Recreation activities are expected to continue to increase on the Forest. Future recreation projects 

may be developed. 

• There is a multi-million dollar electronics site on the top of Bill Williams Mountain that includes 

communications infrastructure for the Department of Public Safety, USDA Forest Service, 

Arizona State Land Department, Burlington Northern Santa Fe railroad and several other 

governmental and private enterprises. Several special use permits exist and continue to be 

requested for the communications site such as cell tower extensions, new outbuildings, etc.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

154 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• The north side of the mountain is home to a small ski and recreation area (Elk Ridge Ski and 

Outdoor Recreation Area) which operates periodically throughout the year with downhill skiing 

in the winter and tubing in the summer.

Tables 3.4.3-1 through 3.4.3-3 provide a summary of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects 

considered in the soils and watershed cumulative effects analysis for this project:

Table 3.4.3-1. Past projects in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Cumulative Effects 

Analysis Area.

Project Year NEPA completed Activities Status

Williams High Risk 

Project

Non-commercial thinning Completed

Clover High Fuels 

Reduction Project

Non-commercial thinning Completed

Table 3.4.3-2. Current projects in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Cumulative 

Effects Analysis Area. 

Project Year NEPA completed Activities Status

City 2005 Veg. Mgt: TS, TSI, & BB; 

includes some temporary 

roads and dozer lines

Currently being 

implemented

Twin 2005 TSI & Fuel reduction; 

includes some temporary 

roads and dozer lines

Ongoing – Approx. 

40% implemented

Bill Williams Cap 2009 Fuel reduction / Hazard 

Tree removal on 6 ac.

DN signed –

implementation 2010

Williams Ranger District 

Travel Management 

Project

2010 Prohibit cross-country 

travel (except as 

designated on MVUM); 

close 380 miles of 

system roads to motor 

vehicle use.

Implemented in July 

2011 with publication 

of MVUM

Hat Allotment Grazing 

Management

2010 Authorizes grazing Ongoing

EIS for Treatment of 

Noxious or Invasive 

Weeds

2004 Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds

Ongoing

Dogtown (Dogtown) Timber Sale; Prescribed 

burning; Non-commercial 

thinning

Pending Sales; 

Ongoing burning

Table 3.4.2-3. Reasonably foreseeable projects in the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project 

Cumulative Effects Analysis Area.

Project Estimated Year NEPA 

Completed Activities Status

McCracken (WRD) 2012 Thinning (15,200 ac), 

Burning (17,000 ac), 

PA released in 2008; 

Decision signed in 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 155

Project Estimated Year NEPA 

Completed Activities Status

Grassland Restoration Spring 2012.

Four Forest Restoration 

Initiative (Multiple 

Projects)

Multiple Restoration of 

Ponderosa Pine 

ecosystem (thinning, 

burning)

Planning team and 

collaborative group 

developing strategy 

and initial PA.

Alternative 1 – No Action

The No Action Alternative would result in no vegetation or fuels reduction treatments being performed, 

no new road construction or road obliteration, and no unscheduled maintenance of existing roads in the 

project area. Therefore, there would be no direct effects to soils, water quality, ephemeral or intermittent 

stream channels, watershed condition, or changes to water yield as a result of the no-action alternative. 

However, land management activities and changing vegetative conditions throughout the last 100 years 

have produced an uncharacteristic accumulation of fuels and increased trees density within the project 

area. These conditions make wildfire a possibility and suppression exceedingly difficult.

A high-severity fire is not certain to occur within the project area during any given timeframe. However, 

the occurrence of a high-severity wildfire would have an increased potential for profound adverse impacts 

to hydrologic systems in project area watersheds and downstream locations. As previously discussed in 

this report, such a fire event would likely result in increased runoff and potential for soil erosion and 

sediment delivery to intermittent and ephemeral streams as a result of loss of forest interception of 

rainfall, reduced soil water infiltration rates, and the reduction of effective ground cover at the soil 

surface. The infrequent nature of ephemeral stream flow results in the potential for sediment and ash to 

be stored within these stream channels and then transported during surface runoff events. This, in turn, 

could pose detrimental effects to surface water quality and water storage capacity, including 

impoundments that are the sources of the City of Williams municipal water supply. Other potential 

detrimental effects to hydrologic conditions in the project area and downstream locations could include 

the destabilization of the geomorphic conditions of stream channels due to excessive sediment delivery 

and debris loading, increased peak flows, and overall increases in average annual water yield resulting 

from loss of upslope interception, infiltration, and evapotranspiration. Ephemeral stream channels within 

high burn severity areas would lose their ability to buffer runoff from large rainfall events, resulting in 

increased channel scour and incision caused by accelerated runoff and erosion from severely burned 

watershed areas. Increased bedloads in stream channels effectively raises the elevation of stream 

bottoms, causing flood flows to exceed channel capacities, resulting in overland flooding. These 

conditions could result in increased flooding risk within the 100-year floodplain of Cataract Creek located 

in the City of Williams and other downstream locations. 

Another effect is sediment and ash deposition in downstream roads, stock tanks and meadows, even if 

such areas may not have burned. In addition, sediment and ash-laden overland flows may damage low 

lying roads by eroding road traveled ways and filling culverts and low water crossings with sediment and 

debris. These are examples of why post-wildfire watershed conditions are significantly different from 

pre-fire or low-severity prescribed fire conditions.

Additional cumulative effects of the No Action alternative include ongoing erosion and sediment delivery 

to ephemeral channels from roads proposed for obliteration under the Action Alternatives. When 

combined with other activities in the proposed project area, sediment production from these roads could 

contribute to adverse impacts to downstream surface water quality if these roads remain in an unstable, 

eroding condition.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

156 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Other ongoing projects in the same watersheds as the proposed Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project and their associated acreages in each watershed are summarized in Table 3.4.3-4.

Table 3.4.3-4. Current activities and associated acreages that occur in the same watersheds 

(HUC12) as the proposed Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project. 

Watershed 

Name 

(HUC12)

Cataract 

Creek 

Headwaters

150100040502

Devil Dog 

Canyon

150602020202

Dogtown 

Wash 

150100040501

Johnson 

Creek

150602010302

Meath Wash

150602020203

Upper Hell 

Canyon

150602020204

Watershed 

Acres 

(HUC12)

16,694 11,192 11,659 30,847 37,522 29,239

Activity Acres % of 

WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS

City Project 6,772 41 ---- ---- 2,492 21 2,422 8 ---- ---- 25 <1

Dogtown 

Project 11 <1 ---- ---- 2,280 20 ---- ---- ---- ---- 184 <1

Four Forest 

Restoration 

Initiative

11,436 69 2,845 25 11,543 99 7,260 24 2,719 7 19,343 66 

McCracken 

Project ---- ---- ---- ---- 811 7 ---- ---- ---- ---- 8,575 29 

Travel 

Management 

Rule

11,436 69 10,029 90 9,976 86 28,421 92 26,170 70 26,787 92 

Twin Project 52 <1 821 7 435 4 1,141 4 1,567 4 8,180 28

Big Springs 

Allotment 

Grazing

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 1,092 4 

Chalender 

Allotment 

Grazing

13 <1 ---- ---- 1,700 15 ---- ---- ---- ---- 4 <1

Corva 

Allotment 

Grazing

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 8,150 26 ---- ---- ---- ----

Davenport 

Lake 

Allotment 

Grazing

473 2 ---- ---- 2,234 19 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Double A 

Allotment 

Grazing

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 110 <1 ---- ---- ---- ----

Hat Allotment 

Grazing 2,730 16 10,920 97 3,658 31 13,028 42 20,570 55 25,809 88 

Irishman Dam 

Allotment 

Grazing

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 5,440 18 5,787 15 ---- ----

Juan Tank 

Allotment 

Grazing

2,071 12 ---- ---- ---- ---- 1,505 5 ---- ---- ---- ----

Pine Creek 

Allotment 

Grazing

1,893 11 ---- ---- 1,628 14 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

Seven C Bar 

Allotment ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 294 <1 ---- ----
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 157

Watershed 

Name 

(HUC12)

Cataract 

Creek 

Headwaters

150100040502

Devil Dog 

Canyon

150602020202

Dogtown 

Wash 

150100040501

Johnson 

Creek

150602010302

Meath Wash

150602020203

Upper Hell 

Canyon

150602020204

Watershed 

Acres 

(HUC12)

16,694 11,192 11,659 30,847 37,522 29,239

Activity Acres % of 

WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS Acres % of WS

Grazing

Sitgreaves 

Allotment 

Grazing

---- ---- ---- ---- 231 2 ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----

West Bear 

Allotment 

Grazing

---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- 12 <1

Ephemeral and intermittent drainages in the project area respond to seasonal surface runoff (usually 

during snow melt and the summer monsoon season). Surface runoff potentially carries varying amounts 

of sediment, contributing to water turbidity. Turbidity is the water quality standard that is most likely 

affected by land management activities. Turbidity is a measure of particulate matter suspended in water. 

Typically, in wildland settings, turbidity is the existence of fine to very fine soil particles and organic 

matter in water. Sediment delivery ratios normally decline with increasing watershed area, resulting in 

dilution of sediment delivered to streams from a given activity. The ADEQ 305(b) Assessment and 

303(d) Listing Report for 2010 was consulted to determine water quality status of streams that flow from 

the project area. There are no exceedances or impairments noted on either the 305(b) Assessment or 

303(d) List for any stream segments within the proposed project boundary or within 50 miles downstream 

of the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area. It is unlikely that the Proposed Action would 

contribute enough sediment to ephemeral or intermittent drainages within the project area to result in 

impairment of any downstream waterbodies. 

Vegetation Treatments and Timber Harvesting

Vegetation management projects such as commercial timber harvesting, precommercial forest thinning, 

and fuelwood gathering reduce overstory cover in the short-term but typically result in an increase in 

understory vegetation within three to five years following treatment. These projects would also cause an 

initial increase in soil organic matter in the form of residual woody debris from tree harvesting activities 

that improves surface roughness and improves nutrient cycling. As grasses and forbs increase in 

numbers, fine root material would contribute to soil organic matter accumulation, improve soil aggregate 

stability and soil porosity, and protect soil surfaces from erosion by wind and rain. Reduction of tree 

canopy and fuel loads would reduce the threat of high severity wildfire that could remove plant and litter 

cover, consume seed bank, sterilize soils, and create erosion and flooding hazards. Decreased 

interception of precipitation (rain and snow) would result in increased surface runoff following vegetation 

treatments. 

Project objectives are typically designed to improve forest health by thinning overstocked stands and 

reducing the potential for high severity wildfire. These activities usually require the use of logging 

machinery with potential to disturb soils. Overall, forest thinning improves tree vigor, increases the 

diversity, distribution, and amount of herbaceous understory vegetation (including effective vegetative 

ground cover), and reduces the risk of uncharacteristic wildfire. Effects on soil productivity and stability 

are common to all harvest activities, but vary by silvicultural treatments, fuel treatments, and acres 

treated. Effects are generally related to roads, skid trails, log landings and fuels treatments resulting in 

varying degrees of soil displacement, compaction, and soil loss due to short-term reduction or complete 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

158 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

removal of vegetative ground cover. Adequate vegetative ground cover is the primary component that 

protects the soil from accelerated erosion. 

It is assumed that between harvest and fuel reduction treatment activities, every acre in each proposed 

treatment unit would be affected. Therefore, the total acreage is assumed to be at risk for some level of 

soil disturbance. The risk of accelerated erosion from soil disturbance is expected to last until vegetative 

ground cover is sufficient to protect soil surfaces, which typically occurs within 3 to 5 years after fuel 

reduction treatments are completed. It is important that the reader understand that not all soil disturbance 

is detrimental. For example, a low severity prescribed fire disturbs soils by partially consuming and 

redistributing the surface organic fraction. This changes short term carbon-nitrogen ratios and increases 

available short term nutrient supplies, resulting in increased understory response which in turn provides 

improved protection of soils from erosion by wind and rain.

By identifying and implementing site-specific BMPs and SWCPs prior to and during project 

implementation, adverse effects to soils and watershed resources are minimized and are generally short 

term (3 to 5 years). Best Management Practices are designed to maintain soil productivity and surface 

water quality by minimizing soil loss and associated sediment delivery to waterbodies. 

Soil Stability and Erosion Processes

Gullies and headcuts are a primary source of sedimentation. They channelize and accelerate sedimentladen water, resulting in soil movement to downslope locations or into drainages. Areas which are 

sensitive to gully erosion are long, narrow alluvial plains, alluvial fans, and low lying areas with moderate 

slopes and deep, fine-textured soils. Gullies are typically the result of historical management practices 

and are now in varying degrees of recovery. Poorly located roads proposed for obliteration are, in some 

cases acting as gullies, channelizing runoff into ephemeral drainages. As management practices have 

improved and watershed conditions have changed, some gullies are reaching more stable conditions 

through aggradation and widening, creating more favorable floodplains and gentle gradients. This 

adjustment process involves erosion of banks and headcuts in order to reach a point of equilibrium. Once 

this point is reached, erosion decreases, vegetation begins to grow where gully sidewalls have a more 

gentle angle of repose, and gullies stabilize. The effect of gully stabilization is reduced loss of soil 

productivity and downstream sedimentation.

Soil stability would be improved over approximately 15,000 acres through increases in surface roughness 

from additional woody debris at the soil surface. Slash would enhance the effective ground cover and 

thereby reduce soil particle detachment by raindrop impact. Enhanced ground cover from the addition of 

slash, and over the longer term from increased understory vegetation, particularly grasses and forbs would 

improve microhabitat conditions (i.e., shade, moisture, and available nutrients). These improvements 

would occur on most TES map units within the project area. 

Nutrient Cycling 

Nutrient cycling would improve over time on approximately 15,000 acres due to the addition of small and 

large woody material. The project would leave at least 5-7 tons per acre of CWD in the activity units. In 

addition, up to 1-3 tons per acre of fine fuels would be left as needles, twigs, small limbs, and other small 

woody material. The addition of CWD and other fine fuels would have a beneficial effect to long-term 

soil productivity. The effectiveness of woody debris retention has been proven to reduce and control 

adverse impacts to soil resources and water quality (Ice 2004, Rashin 1994, Seyedbagheri 1996, USDA 

Forest Service 2004b).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 159

Soil Hydrology 

Surveys of the project area indicate that the current existing percentage of landings, skid trails, and roads 

is approximately 5 to 10 percent of the proposed activity areas. As previously noted, several miles of 

roads proposed for obliteration are compacted, rutted, and are channelizing surface runoff and are not 

exhibiting substantial recovery. In order to mitigate any additional compaction and displacement of soils, 

temporary roads, skid trails, and landings would be stabilized using BMPs and SWCPs, which may 

include ripping or decompacting and seeding to alleviate reductions in porosity and infiltration capacity. 

Therefore, it is not expected that the percentage of compacted areas would increase substantially (i.e., 

beyond an additional 1 to 2 percent over the current condition). 

Areas of water repellency, which form as a result of the prescribed fire use are expected to recover within 

3 to 5 years as natural processes such as freeze-thaw, wetting and drying, natural revegetation, root 

elongation, and chemical weathering occur. 

Watershed Response

The magnitude of change in water yield resulting from vegetation treatments and prescribed burning is 

most strongly related to the amount of precipitation and intensity of the treatments. 

The hydrologic response of watersheds in the project area to proposed activities will depend on the 

summed effect of the changes in evaporation, transpiration, soil moisture storage, and snowpack 

accumulation and melt processes. This includes the degree to which vegetation treatments influence net 

precipitation that reaches soil surfaces through reduced canopy interception, changes to soil moisture 

evaporation rates, and changes to the amount of transpiration and soil water depletion. Changes to 

streamflow would depend on whether precipitation or snowmelt exceeds both evapotranspiration demand, 

soil moisture holding capacity, and groundwater recharge rates. 

Changes in evapotranspiration following vegetation treatments would be the result of reduced soil 

moisture depletion during the growing season and decreased winter snowfall interception. Precipitation 

accumulates on Bill Williams Mountain over the winter as snowpack, with melting and sublimation 

occurring during warm phases throughout the winter. Much of the winter precipitation is intercepted by 

tree canopies. Some of this moisture evaporates or sublimates without contributing to soil moisture, 

while some is blown off of intercepting vegetation or simply falls off, thus reaching soil surfaces. When 

the remaining snowpack begins to melt in spring, melt water first recharges the soil by replacing the water 

that was depleted during the previous growing season. Once soil moisture storage capacity is at its 

maximum, remaining melt water is available to become stream flow. On north facing slopes, some of the 

snowpack remains almost continuously from December to April. While the evaporation rate is lower than 

south facing slopes, the relatively large surface area of snow permits a substantial amount of evaporative 

loss to occur. In contrast, on south facing slopes, intercepted snow quickly leaves the less dense forest 

canopy thus allowing less interception loss. For the first 1 to 3 years following vegetation treatments, a 

slight increase in stormwater runoff is expected since understory vegetation of grasses, forbs and shrubs 

will not have reached maximum ground cover levels, snowpack interception would be reduced, and there 

would be fewer trees to create evapotranspirational demand for soil moisture during the growing season.

Recreational Activities

Recreational activities within the proposed project area include: hiking, viewing wildlife, hunting, 

dispersed car-camping, backpack camping, orienteering, horseback riding, photography, picnicking, 

taking scenic drives, ORV/ATV use, bicycling, shooting, and gathering in family or social groups. The 

project area is part of the Arizona Game and Fish Department’s Game Management Unit 10, and is 

popular for turkey, elk, mule deer, javelina, and pronghorn hunting. Other common uses within the 

project area include firewood cutting, Christmas tree cutting, collecting boughs and cones, gathering 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

160 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

antlers, and collecting food and medicinal resources such as berries, nuts, mushrooms, and medicinal 

plants. Of these, ORV/ATV use, dispersed camping, firewood collection and Christmas tree cutting have 

the greatest potential to result in adverse cumulative effects to soils through compaction, puddling, and 

displacement. These conditions would occur in areas where such activities take place. Wet weather cross 

country travel restrictions and designated routes for fuelwood and Christmas trees cutting would 

minimize these adverse impacts. Popular recreational trails within the project area include the Bill 

Williams Trail and the Bixler Trail. 

Livestock Grazing

Cumulative effects from livestock grazing include minor, generally localized soil compaction, puddling, 

and erosion from livestock trailing and in areas where animals congregate such as stock tanks and areas 

where mineral supplements are placed. Individual wildlife and livestock trails were noted in the proposed 

treatment areas, but these trails make up a small percentage of the landscape and proposed treatment 

areas. Livestock grazing is not expected to increase the area of soils characterized as unsatisfactory 

within the project area.

Invasive and Noxious Weeds

The cumulative effect of the increased risk of spread on noxious weeds on soil productivity can only be 

described in general terms because of the large number of unknown variables. Areas where soil 

disturbance includes compaction, displacement, erosion, and excessive heating are at the greatest risk of 

invasion by noxious weeds. These include spur roads used for fuelwood gathering and Christmas tree 

cutting, and pile burning areas. Monitoring of these areas for the presence of invasive and noxious weeds 

and treating observed populations in a timely manner would mitigate these adverse effects. To minimize 

cumulative adverse effects if invasive and noxious weeds, observed infestations will be managed in 

accordance with the Final Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or 

Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, 

and Yavapai Counties, Arizona.

Fire Effects 

In low burn severity areas, effects are mainly light ground char where the litter is scorched, charred, or 

partially consumed. The litter layer, or duff is largely intact, although it may be charred on the surface. 

Woody debris accumulations are partially scorched, charred, or consumed. Mineral soil properties are not 

adversely affected. In fact, low severity fire releases nutrients stored in surface organic matter and live 

vegetation. These nutrients facilitate rapid reestablishment of vegetative ground cover since root to shoot 

ratios are improved for grasses and forbs that survive fire, resulting in protection of soils from accelerated 

soil erosion soon after fire has occurred. Evidence of sheet and rill erosion as a result of low severity fire 

is minor. In forested areas, much of the tree overstory is green with some scorch at the base of the trees 

and in the lower branches following low severity fire. Most trees survive; however, pockets of seedlings, 

saplings, and mature trees can be killed or consumed where moderate to high severity fires occur. While 

most of the shrubs, forbs and grasses are affected under low severity fire conditions, in most cases, much 

of this vegetation survives. Areas identified as low burn severity may also contain large unburned areas, 

resulting in a mosaic of burned and unburned sites across the landscape. 

Cumulative watershed effects

When combined with projects and activities listed in Table 37, cumulative watershed effects from 

implementation of the Proposed Action would include improved soils and watershed condition and 

restoration of the ecological interrelationships of soils, vegetation, and watersheds in the project area. 

Water impoundments and other infrastructure that depend on stable soils and watershed conditions would 

be better protected from potential adverse effects of high severity wildfire. The transportation system 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 161

within and around Bill Williams Mountain would provide necessary access for future management of the 

Mountain and would be more sustainable than the current transportation system. 

Alternative 3 

Cumulative effects of Alternative 3 would be similar to the Proposed Action with the exception that there 

would be no cable or excaline logging under this alternative. Additionally, there would be no removal of 

trees greater than 9 inches DBH in MSO PACs and pine/oak habitat where slopes exceed 40 percent. 

Approximately 472 acres would therefore not receive full restoration treatments. Utilizing helicopters 

would facilitate removal of some trees, however, diameter limits would still prevent full restoration of 

portions of MSO PACs and pine/oak habitat on steeper slopes. 

While adverse cumulative effects to soils and watersheds from proposed restoration acitivites would be 

reduced slightly as compared to the Proposed Action since exclusion of cable and excaline logging 

systems would result in no potential adverse effects to soils or water quality, this reduction is minimal 

since cable logging systems generally result in less overall area of disturbance to soils and watershed 

resources than ground-based logging systems. If helicopter yarding is used to complete vegetation 

treatments in these areas instead of cable yarding systems, soil disturbance and potential adverse effects to 

water quality would be minimized. If these 472 acres are not treated to reduce tree density and fuel loads 

under this alternative, the risk of high severity wildfire would remain in these areas. 

As summarized in Table 37, other fuels reduction and forest restoration activities are either completed, 

underway, or proposed within and surrounding the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area. The 

effectiveness of such treatments would be offset by the marginal effectiveness of this Alternative to 

achieve desired soils and watershed desired conditions since forest restoration would not be fully 

achieved.

Alternative 4 

Cumulative effects of Alternative 4 to soils and watershed resources would be similar to the Proposed 

Action and Alternative 3, with the exception that there would be no cable logging or helicopter use under 

this alternative, limiting acres to be treated to 11,150, or 4,050 acres fewer than the Proposed Action. 

Approximately 26 percent of the area proposed for treatment under the Proposed Action would therefore 

not receive forest restoration treatments. Additionally, as under Alternative 3, there would be no removal 

of trees greater than 9 inches DBH in MSO PACs and pine/oak habitat where slopes exceed 40 percent. 

While short term adverse cumulative effects to soils and watershed resources would be reduced 

substantially under Alternative 4, it is through reduced acreage receiving forest restoration treatments that 

would protect and restore long term soils and watershed function. If these areas are not treated to reduce 

tree density and fuel loads under this alternative, the risk of high severity wildfire would remain on 

approximately 26 percent of the project area. 

Climate Change

While it is currently not possible to discern climate change effects of the Proposed Action or other Action 

Alternatives, given the lack of effects that can be meaningfully evaluated under current science and 

modeling, one would expect an initial, short-term increase in atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse 

gases from the proposed treatments through burning of hydrocarbons to conduct mechanical vegetation 

treatments, rapid oxidation of vegetation and woody debris during prescribed burning, and increased 

decomposition of woody debris. However, long-term effects would be positive as the ground cover of 

grasses and forbs increases. Woody debris would provide long term nutrient sources and contribute to 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

162 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

surface roughness, decreasing potential erosion. Nutrients released in ash during prescribed burning and 

through decomposition of residual woody debris from forest thinning would also improve soil quality. As 

previously noted the increase in ground cover of grasses, forbs, and shrubs, which have higher fine root 

turnover rates than large woody plants would result in greater soil organic matter content over time. Soils 

within the project area would therefore sequester more carbon dioxide (CO2) over the long term. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has asserted that scientists know with virtual certainty 

that human activities are changing the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere. It is also documented that 

“greenhouse” gases, including CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and hydrofluorocarbons have 

been increasing (EPA, 2010). The atmospheric increase of these gases is largely the result of human 

activities such as the burning of fossil fuels. Greenhouse gases absorb infrared energy that would 

otherwise be reflected from the earth. As this infrared energy is absorbed, the air surrounding the earth is 

heated (CARB 2007).

The Southwestern Region of the Forest Service recently released “Southwestern Region Climate Change 

– Trends and Forest Planning: A guide for addressing climate change in forest planning on southwestern 

National Forests and Grasslands. The following information is summarized from excerpts of this 

publication:

In the Southwest, climate modelers agree there is a drying trend that will continue well into the latter part 

of 21st century (IPCC 2007; Seager et al. 2007). Climate modelers predict increased precipitation, but 

believe that the overall balance between precipitation and evaporation would still likely result in an 

overall decrease in available moisture. Regional drying and warming trends have occurred twice during 

the 20th century (1930s Dust Bowl, and the 1950s Southwest Drought). Current drought conditions “may 

very well become the new climatology of the American Southwest within a time frame of years to 

decades”. According to recent model results, the slight warming trend observed during the last 100 years 

in the Southwest may continue into the next century, with the greatest warming to occur during winter. 

Climate models predict temperatures to rise approximately 5 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the 

century (IPCC 2007). This trend would likely increase demand on the region’s already limited water 

supplies, as well as increase energy demand, alter fire regimes and ecosystems, create risks for human 

health, and affect agriculture (Sprigg et al. 2000). 

Average ambient air temperatures are rising, and it is possible that continued warming will increase the 

temperature difference between the Southwest and the tropical Pacific Ocean, enhancing the strength of 

westerly winds that carry moist air from the tropics into the Southwest region during the monsoon season. 

This scenario may increase the monsoon’s intensity, or its duration, or both, in which case floods would 

occur with greater frequency (Guido 2008). While the region is generally expected to dry, it is possible 

that extreme weather patterns leading to more frequent destructive flooding would occur. Along with 

monsoons of higher intensity, hurricanes and other tropical depressions are projected to become more 

intense overall. Arizona typically receives 10 percent or more of the annual precipitation from storms that 

begin as tropical depressions in the Pacific Ocean. In fact, some of the largest floods in the Southwest 

have occurred when remnant tropical storms intersect frontal storms from the north or northwest (Guido 

2008). Most global climate models are not yet accurate enough to apply to land management at the 

ecoregional or National Forest scale. This limits regional and forest-specific analysis of the potential 

effects of climate change. 

Due to the spatial and temporal limitations of climate models, as stated above, site-specific analysis of 

climate change at the Forest level with regard to implementing fuels reduction treatments remains 

impractical. Several unknown factors further limit discussion and analysis of climate change at the Forest 

level. These include: lack of data on emissions from prescribed fire and wildfires, lack of data on 

emissions from logging machinery and traffic increases due to transportation of logs to processing 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 163

facilities, limited data on emissions from machinery used to construct, maintain, or obliterate roads, and 

limited knowledge of the contributions of surrounding areas to current and future climate impacts at the 

Forest level necessary to analyze cumulative effects. Impacts to climate change from implementation of 

the proposed project are therefore discussed in a qualitative manner.

Projected future climate change could affect Arizona in a variety of ways. Public health and safety could 

be compromised due to an increase in extreme temperatures and severe weather events. Agriculture 

would be vulnerable to altered temperature and rainfall patterns, increasing plant stress and susceptibility 

to insects and diseases. Forest ecosystems could face increased occurrences of high severity wildfires and 

may also be more susceptible to insects and diseases. Snowpack could decrease and snowmelt may occur 

earlier. 

While the future of climate change and its effects across the Southwest remains uncertain, it is certain that 

climate variability will continue to occur throughout the region. Forest management activities should 

strive to promote ecosystem resilience and resistance to impacts of climate change. Forest management 

activities should focus on maintenance and restoration of native ecosystems, thereby reducing the 

vulnerability of these ecosystems to variations in climate patterns. Ecological diversity remains an 

integral component in native ecosystems. Projects should promote connected landscapes and endeavor to 

restore significantly altered biological communities, thus restoring their resilience to changes in climate. 

3.5 Transportation

Affected Environment

The Bill Williams project area encompasses approximately 15,200 acres of national forest land system 

land immediately southwest of the City of Williams. The project area is bounded by Interstate 40 and Old 

Route 66 on the north, county highway 73, (The Perkinsville road) on the east, forest road 122 on the 

south and forest road 108 on the west. There are approximately 88 miles of Forest Service system roads, 

non-Forest Service jurisdiction roads, and unauthorized roads within the project area (Table 3.5-1). 

Table 3.5-1. Approximate miles of existing roads within the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project Area

Forest Service System Roads 60

 Maintenance Level 1 (ML-1) Roads 20

 Maintenance Level 2 (ML-2) Roads 31

 Maintenance Level 3 (ML-3) Roads 9

 Maintenance Level 4 (ML-4) Roads 0

Non-Forest Service Jurisdiction 15

Known Unauthorized Roads 13

Total 88

Forest Service roads are classified by Maintenance Level (ML) on a 1 to 5 scale. ML-1 roads are closed 

roads that receive little to no maintenance; are planned/allowed to re-vegetate naturally; are not open to 

motor vehicle use, but may be open and suitable for non-motorized uses. ML-2 roads are maintained to 

allow for use by high clearance vehicles such as pick-ups and logging trucks. ML-3 roads are maintained 

to accommodate passenger cars. ML-4 and 5 are maintained for a higher level of passenger comfort. 

Forest Service road 108 is a ML-3 road while nearly all of the other existing roads in the project area are 

maintenance level 1 or 2 roads. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

164 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Portions of the project area have limited roaded access or are accessed by poorly located roads. There are 

approximately 28 miles of roads within the project area that are poorly located and lack adequate 

transportation planning and engineering design (Table 3.5-2). They are often found in drainage bottoms or 

on ridge tops, have steep grades in excess of 15% and run parallel to the slope. They are often below the 

grade of the surrounding area and are deeply rutted as a result of poor drainage. 

The current road system was not located or designed properly to serve as a sustainable transportation 

system that facilitates land management, resource protection and user safety. Five miles of road in the 

project area that are currently open to motor vehicle use need to be closed for user safety.

The Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan directs the forest to:

“Provide and manage a serviceable road transportation system that meets needs for public access, land 

management, resource protection, and user safety. Provisions are made for the construction and 

reconstruction, maintenance, seasonal and special closures of Forest roads; and obliteration of 

unnecessary roads.” 

Table 3.5-2. Approximate miles of roads within the project area that are poorly located and 

proposed for obliteration

Forest Service System Roads 15

 Maintenance Level 1 (ML-1) Roads 9

 Maintenance Level 2 (ML-2) Roads 6

Unauthorized Roads 13

Total 28

Environmental Effects

The transportation system that would be required to accomplish the objectives of the action alternatives 

has been closely analyzed and planned through field reconnaissance and extensive map analysis. The 

main goals of the transportation system are to minimize impacts to the environment while safely and 

efficiently accomplishing the goals of the action alternatives. The direct and indirect effects of the road 

systems on the various Forest resources are addressed in the individual resource specialist reports and 

sections of the EIS. A comparison of road mileages by category and alternative is shown in Table 3.5-3. 

Table 3.5-3. Comparison of Road Mileages by Alternative

Alternative 

1 No Action

Alternative 2

Proposed 

Action

Alternative 

3 

Alternative 

4 

Miles of new road construction 0 23 22 0

Miles of temporary roads 

constructed and obliterated after 

use

0 16 16 38

Miles of existing roads obliterated 0 28 28 28

Miles of road converted to trail 0 3 3 3

Post Implementation Road Miles

Miles of closed roads 

(Maintenance Level 1) 

20 36 35 16
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 165

Miles of maintenance level 2 roads 31 20 20 20

Miles of maintenance level 3 roads 9 9 9 9

Miles of maintenance level 4 roads 0 0 0 0

Transportation System Economics

Construction cost is broken out by construction phases such as clearing, excavation, etc. Under 

Alternatives 2 and 3, temporary roads would only be constructed on slopes less than 20% side slope, 

roads on side slopes over 20% were all permanent roads. Under alternative 4 all roads, both over and 

under 20% side slope would be temporary roads. Roads over 20% require more excavation and require 

placement of a number of corrugated metal pipes (CMPs). This increases total road cost per mile. 

Obliterating roads with CMPs adds additional cost per mile of road because all CMPs must be removed. 

Costs per mile of road for different types of road are shown in Table 3.5-4 and estimated road costs for 

the alternatives are shown in Table 3.5-5.

Table 3.5-4. Road Cost/Mile by Construction Phase and Road Type

Construction 

Phase

New 

Construction 

Permanent 

Road

New Construction 

Temporary Road Over 

20% side slope with 

Obliteration

New Construction 

Temporary Road Under 

20% side slope with 

Obliteration

Road Obliteration

Existing Roads

Clearing $6703 $6,703 $6,703 N/A

Excavation $2,250 $2,250 $0 N/A

Drain Dips $600 $600 $0 N/A

CMPs $1,432 $1,432 $0 N/A

Finishing $544 $544 $544 N/A

Seeding $1,513 $1,513 $1,513 $1,513

Mobilization $957 $957 $957 $957

Obliteration $0 $1,056 $1,056 $1,056

Remove CMPs 0 $704 0 0

Total $/ Mile $13,999.00 $15,759.00 $10,773.00 $3,526.00

Table 3.5-5. Road Cost by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Miles of Permanent Road 0 23 22 0

Total Cost for Permanent Roads $0 $321,977 $307,978 $0

Miles of Temporary Road Under 

20% side slope

$0 16 16 16

Total Cost for Temporary Road 

Construction and Obliteration 

Under 20% side slope

$0 $172,368 $172,368 172,368

Miles of Temporary Road Over 

20% side slope

0 0 0 22

Total Cost for Temporary Road 

Construction and Obliteration 

Over 20% side slope

$0 $0 $0 $346,698
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

166 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Miles of Road Obliteration 

Existing Road

0 28 28 28

Total Cost Road Obliteration 

Existing Road

$0 $98,728 $98,728 $98,728

Total Alternative Road Cost $0 $593,073 $579,074 $617,794

Alternative 1 – No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 1 the project would not be implemented. No harvesting would take place, no new or 

temporary road construction would occur. None of the poorly located, existing roads would be 

obliterated. There would be no costs incurred with this alternative and no changes would be made to the 

existing transportation system in the project area. 

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative environmental effect under this alternative.

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 2, approximately 23 miles of maintenance level 2 roads and approx. 16 miles of 

temporary roads would be constructed using best management practices and relevant mitigation measures. 

All temporary roads would be obliterated after use and all new roads constructed will be closed after use 

and placed into long-term storage. Closed roads (maintenance level 1 roads) will be allowed to revegetate naturally; will receive little to no maintenance (i.e. only when it is necessary to alleviate erosion 

or sedimentation from the roadway or roadside); and will not be open to motor vehicle use, but will be 

open and suitable for non-motorized uses. Post implementation of the project, approximately 29 miles of 

ML 2 – 4 roads would be left open for motor vehicle use and approx. 36 miles of roads would be closed 

to motor vehicle use9

. The 28 miles of existing roads (3.5-2; Appendix A Map 4) that are poorly located 

and causing erosion would be obliterated following implementation of the project.

By re-designing the transportation system through the construction of new and temporary roads, 

Alternatives 2 would improve access around the base of Bill Williams Mountain and adequately facilitate 

treatment of the entire project area. Alternatives 2 would retain all of the newly constructed roads after 

implementation of the project because of the investment that would be required to build them. However, it 

would reduce maintenance needs in the project area by eliminating poorly located roads. 

 

9 A note on understanding the post implementation road system for Alternative 2: Table 1 shows the 

existing condition and Table 3 shows the post implementation road system. There is no change to nonForest Service jurisdiction roads therefore they are not reflected in Table 3. Additionally the 13 miles of

know unauthorized roads shown in Table 1 will be obliterated, and therefore are not shown in Table 3. 

Even though there is no change to ML 3 and 4 roads they are still displayed in Table 3 to reflect the post 

implementation Forest Service road system. To understand the post implementation road mileage for 

ML-1 roads we begin with 20 miles, convert 3 miles to a non-motorized trail (-3), obliterate 9 miles of 

poorly located roads (-9), close the 23 miles of newly constructed roads (+23), and close an additional 5 

miles of road (currently open ML-2 roads) for user safety (+5); this results in 36 miles of ML-1 roads 

post implementation. To understand the post implementation road mileage for ML-2 roads we begin 

with 31 miles, obliterate 6 miles of poorly located roads (-6), and closed 5 miles of road for user safety 

(-5); this results in 20 miles of ML-2 roads post implementation. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 167

Estimated cost for constructing 23 miles of ML-2 roads, constructing 16 miles of temporary roads, and 

obliterating 28 miles of roads under Alternative 2 is $593,073.

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of this alternative would result in five miles of road closed within the project area above 

what was closed under the Williams District Travel Management Project decision in 2010. This 

alternative would provide a permanent, sustainable road system for future access to the entire project area.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

The direct and indirect effects for Alternative 3 would be similar to Alternative 2 except that Alternative 3 

has no cable logging involved which reduces the new road construction by 1 mile. Alternative 3 would 

construct approximately 22 miles of maintenance level 2 roads and approx. 16 miles of temporary road; it 

would also obliterate approximately 28 miles of existing road for a total cost of $579,074.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects for Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Under Alternative 4, no new permanent roads would be constructed and treatment of the project area 

would be facilitated by the construction of a temporary road system; approximately 38 miles of temporary 

road would be constructed using best management practices and relevant mitigation measures. All 

temporary roads would be obliterated after use. The 28 miles of existing roads that are poorly located and 

causing erosion would be obliterated following implementation of the project. Post implementation of the 

project, approximately 29 miles of ML 2 – 4 roads would be left open for motor vehicle use and approx. 

16 miles of roads would be closed to motor vehicle use10. 

Alternative 4 would make the least changes the existing transportation system and would, like all other 

action alternatives, reduce maintenance needs in the project area by eliminating poorly located roads. It 

facilitates treatment of the project area by only constructing only temporary roads. Roads that would be 

permanent under Alternatives 3 would be temporary under Alternative 4. Alternative 4 builds 38 miles of 

temporary road and obliterates 28 miles of existing road for a total cost of $617,794. 

 

Cumulative Effects

Implementation of this alternative would result in five miles of road closed within the project area above 

what was closed under the Williams District Travel Management Project decision in 2010. This 

 

10 A note on understanding the post implementation road system for Alternative 4: Table 1 shows the 

existing condition and Table 3 shows the post implementation road system. There is no change to nonForest Service jurisdiction roads therefore they are not reflected in Table 3. Additionally the 13 miles of 

know unauthorized roads shown in Table 1 will be obliterated, and therefore are not shown in Table 3. 

Even though there is no change to ML 3 and 4 roads they are still displayed in Table 3 to reflect the post 

implementation Forest Service road system. To understand the post implementation road mileage for 

ML-1 roads we begin with 20 miles, obliterate 9 miles of poorly located roads (-9), and close an 

additional 5 miles of road (currently open ML-2 roads) for user safety (+5); this results in 20 miles of 

ML-1 roads post implementation. To understand the post implementation road mileage for ML-2 roads 

we begin with 31 miles, obliterate 6 miles of poorly located roads (-6), and closed 5 miles of road for 

user safety (-5); this results in 20 miles of ML-2 roads post implementation.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

168 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

alternative would not provide a permanent, sustainable road system for the project area as all new roads 

under this alternative would be temporary and the existing roads provide limited access.

3.6 Wildlife

See the Wildlife Specialist’s Report for a description of the legal framework, direction from Forest 

Service Manuals, evaluation criteria for analysis, and a detailed biological evaluation and assessment of 

all affected species. In order to assure compliance with NFMA, project implementers must consult 

the “Project Implementation Checklist for Wildlife Conservation” found in the Wildlife Specialist’s 

Report when planning and conducting implementation. This checklist copies direction from the 

Forest Plan that pertains to implementation of this project.

THREATENED, ENDANGERED, & FOREST SERVICE SENSITIVE (TES) SPECIES

If a TES species or its habitat occurs within the project in the project’s action area, then it was analyzed it 

in this report (Table 3.6-1). See USDA (2011) for a Forest-level report on TES species to consider in 

Biological Evaluations. Effects of Alternatives were analyzed for only those species that are known to 

occupy the project area or have suitable habitat within the project area. See Table 3.6-1 for TES species 

considered and/or analyzed in this analysis, along with acres of habitat in the project area for each 

species. See Figures 3.6-1 and 3.6-2 for a depiction of habitat for Mexican spotted owls and northern 

goshawks within the project area.

Table 3.6-1. List of TES wildlife species considered in this analysis.

Species Status

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present

Suitable 

Habitat 

Known to 

Be 

Occupied

Description of Habitat within 

Project Area

Approximate Acres 

of Affected Habitat 

in Project Area

Mexican spotted owl 

(Strix occidentalis 

lucida)

Threatened Yes Yes Mixed-conifer and pine-oak 

forest.

7,123 (see MSO 

section for details)

Bald eagle (Haliaeetus 

leucocephalus) Sensitive Yes Yes Generalist; all habitats. 15,202 (Entire project area)

Northern goshawk 

(Accipiter gentilis) Sensitive Yes Yes Ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer 

forest, and woodlands.

15,068 (See goshawk 

section for details)

American peregrine 

falcon (Falco peregrinus 

anatum) 

Sensitive Yes No

Grasslands and other open 

landscapes, with cliffs present for 

nest sites.

64
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 169

Species Status

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present

Suitable 

Habitat 

Known to 

Be 

Occupied

Description of Habitat within 

Project Area

Approximate Acres 

of Affected Habitat 

in Project Area

Navajo Mogollon vole 

(Microtus mogollonensis 

navaho) 

Sensitive Yes No

Meadows and grassy openings in 

ponderosa pine and mixedconifer forests.

Meadows and 

openings 

(unquantified) within 

12,462 acres.

Merriam’s shrew (Sorex 

merriami leucogenys) Sensitive Yes No

Wet meadows and other cool, 

grassy openings in ponderosa 

pine and mixed-conifer forests.

Wet meadows and 

cool, grassy openings 

(unquantified) within 

12,462 acres.

Spotted bat (Euderma 

maculatum) Sensitive Yes No

Pondorosa pine forest, pinyonjuniper forest, and other habitat 

below mixed-conifer forest.

13,284

Allen’s lappet-browed 

bat (Idionycteris 

phylliotis) 

Sensitive Yes No Generalist; all habitats. 15,202 (Entire 

project area)

Pale Townsend’s bigeared bat (Corynorhinus 

townsendii pallescens) 

Sensitive Yes No Generalist; all habitats. 15,202 (Entire 

project area)

Four spotted skipperling 

(Pirunga polingii) Sensitive Yes No

Moist meadows, seeps, springs 

within ponderosa pine and 

mixed-conifer forest.

Moist meadows, 

seeps, springs 

(unquantified) within 

12,462 acres.

California condor 

(Gymnogyps 

californianus) 

Endangered No No N/A (requires open landscapes 

with canyon habitat for nesting). 0 

Black-footed ferret 

(Mustela nigripes) Endangered No No

N/A (requires grasslands with 

prairie dog town or complexes of 

>200 acres in size. Complex 

consists of 2+ neighboring towns 

within 4.3 miles of each other).

0 

Northern leopard frog 

(Rana pipiens) Sensitive No No N/A (requires perrennial 

wetlands or streams). 0 

Burrowing owl (western) 

(Athena cumicularia 

hypugaea) 

Sensitive No No N/A (requires grasslands with 

burrows present). 0 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

170 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species Status

Suitable 

Habitat 

Present

Suitable 

Habitat 

Known to 

Be 

Occupied

Description of Habitat within 

Project Area

Approximate Acres 

of Affected Habitat 

in Project Area

Western red bat 

(Lasiurus blossevillii) Sensitive No No N/A (requires deciduous riparian 

habitat). 0 

Habitat acreage calculations are based on the Silviculturist’s Report estimates of stand acres classified by 

cover type. One may assume that all acres of habitat listed in the last column on this table would be 

affected by the thinning and burning activities proposed under the different Action Alternatives.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 171

Figure 3.6-1. Habitat of Mexican spotted owls affected by the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project. Double-click image for high-resolution .pdf map. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

172 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.6-2. Habitat of northern goshawks affected by the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration 

Project. Double-click image for high-resolution .pdf map.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 173

Mexican Spotted Owl

Existing Conditions

See the Wildlife Specialist’s Report for a detailed description of survey effort, Protected Habitat, and 

Restricted Habitat within the project area, as well as more information on the background and natural 

history of the species’ conservation. The Forest-wide population trend for MSOs is declining, as five of 

six historic PACs are considered occupied based on the most recent survey data (USDA 2010). See 

Ganey (2011) for regional population trends.

MSOs prefer habitat with cool microclimates, high canopy closure, high stem density, trees >18” DBH, 

multi-layered canopies, numerous snags, and abundant downed woody material (FWS 2011). On the 

Williams Ranger District, the MSO is known to nest and roost in mixed conifer forest and canyons. The 

USFWS also considers pine-oak forest to be MSO habitat within the Upper Gila Mountain Recovery Unit 

13, the Critical Habitat Recovery Unit which MSOs occupy on the Williams Ranger District. However, 

data indicate that the species virtually never uses pine-oak forest on the Williams Ranger District: After 

more than 20 years of survey across the District, MSOs have only been detected on one occasion in pineoak forest. See Figure 3.6-1 and Table 3.6-2 for more information on MSO habitat within the project 

area.

Wildlife biologists, wildland fire managers, silviculturalists, and the District Ranger of the Williams 

Ranger District corresponded and met with personnel from the FWS Ecological Services Office of 

Northern Arizona (including the MSO Recovery Team Leader) on several occasions to develop aspects of 

this project, especially those that pertain to conservation of MSO habitat. Participation by the FWS was 

integral in shaping desired conditions and mitigation measures for MSO conservation.

Table 3.6-2. Acres of MSO habitat within the project area, by habitat type.

*Includes acreage of habitat within Bill Williams PAC that is not mixed conifer or pine-oak forest. **See 

Table 13 from the Forest Plan (USDA 1988) or Table III.B.1 from the 1995 Recovery Plan (FWS 1995). 

 Habitat Type Acres in 

Pine-Oak 

Forest

Acres in Mixed 

conifer Forest

Total 

Acres

Protected Habitat 386 1,797 2,426*

Protected Activity Center 10 766 1018*

Meets Threshold Conditions 

according to 2011 draft Recovery 

Plan**

40 2 42

Restricted Habitat 4521 176 4697

Meets Threshold Conditions 

according to 1995 Recovery 

Plan**

0 22 22

Meets Threshold Conditions 

according to 2011 draft Recovery 

Plan

27 22 49

Designated as Target Habitat, in 

line with 1995 and 2011 Recovery 

Plans

173 45 218

Critical Habitat 4,128 1,973 6,101*
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

174 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Approximately 60% of the project area, including 80% of Protected Habitat and 70% of Restricted 

Habitat, is at risk of active crown fire, which would lead to long-term loss of all forest in these areas (see 

Fire/Fuels Report). Tables 3.6-3 through 3.6.14 provide quantitative estimates of the existing condition 

of habitat attributes important to the conservation of MSOs (see Silviculturist’s report for details on 

methods of model estimates).

Existing Conditions in Protected Habitat

Protected Habitat is primarily managed to conserve nesting and roosting habitat. It includes protected 

activity centers (PACs); special areas such as Wilderness and Research Natural Areas; and all mixed 

conifer and pine-oak forest on slopes >40%. The Bill Williams PAC is the only PAC within the analysis 

area, and the entirety of this PAC occurs within the project boundary. The Bill Williams PAC consists of 

mixed conifer forest and other forest and woodland types (primarily oak woodlands). All other Protected 

Habitat consists of mixed conifer and pine-oak forest on slopes greater than 40%.

Protected Habitat within the project area has never been extensively timbered and therefore contains 

many trees >18” DBH, snags, down logs, and other key habitat variables for nesting and roosting owls. 

Protected Habitat within the project area is botanically diverse, contains several streams and springs, has 

rough topography, contains many large patches of pre-settlement trees, and is largely suitable for nesting 

and roosting owls. Protected Habitat on the northern, northeastern, and eastern sides of Bill Williams 

Mountain seems most suitable to nesting and roosting owls (JJD personal observation). Such habitat is 

rare across the Kaibab National Forest.

Due to decades of fire exclusion, Protected Habitat in the project area is also uncharacteristically dense 

and in an unsustainable state. Few openings exist, a desired condition that provides foraging habitat and 

regeneration areas (FWS 1995 and 2011). Without fire, trees have grown to abnormally high densities and 

inter-tree competition has reduced the health of trees. Although high basal areas are generally desirable 

for MSO conservation, there is a point at which basal areas can become so high that they actually inhibit 

MSO flight (S. Hedwall, personal communication). Such areas are common throughout the Protected 

Habitat of the project area. Uncharacteristic tree densities have led to recent epidemics of fir engravers 

(Scolytus ventralis) that killed many large white firs (Abies concolor) (JJD personal observation).

Existing Conditions in Restricted Habitat

Restricted Habitat is managed for a variety of purposes, including reducing fire hazard to PACs, 

providing foraging habitat, and providing for future nesting and roosting habitat. It includes all riparian 

areas, as well as mixed conifer and ponderosa pine-oak forest on slopes <40%. All of the Restricted 

Habitat in the project boundary consists of pine-oak and mixed conifer forest. At least 10% of Restricted 

Habitat in pine-oak forest and 25% in mixed conifer forest are to be managed as Target and Threshold 

Habitat. “Target/Threshold Habitat” is managed for future MSO nesting and roosting owls and provides 

for replacement nesting and roosting habitat (USDA 1988; FWS 1995). 

Aside from those sites designated as Target/Threshold Habitat and those sites within drainages, the pineoak Restricted Habitat within the project area is dominated by small to mid-sized trees (<18” DBH), has 

open to moderately closed canopies, is relatively even-aged, has very little topography, and exhibits low 

vegetative productivity (see Silviculturist’s Report for details). Very little mixed conifer Restricted 

Habitat occurs in the project area. With the exception of Target/Threshold sites, the mixed conifer 

Restricted Habitat is moderately open and dominated by small to mid-sized trees (JJD, personal 

observation). The Target/Threshold Habitat in the project area exhibits favorable features for 

nesting/roosting owls, including an abundance of large conifers, large oaks and other hardwoods, snags, 

drainages, cool aspects, and connectivity with the Bill Williams PAC (JJD, personal observation).

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 175

Unnaturally dense forests increase the probability of stand-replacing wildfire (Tables 3.6-3 and 4) and 

epidemics of infestations by insects and disease. The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate this risk 

(see existing conditions section above). These uncharacteristically severe disturbances would degrade or 

destroy the mature forests, trees >18” DBH, and snags on which this species relies. Under the No-Action 

Alternative, approximately 90% of the mixed conifer forest and 100% of the ponderosa pine (including 

pine-oak) forest in the project area would remain highly departed from its historical fire regime (Table 

3.6-3). The probability of active crown fire would only increase (currently at approximately 70% in 

Restricted Habitat and 80% in Protected Habitat; Table 3.6-4) under the No-Action Alternative.

Table 3.6-3. Percent of area in each Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC). FRCC 1 is within the 

normal range of variability, FRCC 2 is somewhat departed from this range, and FRCC 3 is highly 

departed from this range. See Fire/Fuels Report for details.

Dominant 

Vegetation 

Type 

FRCC

Desired 

Condition 

(%) 

Alternative 

1 (%)

Alternative 

2 (%)

Alternative 

3 (%)

Alternative 

4 (%)

Dry 

Mixed 

Conifer 

FRCC 1 100 0 40 20 10

FRCC 2 0 10 20 15 15

FRCC 3 0 90 40 65 75

Ponderosa 

Pine 

(including 

Pine-Oak)

FRCC 1 100 0 80 53 53

FRCC 2 0 0 20 10 10

FRCC 3 0 100 0 37 37

Pinyon -

Juniper

FRCC 1 100 0 50 46 46

FRCC 2 0 100 50 54 54

FRCC 3 0 0 0 0 0

Private or 

NonVegetated

FRCC 1

FRCC not analyzed. FRCC 2

FRCC 3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

176 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-4. Probability of surface fire, passive crown fire (i.e., torching), and active crown fire (i.e., 

stand-replacement fire) within different habitat types of the project area. See Fire/Fuels Report for 

details.

Alternative 1 (No Action)

Habitat Type Surface Fire Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire

MSO PAC 12% 9% 79%

MSO Protected 12% 18% 70%

MSO Restricted 17% 3% 80%

Goshawk Nest 17% 11% 72%

Goshawk PFA 16% 14% 70%

Goshawk Foraging 12% 19% 69%

Entire Project Area 17% 21% 62%

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Habitat Type Surface Fire Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire

MSO PAC 43% 11% 45%

MSO Protected 53% 24% 22%

MSO Restricted 74% 18% 8%

Goshawk Nest 77% 11% 12%

Goshawk PFA 68% 15% 17%

Goshawk Foraging 72% 20% 7%

Entire Project Area 54% 27% 19%

Alternative 3

Habitat Type Surface Fire Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire

MSO PAC 36% 8% 56%

MSO Protected 41% 24% 35%

MSO Restricted 48% 37% 15%

Goshawk Nest 15% 12% 73%

Goshawk PFA 63% 16% 21%

Goshawk Foraging 46% 43% 11%

Entire Project Area 42% 30% 27%

Alternative 4

Habitat Type Surface Fire Passive Crown Fire Active Crown Fire

MSO PAC 21% 3% 75%

MSO Protected 13% 9% 78%

MSO Restricted 56% 28% 16%

Goshawk Nest 30% 48% 21%

Goshawk PFA 21% 29% 50%

Goshawk Foraging 61% 25% 15%

Entire Project Area 32% 32% 36%

MSO Protected Habitat includes the Bill Williams PAC and all mixed conifer and pine-oak forest on 

slopes >40%. 170 acres within the project area are non-burnable; this was accounted in calculating these 

statistics.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 177

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Similarities in Vegetative Treatments Effects among the Action Alternatives

For the purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that all MSO Habitat within the Project Area (Table 3.6-2) 

would be mechanically thinned and burned. Stands that meet the definition of Threshold Habitat (under 

either the 1995 or 2011 [draft] Recovery Plans [FWS 1995 and 2011], and under the Forest Plan [USDA 

1988]) would be conserved as Threshold Habitat. That is, manipulation of vegetation through mechanical 

treatments and prescribed fire would not cause the values of the attributes that constitute Threshold 

Habitat to be reduced below Table minimums (Table 13 in USDA 1988; Table III.B.1 in FWS 1995; 

Table C.2 in FWS 2011). Treatments would move Target stands toward favorable conditions for 

nesting/roosting owls while reducing fire hazard, with a high basal area dominated by a greater proportion 

of trees >18” DBH with a more sustainable degree of evenness of trees across the larger size classes.

Restricted Habitat outside Target/Threshold Habitat and within goshawk nest areas would be managed 

according to standards and guidelines for goshawk nest areas. Treatments (typically thin-from-below 

treatments) would leave these areas dense with high canopy cover, high basal areas, and mostly older age 

classes. These areas may serve as future nesting/roosting habitat for MSOs, as they would exhibit high 

canopy cover and would be dominated by many trees greater than 18” DBH.

Pine-oak Restricted Habitat outside Target/Threshold Habitat and within goshawk PFAs would be 

managed according to standards and guidelines for goshawk PFAs. Treatments would leave these areas 

moderately dense, with moderate-high canopy cover, moderate-high basal areas, and a diversity of age 

classes. Thinning and burning in these areas would conserve potential nesting and roosting habitat for 

MSOs and reduce fire hazard to the Bill Williams PAC.

Mixed conifer Restricted Habitat outside Target/Threshold areas would be managed for uneven-aged 

conditions and according to standards and guidelines for goshawk management outside PFAs in mixed 

conifer forest (at least 40-60 % canopy cover; 10% of the area managed toward VSS 1 and 2; 20% for 

VSS 3; 20% for VSS 4; 20% for VSS 5; 20% for VSS 6). Treatments would leave these areas relatively 

dense, with moderate canopy cover, moderate basal areas, and a diversity of age classes. In time, they 

may grow into suitable nesting/roosting habitat. Under Alternatives 2-4, these areas would not be 

managed toward pre-settlement conditions. This was incorporated in order to leave denser forest in 

habitat where owls may be more likely to forage.

Smoke from broadcast and pile-burning may disturb MSOs. MSOs are known to return to PACs after 

fires and smoke events have ceased (FWS 2011). Prescribed fire would be managed to minimize the 

accumulation of smoke in PACs (see Project Implementation Checklist). With this information in mind, 

along with the concept that the species presumably adapted and evolved to smoke from wildland fire, 

smoke-related effects would not be substantial. 

Loss of mistletoe-infected trees would cause a loss of nesting microhabitat for the species and its prey. 

Although many mistletoe-infected trees would be removed, a mitigation measure specific to conservation 

of important wildlife trees will conserve this naturally occurring attribute of the ecosystem (see Section 

2.3.1).

Alternatives 2-3 would involve the construction of one mile of trail on low slopes, but this would not 

occur in “pure” pine forest, not pine-oak or mixed-conifer forest. Obliterating existing, poorly placed 

roads would reduce sedimentation and improve watersheds, which may benefit the habitat of MSO prey 

and increase their populations. Road obliteration would restore more native habitat and reduce 

recreational disturbance by humans.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

178 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Construction of new, Maintenance-Level 1 roads and temporary roads would cause sedimentation, 

watershed degradation which may degrade the habitat of MSO prey and reduce their populations. The 

effects of temporary road construction would be minimal, as roads would be obliterated after use. The 

effects of Maintenance-Level 1 road construction would be more pronounced, as it may take many years 

before roads re-vegetate on their own. However, best management practices would minimize soil erosion 

and watershed degradation from newly constructed, Maintenance-Level 1 roads after implementation 

(e.g., culvert removal to restore natural water flows; see Soil and Watershed Specialist’s Report for 

details). 

Road construction would cause an incidental loss of trees >18” DBH. This analysis assumes that the 

average width of land cleared to create a roadbed is one chain (66 ft.), so approximately eight acres of 

land would be denuded of trees for every one mile of road. Approximately 11.7 miles (94 acres) of new, 

Maintenance-Level 1 roads would be constructed in MSO habitat under Alternative 2, with approximately 

0.2 miles (1.6 acres) on the northwestern edge of the Bill Williams PAC, approximately 0.5 miles (4 

acres) in Protected Habitat outside the PAC, and the remainder in Restricted Habitat. Approximately 11 

miles (88 acres) of new, Maintenance-Level 1 roads would be constructed in MSO habitat under 

Alternative 3, with approximately 0.2 miles (2 acres) on the northwestern edge of the Bill Williams PAC 

and the remainder in Restricted Habitat. Alternative 2 would involve construction of approximately 6.8 

miles (54 acres) of temporary roads (obliterated after treatments are completed) in MSO habitat, with 

approximately 0.1 miles (0.8 acres) in the PAC and 0.2 miles (1.6 acres) in Protected Habitat outside the 

PAC under Alternative 2 and the remainder in Restricted Habitat. Alternative 2 would involve 

construction of approximately 6.5 miles (52 acres) of temporary roads in MSO habitat, all in Restricted 

Habitat. Alternative 4 would not involve the construction of new, Maintenance-Level 1 roads; however, 

it would entail construction of approximately 17.5 miles (140 acres) of temporary roads in MSO habitat, 

with approximately 0.2 miles (1.6 acres) on the northwestern edge of the Bill Williams PAC and the 

remainder in Restricted Habitat.

Differences in Vegetative Treatments Effects among the Action Alternatives

Thinning above 9” DBH strengthens the ability of the Forest Service to reduce fire hazard to, while still 

retaining key habitat variables of, nesting/roosting habitat. It allows the agency to implement unevenaged management, as recommended in both the existing and new, draft MSO Recovery Plans (FWS 1995

and 2011).

Alternative 4 would result in the least favorable effects on MSO habitat. For example, Alternative 4 

would result in substantially fewer trees/acre > 18” DBH, lower general basal area, and lower 

representation of the largest trees as a proportion of total basal area in Protected Habitat than Alternatives 

2 and 3 (Tables 3.6-5 through 7). Important components of habitat such as the number of trees/acre >18” 

DBH and percent of the forest represented in higher age classes would be lower under Alternative 2 than 

Alternative 3; however, Alternative 2 would result in a greater reduction in probability of active crown 

fire (Table 3.6-3 and 4) while still conserving desired conditions for MSO nesting and roosting habitat 

based on the best available science (Table C.1, FWS 2011). Thinning above 9” DBH promotes greater 

vertical and horizontal diversity within nesting/roosting habitat, the restoration of 1-2 acre openings 

(which do not exist across much of the existing nesting/roosting habitat, due to decades of fire exclusion), 

and other desired conditions as identified in the new, draft Recovery Plan (FWS 2011). In general, and in 

comparison to the other Alternatives, Alternative 2 would most closely meet desired conditions for 

nesting/roosting habitat based on the best available science (Table C.1, FWS 2011). It would most restore 

the landscape toward conditions to which MSOs adapted and evolved.

 

The only caveat to this statement is that side-effects of cable-logging operations (i.e., “cable-logging” and 

“exca-lining” as described in the EIS) would cause a loss of all snags and trees (including snags >18” 

DBH, trees greater than >24” DBH, and pre-settlement trees) across 15% of approximately 480 acres of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 179

Protected Habitat (mostly mixed conifer forest). Cable-logging operations would entail cutting all 

vegetation in corridors of approximately 15’ in width, spaced approximately every 100’. Approximately 

15%, or 72 acres, of Protected Habitat treated with cable-logging operations would therefore be denuded

under Alternative 2. Much of this area contains extremely large (>24” DBH) pre-settlement trees and 

snags (JJD, personal observation). In comparison to cable-logging operations, other possible systems 

(i.e., helicopter-logging or hand-thinning operations) under Alternative 2 would more closely meet 

desired conditions.

The ponderosa pine landscape on slopes <40%, including pine-oak Restricted Habitat, would be restored 

more toward pre-settlement conditions under Alternative 2 than Alternatives 3-4. However, mitigation 

measures would ensure that canopy cover would remain above 40% across pine-oak Restricted Habitat 

under all Action Alternatives (see section 2.3.1 of EIS). Drainages and areas on cooler/wetter aspects and 

with high vegetative productivity may serve as MSO habitat in the future. This mitigation measure would 

ensure that they are managed to be moderately closed to very closed. These areas would moderately 

reduce fire hazard to the Bill Williams PAC, and they would serve as future nesting, roosting, and 

foraging habitat for MSOs. Areas on warmer/drier aspects would be very open to moderately open. 

Generally, these areas of low vegetative productivity do not have the capacity to serve as MSO nesting 

habitat now or in the future. Treatments in these areas would provide foraging habitat for MSOs, and 

thinning treatments would reduce fire hazard to the Bill Williams PAC and the surrounding forest.

Pine-Oak Protected Habitat

Alternative 2 is virtually the same as Alternative 3 in terms of its effects on the number of trees >18” 

DBH/acre, although it most increases the % SDI of the three largest size classes of trees and leads to 

highest conservation of snags >18” DBH. Alternative 4 would cause a substantial loss of trees >18” 

DBH/acre in comparison to all other Alternatives. Differences in general basal area, oak basal area, and 

number of down logs/acre are negligible between Alternatives 2 and 4, but Alternative 3 would lead to 

substantially less basal area, fewer oaks, and fewer down logs. Differences in canopy cover are negligible 

among the Action Alternatives. It is important to note that although basal area decreases by 

approximately 20-40 sq. ft./acre, canopy cover still remains high under all of the Action Alternatives. 

Considering the high probability of widespread crown fire under the No-Action Alternative (see Table 

3.6-3 and 4), and the differences of stand structure and probability of active crown fire resulting from the 

different Action Alternatives, Alternative 2 appears that it would most favorably affect pine-oak Protected 

Habitat. See table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does 

include prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives). Attributes analyzed in these and subsequent, 

similar tables include: basal area, percent stand density index (SDI), trees/acre >18” DBH snags/acre 

>18” DBH and >12” DBH, logs/acre >12” midpoint diameter, and shade canopy. See Silviculturist’s 

report for details on methods used to calculate these results.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

180 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-5. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Protected Habitat. 

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire) Bill Williams Restoration Project Protected Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 144 14 20 8 2 9 2.0 8.4 6 69

2014 144 14 20 8 2 9 1.9 8.2 6 69

2033 155 23 20 9 2 14 0.7 5.2 11 71

2053 169 30 21 13 2 16 0.5 4.4 13 73

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Protected Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 144 14 20 8 2 9 2.0 8.4 6 69

2014 112 14 20 8 2 9 1.9 8.1 3 63

2033 100 18 23 17 2 13 1.1 5.4 9 60

2053 121 22 22 25 3 21 1.0 4.1 11 65

Alternative 3: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Protected Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 144 14 20 8 2 9 2.0 8.4 6 69

2014 75 13 20 8 2 6 1.9 7.9 3 53

2033 72 11 22 24 4 12 0.7 2.4 7 52

2053 98 14 26 36 5 20 0.3 0.8 8 60

Alternative 4: Bill Williams Restoration Project Protected Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 144 14 20 8 2 9 2.0 8.4 6 69

2014 114 14 20 8 2 6 1.9 8.1 5 63

2033 98 17 24 16 3 9 0.7 4.6 9 59

2053 119 22 26 20 3 16 0.3 3.2 10 64

Mixed Conifer Protected Habitat

Differences in basal area and canopy are negligibly different among the Action Alternatives. Alternatives 

2-3 are comparable in terms of conservation of trees >18” DBH and conservation of snags but Alternative 

4 would lead to a loss of many more trees >18” DBH than any other Alternative. The number of snags 

and down logs per acre increases most under Alternative 4, as prescribed fire without first mechanically 

treating the area would lead to many fire-killed trees and consumed snags. Alternative 3 would promote 

representation and evenness among the largest size classes of trees more than Alternatives 2 and 4. 

Considering the high probability of widespread crown fire under the No-Action Alternative (see Table 

3.6-3 and 4), and the differences on probability of active crown fire and stand structure of the different 

Action Alternatives, Alternative 2 appears that it would most favorably affect mixed conifer Protected 

Habitat. See table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does 

include prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 181

Table 3.6-6. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Protected Habitat. 

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Protected Mixed Conifer 

Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 153 22 9 9 12 3.2 15.0 19 71

2014 155 22 10 9 12 2.9 13.6 20 71

2033 184 22 10 9 15 1.2 4.1 26 76

2053 210 24 13 9 22 0.8 4.4 26 79

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Protected Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 153 22 9 9 12 3.2 15.0 19 71

2014 126 22 10 9 13 3.0 13.5 9 66

2033 92 30 17 11 13 2.5 5.4 19 58

2053 117 23 22 15 21 1.3 2.6 22 64

Alternative 3: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Protected Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 153 22 9 9 12 3.2 15.0 19 71

2014 95 22 10 9 12 2.9 13.4 9 59

2033 99 37 17 17 16 1.3 3.5 16 60

2053 119 31 29 21 23 0.8 2.3 17 64

Alternative 4: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Protected Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 153 22 9 9 12 3.2 15.0 19 71

2014 145 22 10 9 12 2.9 13.5 20 70

2033 79 25 14 10 9 3.5 7.9 34 54

2053 103 26 16 11 13 1.8 2.9 37 61
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

182 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Bill Williams Protected Activity Center

Alternative 4 would result in substantially less basal area, fewer trees >18” DBH/acre, and lower canopy 

cover than Alternatives 2-3. As fire would cause mortality of many trees >18” DBH, the number of large 

snags and down logs per acre would increase under Alternative 4, in comparison to Alternatives 2-3. 

Alternatives 2 and 3 would have comparable effects on basal area, trees >18” DBH, large snags, and 

canopy cover. The percent representation and evenness of SDI in the largest size classes would be 

greatest under Alternative 3. Considering the high probability of widespread crown fire under the NoAction Alternative (see Table 3.6-3 and 4), and the differences of probability of active crown fire and 

stand structure of the different Action Alternatives, Alternative 2 appears that it would most favorably 

affect mixed conifer Protected Habitat. See table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire 

under Alternative 1; it does include prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives). 

Table 3.6-7. Effects of Alternatives on the Bill Williams PAC.

Alternative 1 (Excludes Wildfire): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO PAC Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 12-

18"

% SDI 18-

24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 163 25 12 8 15 3.6 17.8 26 72

2014 165 26 12 8 16 3.4 15.9 27 73

2033 196 26 13 8 19 1.5 4.5 33 77

2053 221 28 16 8 27 1.1 5.3 33 80

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO PAC Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 12-

18"

% SDI 18-

24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 163 25 12 8 15 3.6 17.8 26 72

2014 131 26 12 8 16 3.4 15.8 12 67

2033 118 30 20 10 18 2.3 4.9 22 64

2053 148 25 23 14 27 1.3 2.9 24 70

Alternative 3: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO PAC Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 12-

18"

% SDI 18-

24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 163 25 12 8 15 3.6 17.8 26 72

2014 111 26 12 8 15 3.4 15.8 12 63

2033 123 37 22 14 19 1.3 3.2 20 65

2053 148 31 28 17 29 0.8 2.8 20 70

Alternative 4: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO PAC Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 12-

18"

% SDI 18-

24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 163 25 12 8 15 3.6 17.8 26 72

2014 157 26 12 8 16 3.4 15.9 26 72

2033 89 29 15 7 10 4.3 9.1 45 57

2053 114 31 17 8 15 2.5 4.2 47 63

Pine-Oak Restricted Habitat
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 183

The Action Alternatives would have negligibly different effects on general basal area, oak basal area, 

trees >18” DBH/acre, down logs/acre, and canopy cover. Conservation of snags, as well as the percent 

representation and evenness of SDI in the largest size classes of trees would be greatest under Alternative 

2. Considering the high probability of widespread crown fire under the No-Action Alternative (see Table 

3.6-3 and 4), and the differences on stand structure of the different Action Alternatives, Alternative 2 

would most favorably affect pine-oak Restricted Habitat. See table below for details (this table does not 

assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives).

Table 3.6-8. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Restricted Habitat.

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 121 14 29 9 4 7 0.5 2.9 13 65

2014 122 15 30 10 4 7 0.5 2.9 13 65

2033 138 17 32 12 5 12 0.5 3.7 13 68

2053 151 20 31 16 7 17 0.8 5.0 14 71

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 121 14 29 9 4 8 0.5 2.9 13 65

2014 78 14 30 10 4 7 0.5 2.8 6 54

2033 73 12 33 25 8 12 0.7 3.5 7 52

2053 90 17 26 27 17 17 0.9 2.6 9 57

Alternatives 3-4: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 121 14 29 8 4 7 0.5 2.9 13 65

2014 83 15 30 10 4 7 0.5 2.8 6 55

2033 80 12 36 20 8 12 0.5 2.8 7 54

2053 100 16 30 28 14 18 0.6 1.7 8 60

Mixed Conifer Restricted Habitat

The Action Alternatives would reduce basal area and therefore probability of crown fire. Although the 

Action Alternatives would reduce the basal area in comparison to the No-Action Alternative, this 

difference is negligible as the Action Alternatives would still retain high densities of trees >18” DBH, 

high canopy cover, and a diversity of size classes. The Action Alternatives would increase the number of 

large snags/acre and a cause a marginal decrease in the number of down logs/acre. Considering the 

probability of active crown fire under the No-Action Alternative (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4), the Action 

Alternatives would most favorably affect this stand. See table below for details (this table does not 

assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

184 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-9. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Restricted Habitat.

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Mixed Conifer 

Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 155 33 12 1 14 0.8 6.7 4 71

2014 155 31 13 1 15 0.8 6.7 5 71

2033 170 27 17 1 22 1.6 7.7 9 74

2053 189 23 23 4 32 2.1 6.8 15 76

Alternatives 2-4: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 155 33 12 1 14 0.8 6.7 4 71

2014 106 33 13 1 13 0.9 6.4 2 61

2033 100 37 30 3 25 2.2 6.3 8 60

2053 118 17 43 7 28 2.7 4.6 12 64

Mixed Conifer Threshold Habitat According to 1995 MSO Recovery Plan

Only one stand of Restricted Habitat meets the definition of Threshold Habitat under the 1995 MSO 

Recovery Plan, and it is a mixed conifer stand. I have personally visited this stand and discussed 

prescriptions with the project’s silviculturist, and treatments would reduce ladder fuels while conserving 

those habitat elements important to nesting and roosting MSOs. Treatments under Alternatives 2-4 would 

reduce the number of trees >18” DBH, and canopy cover, but they would increase the representation of 

the largest size classes of trees within the stand. The Action Alternatives would cause a marginal 

decrease in the number of large snags/acre. Considering the probability of active crown fire under the NoAction Alternative (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4), Alternatives 2-4 would most favorably affect this stand. See 

table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include prescribed 

fire under the Action Alternatives).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 185

Table 3.6-10. Effects of Alternatives on Restricted Habitat which meets the definition of Threshold 

Habitat under the 1995 MSO Recovery Plan.

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Threshold Mixed Conifer 

Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+ TPA 18"+ Snags 18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 296 48 23 12 51 2.2 9.1 12 88

2014 296 48 23 12 51 2.2 9.9 13 88

2033 318 36 24 12 73 1.9 12.7 25 90

2053 337 35 37 13 93 4.4 11.7 36 91

Alternatives 2-4: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Threshold Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+ TPA 18"+ Snags 18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 296 48 23 12 51 2.2 9.1 12 88

2014 205 47 24 12 51 2.0 8.3 5 78

2033 215 17 42 22 68 3.1 6.7 23 80

2053 243 5 55 21 83 4.3 5.0 23 83

Mixed Conifer Threshold Habitat According to 2011 (Draft) MSO Recovery Plan

These areas include all mixed conifer stands that meet the 2011 (draft) MSO Recovery Plan’s definition 

for Threshold Habitat, including those that lie on slopes greater than 40%. Alternative 2 would include 

thinning trees above 9” DBH in these stands, Alternative 3 would be limited to a 9” cap, and Alternative 4 

would only allow thinning to construct fireline. Alternatives 3-4 are nearly identical, in terms of their 

effects. In comparison to Alternative 2, they would cause a substantially larger increase in the number of 

trees >18” DBH/acre and there would be greater evenness among the larger size classes. However, fire 

hazard would be much lower in mixed conifer forest under Alternative 2 than Alternatives 3-4, and 

Alternative 2 would still result in a high number of trees/acre >18” DBH. In comparison to Alternative 2, 

there would be a marginally higher number of large snags/acre under Alternatives 3-4. Differences of 

effects among the Action Alternatives on other habitat attributes are negligible. Considering differences 

in the probability of active crown fire under the No-Action Alternative (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4), and 

retention of important habitat attributes, Alternative 2 would most favorably affect this stand. See table 

below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include prescribed fire 

under the Action Alternatives).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

186 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-11. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Restricted Habitat which meets the definition 

of Threshold Habitat under the 2011 (draft) MSO Recovery Plan.

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire) Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Draft Recovery Plan Threshold MSO 

Mixed-Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+

Logs

12"+ % Shade

2013 284 57% 43% 47 23 11 49 2.0 9.3 16 87

2014 284 57% 43% 47 24 11 49 2.0 9.9 17 87

2033 306 41% 58% 35 25 12 70 1.8 12.0 27 89

2053 325 27% 73% 34 37 12 89 4.1 11.1 38 90

Alternatives 2 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Mixed-Conifer 

Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+

Logs

12"+ % Shade

2013 284 57% 43% 47 23 11 49 2.0 9.3 16 87

2014 199 38% 61% 47 24 11 49 1.9 8.4 7 78

2033 209 17% 83% 18 42 21 66 2.9 6.4 23 79

2053 236 4% 96% 7 54 20 79 4.0 4.7 23 82

Alternative 3: Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Mixed-Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+

Logs

12"+ % Shade

2013 284 57% 43% 47 23 11 49 2.0 9.3 16 87

2014 281 56% 43% 47 24 11 49 2.0 9.9 14 86

2033 275 39% 60% 34 27 13 65 2.4 11.3 37 86

2053 304 12% 88% 21 51 13 107 4.4 7.6 44 88

Alternative 4: Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Mixed-Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+

Logs

12"+ % Shade

2013 284 57% 43% 47 23 11 49 2.0 9.3 16 87

2014 284 57% 43% 47 24 11 49 2.0 9.9 17 87

2033 278 40% 60% 35 26 12 65 2.4 11.3 39 86

2053 307 12% 87% 22 51 12 108 4.4 7.6 46 89

Pine-Oak Threshold Habitat According to 2011 (Draft) MSO Recovery Plan

These areas include all pine-oak stands that meet the 2011 (draft) MSO Recovery Plan’s definition for 

Threshold Habitat, including those that lie on slopes greater than 40%. Differences of effects among the 

Action Alternatives on habitat attributes are negligible. Considering the probability of active crown fire 

under the No-Action Alternative (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4), Alternative 2 would most favorably affect these 

areas. See table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include 

prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives). Note that managing for recommended Target/Threshold 

criteria under the 2011 (draft) Recovery Plan does not preclude management for Target/Threshold Habitat 

directed by the Forest Plan (USDA 1988) or recommended by the 1995 Recovery Plan (FWS 1995).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 187

Table 3.6-12. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Restricted Habitat which meets the definition of 

Threshold Habitat under the 2011 (draft) MSO Recovery Plan.

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire) Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Draft Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Pine-Oak 

Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 125 52% 34% 42% 15% 11% 15 0.09 2 23 66

2014 127 52% 34% 44% 16% 11% 15 0.1 3 23 66

2033 144 39% 47% 37% 23% 11% 25 0.6 6 22 69

2053 149 26% 58% 26% 33% 12% 31 1.9 9 22 70

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 125 52% 34% 42% 15% 11% 15 0.09 2 23 66

2014 112 55% 41% 44% 16% 11% 16 0.1 2 10 63

2033 113 36% 62% 48% 31% 15% 26 0.8 7 11 63

2053 117 23% 75% 28% 42% 22% 30 2.4 7 13 64

Alternative 3: Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 125 52% 34% 42% 15% 11% 15 0.09 2 23 66

2014 112 55% 41% 44% 16% 11% 16 0.1 2 10 63

2033 113 36% 62% 48% 31% 15% 26 0.8 7 11 63

2053 117 23% 75% 28% 42% 22% 30 2.4 7 13 64

Alternative 4: Bill Williams Restoration Project 2011 Recovery Plan Threshold MSO Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA % BA 

12-18"

% BA 

18"+

% SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 125 52% 34% 42% 15% 11% 15 0.09 2 23 66

2014 113 52% 40% 41% 19% 10% 17 1 4.8 23 63

2033 115 34% 62% 39% 34% 13% 28 0.7 5.4 18 64

2053 124 25% 70% 26% 43% 17% 31 1.7 5.3 20 65

Target Mixed Conifer Habitat

The Action Alternatives would reduce basal area and therefore probability of crown fire. Although the 

Action Alternatives would reduce the basal area and the number of trees >18” DBH in the area over time 

in comparison to the No-Action Alternative, these differences are negligible as the Action Alternatives 

would increase the number of large snags/acre while still retaining high densities of trees >18” DBH, high 

canopy cover, and a diversity of size classes. Considering the probability of active crown fire under the 

No-Action Alternative (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4), the Action Alternatives would most favorably affect this 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

188 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

stand. See table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include 

prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives).

Table 3.6-13. Effects of Alternatives on mixed conifer Restricted Habitat managed as Target 

Habitat. 

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Target Mixed Conifer 

Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+ TPA 18"+ Snags 18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 202 35 18 4 25 1.2 11.2 5 78

2014 202 35 17 4 25 1.3 11.4 5 78

2033 204 28 21 4 38 3.5 14.1 14 78

2053 214 24 27 4 44 4.2 11.1 25 79

Alternatives 2-4: Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Restricted Target Mixed Conifer Habitat 

Year BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+ TPA 18"+ Snags 18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 202 35 18 4 25 1.2 11.2 5 78

2014 154 35 18 4 25 1.3 10.9 2 71

2033 145 25 38 7 39 4.2 12.2 14 70

2053 159 19 45 7 39 5.8 9.1 22 72

Target Pine-Oak Habitat

The Action Alternatives would reduce basal area and therefore probability of crown fire. They would 

increase representation and evenness in the highest size classes of trees, as well as the number of 

trees/acre >18” DBH. Although the Action Alternatives would reduce the basal area, large snags/acre, 

and canopy cover in the area over time in comparison to the No-Action Alternative, these differences are 

negligible as the Action Alternatives would still retain high densities of trees >18” DBH, high canopy 

cover, and a diversity of size classes. Considering the probability of active crown fire under the NoAction Alternative (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4), the Action Alternatives would most favorably affect this 

stand. See table below for details (this table does not assume wildfire under Alternative 1; it does include 

prescribed fire under the Action Alternatives).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 189

Table 3.6-14. Effects of Alternatives on pine-oak Restricted Habitat managed as Target Habitat.

Alternative 1 (No Action, Excludes Wildfire) Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Target Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 167 39 30 12 4 12 0.8 2.2 0.6 73

2014 168 39 32 14 6 12 0.8 2.3 0.7 73

2033 183 40 34 14 7 13 0.5 1.8 2.3 75

2053 196 40 38 19 8 18 0.6 2.6 3.7 77

Alternatives 2-4 (Proposed Action): Bill Williams Restoration Project MSO Target Pine-Oak Habitat 

Year BA Oak BA % SDI 

12-18"

% SDI 

18-24"

% SDI 

24"+

TPA 

18"+

Snags 

18"+

Snags 

12"+ Logs12"+ % Shade

2013 167 39 30 12 4 12 0.8 2.2 0.6 73

2014 125 40 32 14 6 11 0.8 2.1 0.3 66

2033 108 27 37 22 8 12 1.0 2.7 3.6 62

2053 128 32 36 21 14 20 0.7 2.0 5.7 66

Critical Habitat

Forest Structure:

• In general, the range of trees would improve under Alternatives 2-3 but would remain largely 

unchanged under Alternative 4 (see above tables). Restoration of structural diversity would 

create openings; retain large, uneven-aged patches dominated by trees >18” DBH; and retain 

pre-settlement trees.

• Shade would not fall below 40% at the stand- (typically 10-50 acres/stand) or project- scales 

under any of the Action Alternatives. Even though Alternative 2 involves restoration to presettlement conditions across the ponderosa pine forests of the project area (including pine-oak 

Restricted Habitat outside Target/Threshold Habitat and Goshawk PFAs and nest areas), a 

mitigation measure that was developed in collaboration with the FWS would leave more 

trees/evidence within more vegetatively productive pine-oak sites (section 2.3.1 of EIS). This 

would in turn ensure that canopy cover would be maintained above 40% across the project 

area.

• Reducing inter-tree competition would increase the growth of trees >18” DBH, which would 

cause an increase in future snags. Prescribed fire would result in the creation and 

consumption of snags. An especially high number of snags would be created under 

Alternative 4, as burning without first mechanically thinning would cause fire-induced 

mortality of many trees (see tables above). Project implementation of Alternatives 2-3 would 

increase the long-term sustainability of the forest within the project area, thereby better 

securing the long-term development of snags. However, cable-logging operations under 

Alternative 2 would cause a loss of existing and recruitment snags within denuded corridors. 

Prey Species:

• Prescribed fire would result in the consumption and creation of fallen trees and woody debris. 

Alternative 4 would create the most fallen trees, as many fire-killed snags would collapse (see 

tables above).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

190 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Thinning and burning treatments would increase the abundance and growth of oaks by 

reducing competition for sunlight, nutrients, and water. Prescribed fire may consume some 

oaks.

• Herbaceous plant cover (important for maintaining prey base of small mammals) may

decrease within the first year after consumption by prescribed fire. However, fire would 

return nutrients to the soil and stimulate higher growth thereafter (Griffis et al. 2001).

Road construction, road decommissions, road closures, trail construction, thinning, and prescribed fire 

may degrade Critical Habitat, but such effects are too small to substantially affect Critical Habitat. 

Standards, Guidelines, Desired Conditions and Mitigation Measures (see Project Implementation 

Checklist above and Section 2.3.1 and Appendix E of EIS) ensure that the project would conserve Critical 

Habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are contributing, 

and will contribute to the fitness (i.e., survival and reproductive success) of MSOs on the Kaibab National 

Forest:

• The abundance of trees in the late seral stage remains largely unchanged from historical 

conditions on slopes greater than 40%. However, even-aged forest management led to a loss of 

large, old trees, generally on slopes less than 40% and primarily from the 1960s through the early 

1990s. Recent projects in forest management (see appendix in EIS) emphasize restoration and 

fire hazard reduction, thereby promoting the sustainability of the species’ habitat in and around 

the project area.

• The forests in the project area are far removed from their historical fire regime (Tables 3.6-3 and 

4). The Forest Service excluded fire from and permitted overgrazing of the forests of the 

southwestern US throughout much of the twentieth century. This caused forests and woodlands 

to grow unnaturally dense and grasslands and savannas to become invaded with conifers. In turn, 

this has increased the occurrence and potential for uncharacteristically severe wildfire and insect 

and disease epidemics that threaten the species’ habitat. The Twin Wildfire and recent outbreaks 

of fir engravers are examples of such uncharacteristic disturbances occurring within the project 

area in the recent past.

• Recreation (e.g., hiking, biking, and camping) may disturb the species. Recreational activities 

would continue to occur in the project area, resulting in a potential decrease in fitness.

• The removal of hazardous trees around the Bill Williams communication site and along 

powerlines and roads has reduced and will continue to reduce the number of snags and trees >18” 

DBH in the analysis area of the project, resulting in a decline in important habitat components for 

MSOs. 

• Illegal fuelwood harvest has caused and will continue to cause a loss of snags.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, higher 

temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which will increase the probability of stand-replacing 

wildfire causing habitat loss for the species. Climate change will also lead to more opportunities 

for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete with these 

species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects 

such as this may help species be more resilient and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• See appendix in EIS for a list of specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects 

analysis.

The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the unnaturally dense conditions in the coniferous forests of 

the project area. It would exacerbate the reduction in habitat caused by historic land management 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 191

practices, recreation, illegal fuelwood harvest, and hazard-tree removal. The No-Action Alternative may 

therefore have an adverse effect on Mexican spotted owls.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of the species. In the context of these 

other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact the species, but their cumulative contribution would not cause 

a trend toward loss of viability. 

Determination of Effects

The No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1) may affect, and is likely to adversely affect the MSO and its 

Critical Habitat. Although preferable to the No-Action Alternative in terms of MSO conservation and 

meeting desired conditions in MSO Habitat (see Appendix E of EIS), Alternatives 2-4 may affect, and are 

likely to adversely affect the MSO and its Critical Habitat. All Action Alternatives would allow the use 

of prescribed fire on steep slopes without first mechanically treating these areas. As the MSO habitat on 

steep slopes (including Bill Williams PAC) has uncharacteristically high fuel loadings, the probability of 

unintentionally torching large patches of trees (including large snags and pre-settlement trees) would be 

high in these areas if they did not first receive mechanical treatments. Alternatives 2-4 would allow 

prescribed fire to occur in MSO habitat when conditions of weather and fuel moistures are most 

favorable, so loss of important habitat components would be much less than if a wildfire were to occur 

under extreme conditions of weather and fuel moistures.

If mechanical treatments are implemented before prescribed fire on steep slopes, then Alternative 2 would 

best conserve MSO nesting and roosting habitat (Table C.1 in FWS 2011), as this Alternative would 

promote MSO habitat attributes in the PAC (Tables 3.6-5 through 14, especially 3.6.5; Table C.1 in FWS 

2011) and most reduce the probability of active crown fire in and around the PAC (Tables 3.6-3 and 4). 

The only caveat to this statement would be that areas with cable-logging treatments would result in a 

substantial loss of snags and pre-settlement trees. Alternative 3 would have an intermediate effect on 

reducing fire hazard, and it would have the greatest effect on promoting individual MSO habitat attributes 

of importance; however, it would do little to promote long-term sustainability of the habitat, as a 9” 

diameter cap equates to even-aged management and very little structural diversity within nesting and 

roosting habitat. Alternative 4 would do little to reduce fire hazard (Tables 3.6-3 and 4) and it would 

result in the greatest loss of important habitat attributes of the Action Alternatives (Tables 3.6-5 through

14). However, Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts on MSO habitat than Alternatives 2-3.

None of the Alternatives’ effects are impactful enough to change Forest-wide habitat or population trends 

for MSOs or to cause a trend toward loss of viability. None of the Alternatives would cause an 

irreversible or irretrievable commitment of resources per section 7(d) of the ESA.

Navajo Mogollon Vole and Merriam’s Shrew

Existing Conditions

The Arizonan distribution of the species occurs north of the Mogollon Rim, in open areas associated with 

ponderosa pine and other coniferous forests (meadows, riparian areas, and forested areas with low tree 

densities). Navajo Mogollon voles rely on grasses and other herbaceous vegetation for food and cover 

(Hoffmeister 1986). The species has not been detected in the project area but is likely to occur. Meadow 

openings within ponderosa pine and mixed-conifer forest serve as suitable habitat in the project area, and 

conifers have encroached upon areas that were historically meadows. 

Merriam’s shrew occurs throughout the west in a variety of habitats. In Arizona, the species occurs along 

the Kaibab and Mogollon plateaus. Merriam’s shrew inhabits cool, grassy places, usually within or 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

192 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

alongside coniferous forests (including those with ponderosa pine, aspen, spruce, and/or fir). It usually 

occurs near water but not along streams. This insectivorous shrew uses herbaceous ground cover, moist 

soils, logs, and coarse, woody debris near water (Hoffmeister 1986). Grasslands (especially where they 

border forests with ponderosa pine), savannas, and meadow openings within ponderosa pine and mixedconifer forest occur in the project area and serve as suitable habitat for the species. The species has not 

been detected in the project area but is likely to occur there. 

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect the Navajo Mogollon Vole or Merriam’s Shrew (henceforth 

collectively referred to as “voles and shrews”) in the short term. Habitat conditions for these species 

would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural processes. However, the No-Action Alternative 

would degrade the habitat for voles and shrews in the long term. By not removing conifers which have 

encroached upon grasslands, meadows, and savannas, the No-Action Alternative would hinder restoration 

of habitat for voles and shrews.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternative 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would benefit voles and shrews by restoring grasslands, meadows, and savannas toward 

conditions to which the species adapted and evolved. In comparison to Alternatives 3-4, Alternative 2 

would restore more habitat of voles and shrews, as without a 9” diameter cap in MSO Protected Habitat 

and with the ability to restore much of the ponderosa pine forest to pre-settlement conditions, Alternative 

2 has the most flexibility to restore the grasslands and savannas important to these species. Prescribed 

fire is likely to have negligible effects on the creation and consumption of down logs in the habitat of 

these species, as fire does not have much residence time in grasslands, meadows, and savannas. 

Prescribed fire may cause direct mortality of the species, although this is unlikely, as the species are able 

to escape into burrows and other refugia.

Road decommissions, road closures, and conversion of road to trail would restore more native habitat and 

reduce disturbance by humans. Construction of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary and

Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and snags across approximately 304-312 acres. 

Construction of fireline would clear up to approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. 

Temporary Maintenance-Level 1 roads would cause degradation of habitat through soil erosion and 

sedimentation of waterways. Construction of fireline and temporary and Maintenance-Level 1 roads 

would cause loss of habitat where roads pass through grasslands, meadows or other areas used by these 

species. Maintenance-Level 1 roads, unlike temporary roads, would not be obliterated after 

implementation and would therefore have longer-term effects on habitat. Unlike Alternatives 2-3, which 

involve construction of 22-23 miles of Maintenance-Level 1 roads, Alternative 4 does not involve 

construction of any Maintenance-Level 1 roads. This Alternative would therefore have the least roadrelated degradation of habitat for the species. Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels, prescribed fire, 

road construction, road decommissions, and trail construction may reduce the habitat of voles and shrews 

in the short term or cause direct mortality, but such effects would not cause a trend toward listing or loss 

of viability. See Tables 3.6-3 and 4 for a quantitative description of habitat attributes and fire hazard to 

the species’ habitat under Alternatives 2-4.

 

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are contributing, 

and will contribute to the fitness of voles and shrews on the Kaibab National Forest:

• Voles and shrews require abundant and diverse herbaceous vegetation for protective cover and 

food. Sheep consume herbaceous vegetation. Historic overgrazing decreased the amount of 

cover and food for voles and shrews, which likely decreased the fitness of these species. 

Although current levels of grazing have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces 

herbaceous vegetation. The current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 193

Report and Hat Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest System will 

increase the herbaceous vegetation available to voles and shrews. This will therefore increase 

their fitness.

• Grasslands, meadows, and savannas, including those in the Southwest, evolved to periodic 

disturbance from fire (USDA 2012). The Forest Service excluded fire from the Kaibab National 

Forest throughout much of the twentieth century, causing the encroachment of trees onto 

savannas, meadows, and grasslands; this reduced, fragmented, and degraded habitat for voles and 

shrews. Furthermore, it has increased the potential of high-severity wildfires, which could cause 

direct mortality of voles/shrews and a long-term loss of microhabitat (e.g., downed logs and 

woody debris). The Forest Service now embraces the natural role of fire on the landscape; 

current and future wildland fire management (including the use of wildfire) will increase, 

connect, and improve habitat for these species.

• Recreation (e.g., off-road vehicle driving, hiking, biking, and camping) and road travel reduce 

vegetation and compact soils. Recreational activities would continue to occur in the project area, 

resulting in decreased habitat for voles and shrews. Implementation of the Travel Management 

Rule will reduce off-road vehicle driving, restore habitat, and improve habitat for the species.

• Insect and disease outbreaks have killed and will continue to kill trees. Insect- and diseaserelated mortality creates more snags, and eventually, downed logs. Downed logs serve as 

protective cover for voles and shrews. Therefore, insect and disease outbreaks may increase 

protective cover for voles and shrews.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, and higher 

temperatures, which may cause desertification of grasslands. Climate change will also lead to 

more opportunities for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may 

outcompete with these species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 

2009). Restoration projects such as this may help species be more resilient and adapt to climate 

change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused reductions and 

enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of specific projects also 

considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the encroachment of grasslands, meadows, and savannas by 

trees. It would exacerbate the reduction in habitat for voles and shrews from historic overgrazing, historic 

fire exclusion, elk-grazing, and recreation. The No-Action Alternative may therefore have an adverse 

effect on voles and shrews. Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but 

would cause a long-term beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, 

and reasonably foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of the species. In the 

context of these other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact the species, but their cumulative contribution 

would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 may have an adverse impact on Navajo Mogollon vole and Merriam’s shrew but would not 

cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the process of forest and 

woodland encroachment of the open-land habitat which these species inhabit.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact Navajo Mogollon vole or Merriam’s shrew in the short term but 

would cause a long-term beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or 

loss of viability. More habitat would be restored for these species under Alternative 2 than under 

Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to restore openings that existed in pre-settlement 

times. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 

1 Roads would be constructed under this Alternative. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

194 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Spotted Bat, Allen’s Lappet-Browed Bat, and Pale Townsend’s Big-Eared Bat

Existing Conditions

Spotted bat inhabits a variety of ecosystems, including desert, open ponderosa pine forest, pinyon-juniper 

woodland, canyon bottoms, riparian areas, and rangelands. Spotted bats roost in caves and cracks in cliffs 

and canyons. The species appears to breed from May-August, and it primarily consumes moths 

(NatureServe 2012).

Allen’s lappet-browed bats occur throughout all but the southwestern portion of Arizona. They use a 

variety of habitats, including ponderosa pine, pinyon-juniper, riparian areas, Mexican woodland, white fir 

forests, and Mohave desertscrub. The species associates with streams and ponds, which it uses for 

feeding and/or drinking. Allen’s lappet-browed bats roost in snags, caves, abandoned mine shafts, rocky 

areas, large snags, and cliffs (Hoffmeister 1986; Hinman and Snow 2003; Solvesky 2008). The 

reproductive biology of this species remains poorly know, but the species is thought to breed from MayAugust (Hinman and Snow 2003). These bats primarily predate small moths, but they eat other insects as 

well. Population trends remain poorly known. In fact, the species may have only expanded its range into 

Arizona during the twentieth century (Hoffmeister 1986). The species occurs on the Williams and 

Tusayan Ranger Districts and is likely to occur within the project area.

Pale Townsend’s big-eared bat occurs throughout the western U.S and south into Mexico (Hoffmeister 

1986; Hinman and Snow 2003). The species occurs from approximately 500-7,500 ft., but most records 

occur above 3,000 ft. In summer, the species roosts in caves and mines at a variety of elevations and in 

variety of ecosystems, including desertscrub, oak woodland, pine-oak forest, pinyon-juniper forest, and 

mixed conifer forest. In winter, the species hibernates in cold caves, lava tubes, and mines in the uplands 

and mountains. These bats primarily predate small moths, but they eat other insects as well. They may 

forage up to five miles from the roost site. Breeding occurs from April-August. Population trends remain 

unclear; however, populations have declined or vanished in some maternity roosts (Hinman and Snow 

2003). The species has been detected on the Williams and Tusayan Ranger Districts and is likely to occur 

within the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect the Spotted, Allen’s lappet-browed, or pale Townsend’s bigeared bats (henceforth collectively referred to as “bats”) in the short term. Habitat conditions for these 

species would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural processes. However, the No-Action 

Alternative would degrade the habitat for bats in the long term. By not using mechanical treatments and 

prescribed fire to restore unnaturally dense ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and pinyon-juniper forests, the 

No-Action Alternative would hinder restoration of habitat for bats. The density of small-diameter trees 

would continue to increase under the No-Action Alternative and existing high probabilities of fire hazard 

would persist. This would also exacerbate competition among trees, slow their growth into larger 

diameter classes, and thereby limit the development of larger trees (18”+ DBH) that Allen’s lappetbrowed bats use for roosting. This could adversely impact these species.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would benefit bats by moving ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and woodland habitat 

toward pre-settlement conditions to which the species adapted and evolved. Prescribed fire and 

mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels may result in a loss of snags; however, mitigation measures 

include fire-lining snags 18” DBH and greater prior to broadcast burning. Prescribed fire may cause 

direct mortality of young bats that have not developed into a mobile state. Alternatives 2-4 may result in 

a slight short-term decrease in snags followed by an increase over the long term. Smoke may disturb the 

species, but effects should be negligible due to the use of best management practices that include aiming 

for high lift and dispersion of smoke. This short term loss of snags would not affect the overall 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 195

distribution of Allent’s lappet-browed bats on the Forest. Mechanical treatments followed by prescribed 

fire would restore the native understory plant biomass and diversity of forests (Laughlin et al. 2008; Kane 

et al. 2010). This would create more foraging opportunities for moths and other prey, increase 

populations of prey, and ultimately improve the fitness of bats. Cable-logging operations under 

Alternative 2 would cause a loss of snags across 72 acres potentially used by nesting and roosting Allen’s 

lappet browed bats. 

Road decommissions (and for Alternatives 2-3, conversion of road to trail) would restore more native 

habitat and reduce disturbance by humans. They would improve the condition of the soil and watersheds 

in the species’ habitat. Construction of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary and Maintenance-Level 

1 roads would clear trees and snags across approximately 304-312 acres. Construction of fireline would 

clear up to approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. Fireline, temporary roads, MaintenanceLevel 1 roads, and trail construction would cause loss of trees, soil erosion, and sedimentation of 

waterways, which may reduce the habitat (and ultimately, populations) of bats or their prey. This may, in 

turn, affect bat fitness. Maintenance-Level 1 road construction would have a more long-term impact on 

the habitat of bats and their prey, as Maintenance-Level 1 roads would not be obliterated. Alternative 4 

would have less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads or trails 

would be constructed under this Alternative.

Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels, prescribed fire, road construction, temporary road construction, 

road decommissions, and trail construction may temporarily disturb bats, cause a loss of snags and trees 

>18” DBH important to these species, degrade habitat for the species and its prey, or cause direct 

mortality, but such effects would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability. See Tables 3.6-3 

and 4 for a quantitative description of habitat attributes and fire hazard in bat habitat under Alternatives 2-

4.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are contributing, 

and will contribute to the fitness of bats on the Kaibab National Forest:

• The abundance of trees in the late seral stage remains largely unchanged from historical 

conditions on slopes greater than 40%. However, even-aged forest management led to a loss of 

large, old trees, generally on slopes less than 40% and primarily from the 1960s through the early 

1990s. The Forest Plan currently does not permit the harvest of trees greater than 24” DBH in 

mixed conifer or pine-oak forest; harvest of pre-settlement trees rarely occurs anymore, and in 

this and recent thinning and burning projects, pre-settlement tree conservation has been included 

as a mitigation measure. Current management generally aims to restore the Forest to presettlement conditions. This will increase the amount of trees >18” DBH (which bats use for 

roosting), offsetting historic losses.

• Bats primarily eat small moths (Hinman and Snow 2003). Intensive grazing decreases the 

abundance and species richness of moths (Poyry et al. 2004; Littlewood 2008), thereby depleting 

the prey base of bats and potentially causing a decrease in bat fitness. Intermediate levels of 

grazing have been shown to produce the highest abundance of Lepidoptera (Poyry et al. 2004). 

Although current levels of grazing have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces 

herbaceous vegetation. The current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s 

Report and Hat Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest System will 

ameliorate historic practices of intensive grazing, increase moth diversity and abundance, and 

lead to fitter bat populations.

• The forests in the project area are far removed from their historical fire regime (Tables 3.6-3 and 

4). The Forest Service excluded fire from the Kaibab National Forest throughout much of the 

twentieth century, causing ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and pinyon-juniper forests to grow 

unnaturally dense and become at risk of stand-replacing wildfire. Fire exclusion reduced, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

196 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

fragmented, and degraded habitat for bats. Furthermore, it increased the potential for highseverity wildfires, which could cause direct mortality of bats and a long-term loss of habitat (e.g., 

snags; riparian areas). The Forest Service now embraces the natural role of fire on the landscape; 

current and future wildland fire management (including the use of wildfire) will increase, 

connect, and improve habitat for bats.

• Recreation (e.g., caving, geocaching, hiking, biking, and camping) may disturb bats. 

Recreational activities would continue to occur in the project area, resulting in potential declines 

or abandonment of bat roosts. Implementation of the Travel Management Rule will reduce 

access to bat habitat and improve conditions for the species.

• The removal of hazardous trees along powerlines, roads, and fire control lines has reduced and 

will continue to reduce the number of snags and trees >18” DBH in the project area, resulting in a 

decline in roosting habitat for Allen’s lappet-browed bat.

• Illegal fuelwood harvest has caused and will continue to cause a loss of snags, which serve as 

roost sites for Allen’s lappet-browed bats.

• Insect and disease outbreaks have killed and will continue to kill trees >18” DBH. Insect- and 

disease-related mortality also creates snags. Therefore, these outbreaks may benefit bats by 

creating more roost sites.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, higher 

temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which will increase the probability of stand-replacing 

wildfire causing habitat loss for the species. Climate change will also lead to more opportunities 

for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete with these 

species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects 

such as this may help species be more resilient and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused reductions and 

enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of specific projects also 

considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the unnaturally dense stands of ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, and pinyon-juniper forests. It would exacerbate the reduction in habitat from historic timber 

management, historic overgrazing, historic fire exclusion, recreation, illegal fuelwood cutting, and 

hazard-tree removal. The No-Action Alternative may therefore have an adverse effect on bats. 

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of the species. In the context of these 

other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact the species, but their cumulative contribution would not cause 

a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 may adversely impact spotted bat, pale Townsend’s big-eared, and Allen’s lappet-browed 

bats, but it would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the 

high fuel loadings and fire hazard in the project area and would eventually lead to stand-replacing fire in 

the habitat of these species.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact bat, pale Townsend’s big-eared, and Allen’s lappet-browed bats in 

the short term but would cause a long-term beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend 

toward listing or loss of viability. More habitat would be restored for these species under Alternative 2 

than under Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to promote the growth of the largest trees. 

Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 197

Northern Goshawk

Existing Conditions

The northern goshawk uses a wide variety of vegetative structural stages in the Southwest, but it primarily 

inhabits ponderosa pine and to a lesser extent, mixed conifer, forests. Nest areas typically occur on 

cooler, moister aspects and in drainages. Nesting goshawks prefer forests in later successional stages, 

often dominated by pre-settlement trees. Post-fledging family areas (PFAs) have patches of dense trees, 

developed herbaceous or shrubby understories, snags, downed logs, and small openings which provide 

protective cover and habitat for prey. Goshawks generally prefer stands of intermediate to high canopy 

cover for nesting and more open areas for foraging. Although juniper or pinyon-juniper woodlands are 

not heavily used by northern goshawks, some foraging may occur in these habitat types, especially in 

transition areas between ponderosa pine and pinyon-juniper habitats. Nesting habitat preference tends to 

increase with canopy cover, although many goshawks in Arizona nest in more open habitat. Small forest 

openings provide travel corridors, provide habitat for open-country prey, and encourage the dispersal of 

fledglings. Northern goshawks prey upon birds and mammals (Reynolds et al. 1992; BNA Online 2012).

Post-fledging Family Areas (PFAs) center on the nesting and foraging habitat of goshawks. Nest areas 

are designated within PFAs and center around those areas where goshawks breed. See the Forest Plan for 

details (USDA 1988). PFAs and nest areas within the project area are composed of ponderosa pine forest. 

Table 3.6-15 describes the goshawk habitat within the project area. See the Silviculturist’s Report for a 

description of the distribution of Vegetative Structural Stages (VSS) in goshawk habitat. All potential 

nesting and foraging habitat in the project area and 0.5 miles beyond the boundary was surveyed for 

northern goshawks in 2011 according to protocol as directed in the Forest Plan (USDA 1988). No new 

PFAs were discovered during that survey period, although one adult goshawk was seen flying overhead in 

the vicinity of the southwestern PFA (Figure 3.6-2). 

Northern goshawk is a management indicator species of late-seral ponderosa pine forest. The Forest-wide 

population trend for northern goshawks is assumed to be declining (see USDA 2010 for details). 

Monitoring and surveys are ongoing on the Forest.

Table 3.6-15. Acres of different goshawk habitat within the project area.

Total Goshawk Habitats 15,068

Goshawk PFAs(excluding nest) 965

Goshawk Nest Stands 695

LOGPFAs (Ponderosa Pine Stands) 8,902

LOGPFAs (Mixed Conifer Stands) 1,973

LOGPFAs (Other) 2,533

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect northern goshawks in the short term. Habitat conditions for 

the species would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural processes. However, the No-Action 

Alternative would degrade the habitat for goshawks in the long term; by not using mechanical treatments 

and prescribed fire to restore unnaturally dense forests, the No-Action Alternative would hinder 

restoration of habitat for the species. Vegetative Structural Stage (VSS) distributions as outlined in the 

Forest Plan would never be attained, as trees would not have the opportunity to grow into larger size 

classes (See Silviculturist’s Report). Goshawk habitat would remain at high risk of active crown fire 

(Tables 3.6-3 and 4).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

198 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The number of down logs and woody tons of debris per acre currently meet or exceed desired conditions 

under the Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan in ponderosa pine and mixed conifer landscapes 

outside goshawk PFAs, within PFAs, and within nest areas (Figures 3.6-3 and 4). However, the current 

number of snags/acre >18” DBH is well below desired conditions under the Standards and Guidelines 

(Figure 3.6-5). Alternative 1 would move toward the desired conditions for snags/acre in ponderosa pine 

forests, but it would move away from this condition in mixed conifer forest. Figures 3.6-3 through 5 do 

not account for wildfire under Alternative 1. As active crown fire is currently highly probable in most 

goshawk habitat (Tables 3.6-3 and 4), more existing woody debris, down logs, and snags would likely be 

consumed by wildfire under Alternative 1 than the Action Alternatives. This would also create much 

woody debris and down logs, as well as a short-term flush of fire-killed trees turned into snags. See 

Silviculturist’s Report for a quantitative analysis of Alternatives 1 on VSS structure and percent canopy 

cover by VSS.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 199

Figure 3.6-3. Effects of Alternatives on down logs/acre in landscapes out goshawk PFAs (LOGPFAs), PFAs, and nest areas in ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer forests.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Downe Logs Per acres (Logs)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs : Down 

Logs Per Acre 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Downe Logs Per acres (Logs)

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs : Down Logs 

Per Acre

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Down Logs Per acre (Logs)

Ponderosa Pine PFAs : Down Logs 

Per Acre 

0

5

10

15

20

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Down Logs Per acre (Logs)

Ponderosa pine Goshawk Nest Down 

Logs Per Acre (>12" in Diameter and 

>8' leangth)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

200 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.6-4. Effects of Alternatives on tons of woody debris/acre in landscapes out goshawk PFAs (LOGPFAs), PFAs, and nest areas in 

ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests.

0

2

4

6

8

10

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Ton per Acre (Tons)

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs): Tons/Acre 

(5-7 Tons, >3" Diameter)

0

5

10

15

20

25

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Ton per Acre (Tons)

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs Tons/Acre 

(10-15 Tons, >3" Diameter)

0

2

4

6

8

10

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Ton per Acre (Tons)

Ponderosa Pine PFAs Tons/Acre (5-7 

Tons, >3" Diameter)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Ton per Acre (Tons)

Ponderosa pine Goshawk Nest : 

Tons/Acre (5-7 Tons, >3" Diameter)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 201

Figure 3.6-5. Effects of Alternatives on large snags/acre in landscapes out goshawk PFAs (LOGPFAs), PFAs, and nest areas in ponderosa 

pine and mixed conifer forest

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Nu,ber of Snags Per Acre

Mixed Conifer LOGPFAs (Stand 

Data): 18 inch+ Snags Per Acre

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Nu,ber of Snags Per Acre

Ponderosa Pine LOGPFAs): 18 inch+ 

Snags Per Acre

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Nu,ber of Snags Per Acre

Ponderosa pine Goshawk Nest : 18 

inch+ Snags Per Acre

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

2013 2014 2023 2033 2043 2053

Nu,ber of Snags Per Acre

Ponderosa Pine PFAs 18 inch+ Snags 

Per Acre
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

202 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would benefit goshawks by moving ponderosa pine forest, mixed conifer forest, 

and woodlands toward pre-settlement conditions to which the species adapted and evolved, while 

still conserving existing nest areas and PFAs regardless of historic conditions in these areas. 

Thinning treatments to restore unnaturally dense forests to historic conditions have been 

demonstrated to improve goshawk habitat (BNA Online 2012), so the mechanical treatments and 

prescribed fire under Alternatives 2-4 would benefit the species. Fuels-reduction treatments 

would develop a mosaic of uneven-aged forest across the landscape. Alternatives 2-4 would 

conserve groups of larger trees (typically 18” DBH or greater). By thinning unnaturally dense 

forests, Alternatives 2-4 would reduce competition among trees, thereby promoting the growth of 

larger trees. Growth of trees >18” DBH would be greatest under Alternative 2, intermediate 

under Alternative 3, and least under Alternative 4, as these alternatives have (in said order) 

progressively less flexibility in reducing competition around trees >18” DBH. Thinning and 

prescribed fire would reduce the probability of stand-replacing wildfire in forests, thereby 

conserving the mature forest, trees >18” DBH, and snags on which this species relies. 

Reductions in fire hazard to goshawk habitat are greatest under Alternative 2, intermediate under 

Alternative 3, and least under Alternative 4, as these alternatives have (in said order) 

progressively more mechanical treatment (Tables 3.6-3 and 4). More open habitat around PFAs 

and nest areas under Alternative 2 would reduce fire hazard to PFAs and nest areas, in 

comparison to Alternatives 3-4.

As Alternative 2 would most improve tree growth (see Silviculturist’s Report) while still 

conserving nest areas and PFAs at high densities, it would most benefit the production of large 

live trees, recruitment of snags, and recruitment of down logs (habitat attributes important to 

goshawks and their prey). Groups of trees would occur in areas where historical evidences exist 

or where best group/clump structure exists at time of implementation. Snags and down logs 

would be conserved per Forest Plan direction. Woody debris would be conserved over the long 

term, although all of the Action Alternatives would cause a short-term reduction in woody debris 

below Forest Plan direction. The only exception is that mixed conifer landscapes outside PFAs 

would increase in woody debris, even the short term, although this is due to the high number of 

trees consumed by high-severity fire. A diverse age and size class and interlocking crowns would 

occur in clumps. 

Loss of mistletoe-infected trees would cause a loss of nesting microhabitat for prey species. 

Although many mistletoe-infected trees would be removed, a mitigation measure specific to 

conservation of important wildlife trees will conserve this naturally occurring attribute of the 

ecosystem (see Section 2.3.1 of the EIS). Mitigations include conservation of pre-settlement trees 

wherever possible (including those with mistletoe infection), and conserving large, mistletoeinfected trees that occur within groups of pre-settlement trees that are infected with mistletoe 

already.

Smoke from broadcast and pile-burning may disturb goshawks, including nesting individuals. 

Smoke accumulation during times when goshawks are incubating eggs and tending nestlings and 

fledglings could cause adults to leave the area. Smoke tends to settle into low-lying areas, 

including drainages which goshawks inhabit. Due to prevailing winds from the southwest, smoke 

generally affects goshawks to the northeast of burning activities. Smoke may have short-term (3-

5 days) effects. Smoke accumulation may cause goshawks to flush from nest areas or change 

their foraging behavior. This could cause goshawks to expend more energy or become more 

vulnerable to predators. However, fuels specialists would avoid burning all goshawk PFAs in the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 203

project area at once, which would reduce the overall effect by providing refugia for the species. 

Impacts from smoke are reduced by the coordination of timing and type of burning with wind 

direction, topography, and time of year.

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels may result in a loss of snags; 

however, mitigation measures include fire-lining snags 18” DBH and greater prior to broadcast 

burning. Throughout the project, torching may occur within treatment areas during broadcast 

burning activities. Torching would mimic gap-producing processes that occur under natural 

conditions. Alternatives 2-4 may result in a slight short-term decrease in snags followed by an 

increase over the long term. Alternative 4 (and Alternatives 2 and 3, if prescribed fire is used 

without first mechanically treating areas) would result in a higher loss of snags, as dense stand 

conditions would lead to more loss of forest and snags to torching. Noise from mechanical 

treatments would not likely directly affect nesting goshawks, as no thinning would occur within 

active PFAs during the breeding season.

Woody debris and snags provide habitat for small mammals and other prey. Indirect effects of 

reducing woody debris due to broadcast burning would decrease the abundance of prey on a 

short-term basis for approximately one year. However, herbaceous vegetation typically responds 

favorably to broadcast burning, and an increase in forage for small mammals is expected in years 

without drought (Jenness 2000). Model results indicated that the abundance of small mammals 

increases with the height of herbaceous growth, the diversity of shrubby vegetation, and the 

amount of downed logs (Ward 2001). Under Alternatives 2-4, prescribed fire would stimulate 

grass-forb growth and result in both a consumption and creation of downed logs.

See Figures 3.6-3 through 5 for a quantitative analysis of the effects of Alternatives 2-4 on snags, 

woody debris, and down logs.

As Alternatives 2-4 would entail identical treatments within goshawk PFAs and nest areas, they 

would have the same effect on snags, woody debris, and down logs. Snags would increase over 

time but still remain below desired levels according to the Standards and Guidelines of the Forest 

Plan. The Action Alternatives would increase snag conservation in nest areas and PFAs in 

comparison to the No-Action Alternative. There would be an initial decrease in down logs and 

woody debris (due to consumption by prescribed fire), but there would be a long-term increase. 

Down logs and woody debris would still be conserved at desired levels in PFAs and nest areas

under the Standards and Guidelines of the Forest Plan, although there would be a short-term 

reduction in desired levels of woody debris.

In landscapes outside PFAs in pine forest, Alternative 2 would most conserve snags, and 

Alternatives 3 and 4 would have virtually the same effect on snag conservation. Alternative 4 

would cause a short-term spike in snags in mixed conifer forest outside PFAs, and it would create 

and retain the most snags over time. Most mixed conifer forest occurs on steep slopes that would 

not receive mechanical treatment before prescribed fire. Therefore, many trees would die from 

prescribed fire, causing a flush of snag creation, followed by many snags falling and turning into 

down logs. Alternative 2 would result in more snags than Alternative 3. 

Down logs and woody debris in landscapes outside goshawk PFAs would be much greater under 

Alternative 4 than Alternatives 2-3, as prescribed fire without first mechanically treating areas 

would cause consumption of trees and snags by fire, converting them to down logs (Figures 3.6-3 

and 4). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

204 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Road decommissions (and for Alternatives 2-3, conversion of road to trail) would restore more 

native habitat and reduce disturbance by humans. They would improve the condition of the soil 

and watersheds in the species’ habitat. These activities would not occur within active PFAs 

during the breeding season and therefore would negligibly affect the species. Construction of 

approximately 38-39 miles of temporary and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and 

snags across approximately 304-312 acres. Construction of fireline would clear up to 

approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. Construction of fireline, temporary roads, 

Maintenance-Level 1 roads, and trail would cause a loss of trees and soil erosion and 

sedimentation of waterways, which may reduce the habitat (and ultimately, populations) of 

goshawk prey. This may, in turn, affect goshawk fitness. Maintenance-Level 1 road construction 

would have more impact on habitat of goshawk prey, as Maintenance-Level 1 roads would not be 

obliterated. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no 

Maintenance-Level 1 Roads or trails would be constructed under this Alternative. Alternatives 2-

3 would result in 0.7 miles (6 acres) of temporary road construction and 5.1 miles (4 acres) of 

Maintenance-Level 1 road construction within goshawk PFAs and nest areas. Alternative 4 

would result in 5.8 miles (5 acres) of temporary road construction within goshawk PFAs and nest 

areas but no Maintenance-Level 1 road construction in PFAs or nest areas. All other road 

construction (see description of Alternatives) would occur in landscapes outside PFAs.

Under Alternative 2, cable-logging operations in goshawk foraging habitat would result in the 

loss of approximately 72 acres of snags >18” DBH and pre-settlement trees in mixed conifer 

landscapes outside goshawk PFAs. These features are important to goshawks and their prey.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are 

contributing, and will contribute to the fitness of goshawks on the Kaibab National Forest:

• The abundance of trees in the late seral stage remains largely unchanged from historical 

conditions on slopes greater than 40%. However, even-aged forest management led to a 

loss of large, old trees, generally on slopes less than 40% and primarily from the 1960s 

through the early 1990s. Recent projects in forest management (see appendix in EIS) 

emphasize restoration and fire hazard reduction, thereby promoting the sustainability of 

the species’ habitat in and around the project area. The standards and guidelines of the 

current, amended Forest Plan provide for management that encourages the dominance of 

larger, older trees across goshawk habitat (see Project Implementation Checklist and 

Section 2.3.1 in the EIS section for details). Many of the protections for MSO habitat 

also help to conserve goshawk habitat. For example, the Forest Plan does not permit the 

harvest of trees greater than 24” DBH in MSO Restricted Habitat (USDA 1988). Current 

management generally aims to restore the Forest to pre-settlement conditions and to 

increase the amount of trees >18” DBH and the number of snags.

• The forests in the project area are far removed from their historical fire regime (Tables 

3.6-3 and 4). The Forest Service excluded fire from the Kaibab National Forest 

throughout much of the twentieth century, causing mixed conifer, ponderosa pine, and 

other forests to grow unnaturally dense and become at risk of stand-replacing wildfire. 

Fire exclusion has increased the potential for high-severity wildfires, which could cause 

direct mortality of goshawks, and a long-term loss of microhabitat (e.g., trees >18” 

DBH). The Forest Service now embraces the natural role of fire on the landscape; 

current and future wildland fire management (including the use of wildfire) will increase, 

connect, and improve habitat for goshawks. Furthermore, current fire and forest 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 205

management practices should improve the growth of trees >18” DBH by reducing 

competition, while still maintaining important canopy-cover and VSS attributes in nest 

areas, PFAs, and foraging habitat.

• Recreation (e.g., off-road vehicle use, hiking, biking, and camping) may disturb 

goshawks. Recreational activities would continue to occur in the project area, resulting 

in a potential decrease in fitness.

• The removal of hazardous trees along powerlines, roads, and fire control lines has 

reduced and will continue to reduce the number of snags and trees >18” DBH in the area 

of the project, resulting in a decline in important habitat components for goshawks.

• Illegal fuelwood harvest has caused and will continue to cause a loss of snags.

• Insect and disease outbreaks have killed and will continue to kill trees >18” DBH. 

Insect- and disease-related mortality also creates snags.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, higher 

temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which will increase the probability of standreplacing wildfire causing habitat loss for the species. Climate change will also lead to 

more opportunities for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may 

outcompete with these species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat 

(USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects such as this may help species be more resilient 

and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused 

reductions and enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of 

specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the unnaturally dense conditions in the coniferous 

forests of the project area. It would exacerbate the reduction in habitat from changes in historic 

timber management, historic fire exclusion, recreation, illegal fuelwood harvest, and hazard-tree 

removal. The No-Action Alternative may therefore have an adverse effect on northern goshawks.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of northern goshawks. In the 

context of these other factors, Alternative 2 may impact northern goshawks, but their cumulative 

contribution would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Determination of Effects 

The No-Action Alternative may adversely impact the northern goshawk, but it would not cause a 

trend toward listing or loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the high fuel loadings and 

fire hazard in the project area and would eventually lead to stand-replacing fire in the habitat of 

the species.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact northern goshawks in the short term but would cause a 

long-term beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of 

viability, and their impacts would not be enough to change Forest-wide population or habitat 

trends. More habitat would be protected and restored for the species under Alternative 2 than 

under Alternatives 3-4, as there would be less fire hazard and more flexibility to promote the 

growth of the largest trees that this species uses for nesting and which serve as recruitment snags 

and down logs on which prey species rely. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts 

than Alternatives 2-3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

206 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Bald Eagle

Existing Conditions

Eagles are currently protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and are a Forest 

Service sensitive species. Bald eagles are only known to winter on the Kaibab National Forest, 

where they occupy all habitat types and elevations. Wintering eagles arrive in the fall (usually 

late October-early November), and leave in early to mid-April. Bald eagles have been detected 

within the project area, although the occurrence of habitually used winter roosts remains 

unknown.

Roosting: Small or moderately sized groups (usually 2-50) of bald eagles roost at night in clumps 

of large trees in locations such as drainages and hillsides (Grubb and Kennedy 1982, Dargan 

1991). Eagles typically roost in ponderosa pine stands that vary in size (1-43 acres), often occur 

on north or northeast-facing slopes, and are close to daytime foraging areas (Dargan 1991). 

Roost trees are large (averaging 28” DBH) live or dead ponderosa pine trees that occur in groups 

(Dargan 1991). 

Foraging: Eagles forage widely and opportunistically on carrion, waterfowl, fish, and terrestrial 

vertebrates. Eagles will use any open water that supports waterfowl. No large water bodies occur 

within the project area, so foraging eagles within the project area most likely target carrion and 

terrestrial vertebrates for food. Eagles likely forage from snags and dead-topped trees within and 

at the fringes of the project area. 

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect bald eagles in the short term. Habitat conditions for 

the species would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural processes. However, the NoAction Alternative would perpetuate overly dense forest conditions in fire-dependent ecosystems. 

Such conditions increase the potential for high-severity wildfire in and around eagle habitat. This 

may reduce the amount of trees >18” DBH, snags, and other important habitat attributes for bald 

eagles.

Tree densities would continue to increase under the No-Action Alternative. This would 

exacerbate competition among trees, slow their growth into larger diameter classes, and thereby 

limit the development of larger trees (18”+ DBH) and recruitment snags that eagles use for 

roosting and foraging. By not reducing hazardous fuels and not allowing for tree growth, the NoAction Alternative would hinder the conservation of the habitat of bald eagles and their prey. 

This could result in an adverse effect on the species.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would benefit eagles by moving ponderosa pine forest, mixed conifer forest, 

woodlands, and grasslands toward pre-settlement conditions to which the species adapted and 

evolved. Mechanical treatments and prescribed fire under Alternatives 2-4 would benefit the 

species by restoring more open areas for foraging and by reducing fire hazard to trees >18” DBH, 

snags, and the general habitat of eagles. Fuels-reduction treatments would develop a mosaic of 

uneven-aged forest across the landscape. Alternatives 2-4 would conserve groups of larger trees 

(typically 18” DBH or greater). By thinning unnaturally dense forests, Alternatives 2-4 would 

reduce competition among trees, thereby promoting the growth of larger trees. Growth of trees 

>18” DBH would be greatest under Alternative 2, intermediate under Alternative 3, and least 

under Alternative 4, as these alternatives have (in said order) progressively less flexibility in 

reducing competition around trees >18” DBH (see Silviculturist’s Report). Thinning and 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 207

prescribed fire would reduce the probability of stand-replacing wildfire in forests, thereby 

conserving the mature forest, trees >18” DBH, and snags on which this species relies. 

Reductions in fire hazard to eagle habitat are greatest under Alternative 2, intermediate under 

Alternative 3, and least under Alternative 4, as these alternatives have (in said order) 

progressively more mechanical treatment. 

Openings important to foraging eagles would be scattered throughout ponderosa pine and 

woodland habitat with progressively more openings as one moves from nest areas to PFAs to 

foraging areas. Snags, downed logs, and woody debris would be conserved per forest plan 

direction. A diverse age and size class and interlocking crowns would occur in clumps. These 

conditions would benefit eagles by sustaining foraging perches and habitat for prey. 

Smoke from prescribed fire and noise from mechanical treatments may disturb the species. These 

disturbances may cause the species to abandon areas and become more vulnerable to predators. 

Impacts from smoke are reduced by the coordination of timing and type of burning with wind 

direction, topography, and time of year. 

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels may result in a loss of snags; 

however, mitigation measures include fire-lining snags 18” DBH and greater prior to broadcast 

burning. Throughout the project, torching may occur within treatment areas during broadcast 

burning activities. Torching would mimic gap-producing processes that occur under natural 

conditions. Broadcast burning may decrease woody debris by up to approximately 50% of 

existing volume, and decrease the number of snags by 20% (Randall-Parker and Miller 2000). 

Alternatives 2-4 may result in a slight short-term decrease in snags followed by an increase over 

the long term. Alternative 4 (and Alternatives 2 and 3, if prescribed fire is used without first 

mechanically treating areas) would result in a higher loss of snags, as dense stand conditions 

would lead to more loss of forest and snags to torching.

Woody debris and snags provide habitat for small mammals and other prey. Indirect effects of 

reducing woody debris due to broadcast burning will decrease the abundance of prey on a shortterm basis for approximately one year. However, herbaceous vegetation typically responds 

favorably to broadcast burning, and an increase in forage for small mammals is expected in years 

without drought (Jenness 2000). Model results indicated that the abundance of small mammals 

increases with the height of herbaceous growth, the diversity of shrubby vegetation, and the 

amount of downed logs (Ward 2001). Under Alternatives 2-4, prescribed fire would stimulate 

grass-forb growth and result in both a consumption and creation of downed logs.

Road decommissions (and for Alternatives 2-3, conversion of road to trail) would restore more 

native habitat and reduce disturbance by humans. They would improve the condition of the soil 

and watersheds in the species’ habitat. Construction of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary 

and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and snags across approximately 304-312 acres. 

Construction of fireline would clear up to approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. 

Construction of fireline, temporary roads, Maintenance-Level 1 roads, and trail would cause soil 

erosion and sedimentation of waterways, which may reduce the habitat (and ultimately, 

populations) of eagle prey. This may, in turn, affect eagle fitness. Maintenance-Level 1 road 

construction would have more impact on habitat of eagle prey, as Maintenance-Level 1 roads 

would not be obliterated. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-

3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads or trails would be constructed under this Alternative.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

208 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Approximately 72 acres of forest would be denuded by cable-logging operations in forested areas 

under Alternative 2, resulting in the loss of snags >18” DBH and pre-settlement trees, features 

that are important to eagles and their prey.

See Tables 3.6-3 and 4 for a quantitative description of habitat attributes and fire hazard in eagle 

habitat under Alternatives 2-4.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are 

contributing, and will contribute to the fitness of bald eagles on the Kaibab National Forest:

• The abundance of trees in the late seral stage remains largely unchanged from historical 

conditions on slopes greater than 40%. However, even-aged forest management led to a 

loss of large, old trees, generally on slopes less than 40% and primarily from the 1960s 

through the early 1990s. Recent projects in forest management (see appendix in EIS) 

emphasize restoration and fire hazard reduction, thereby promoting the sustainability of 

the species’ habitat in and around the project area. The Forest Plan currently does not 

permit the harvest of trees greater than 24” DBH in mixed conifer or pine-oak forest; 

harvest of pre-settlement trees rarely occurs anymore, and in this and recent thinning and 

burning projects, pre-settlement tree conservation has been included as a mitigation 

measure. Current management generally aims to restore the Forest to pre-settlement 

conditions. This will increase the amount of large trees (which eagles use for nesting and 

roosting and as foraging perches), offsetting historic losses.

• Historic overgrazing has reduced protective cover and food for terrestrial vertebrates, 

which reduces their population size and the amount of prey for eagles. This could 

potentially reduce the fitness of eagles on the Forest. Although current levels of grazing 

have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces herbaceous vegetation. The 

current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s Report and Hat 

Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest System may increase 

the protective cover and food available for terrestrial vertebrates. This will increase prey 

populations for bald eagles and ameliorate potentially negative effects on the fitness of 

eagles in the project area. For example, current exclusion of sheep around water bodies 

in the project area will increase herbaceous growth around these water bodies. This 

would in turn provide protective cover and food for terrestrial vertebrates and waterfowl, 

which bald eagles eat.

• Past use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) caused a decrease in the population of 

raptor species, including bald eagles. A ban on this chemical has caused the species to 

continually grow in population size (BNA Online 2012).

• The removal of hazardous trees along powerlines, roads, and fire control lines has 

reduced and will continue to reduce the number of snags and trees >18” DBH in the 

project area.

• Illegal fuelwood harvest has caused and will continue to cause a loss of snags.

• Insect and disease outbreaks have killed and will continue to kill trees. Insect- and 

disease-related mortality creates more snags, and eventually, downed logs. Terrestrial 

prey use downed logs, and eagles use snags for nesting, roosting, and as foraging perches. 

However, eagles also use large, live trees that insects and disease kill.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, higher 

temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which will increase the probability of standreplacing wildfire causing habitat loss for the species. Climate change will also lead to 

more opportunities for invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 209

outcompete with these species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat 

(USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects such as this may help species be more resilient 

and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused 

reductions and enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of 

specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

By not reducing hazardous fuels, not allowing for tree growth, and not creating more waterfowl 

habitat, the No-Action Alternative would hinder the conservation of the habitat of bald eagles and 

their prey. It would exacerbate the effects of historic timber management, historic overgrazing, 

historic fire exclusion, past use of DDT, recreation, elk-grazing, illegal fuelwood harvest, and 

hazard-tree removal. The No-Action Alternative may therefore have an adverse impact on bald 

eagles.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of the species. In the context 

of these other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact the species, but their cumulative contribution 

would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 may adversely impact the bald eagle, but it would not cause a trend toward listing or 

loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the high fuel loadings and fire hazard in the project 

area and would eventually lead to stand-replacing fire in the habitat of the species.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the bald eagle in the short term but would cause a longterm beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of 

viability. More habitat would be restored for the species under Alternative 2 than under 

Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to promote the growth of the largest trees that 

this species uses for roosting and foraging and which serve as recruitment snags and down logs 

on which prey species rely. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would restore more open areas that are 

important to foraging eagles. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts than 

Alternatives 2-3. Unintentional take of eagles would not occur under any of the Alternatives.

American Peregrine Falcon

Existing Conditions 

Peregrine falcons require rock cliffs for nesting and expansive foraging areas. Suitable nesting 

sites on rock cliffs have a mean height of 200-300 ft. The species occurs statewide as a migrant, 

transient, and/or wintering individual (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005; BNA Online 2012). The 

subspecies anatum permanently resides on the Kaibab National Forest and breeds on isolated cliff 

ledges. It is only known to currently or historically nest at three locations on the Williams Ranger 

District. Peregrine falcons historically nested on Bill Williams Mountain but have not been 

detected nesting in the area in several years. The locations of this nest area overlaps with the Bill 

Williams PAC. Prey species include bats, mammals, and birds; however, peregrine falcons 

mainly predate wetland birds in riparian areas, meadows, parklands, croplands, mountain valleys, 

and lakes within a 10-20 mile radius of the nest area. The species’ breeding season occurs from 

March 1st to August 31st (Corman and Wise-Gervais 2005; BNA Online 2012). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

210 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect the peregrine falcon in the short term. Habitat 

conditions for falcons would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural processes. 

However, the No-Action Alternative would degrade the habitat for falcons in the long term. By 

not removing conifers which have encroached upon grasslands, meadows, and savannas, the NoAction Alternative would prevent the conservation of foraging habitat for falcons. This could 

result in an adverse effect.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would treat around areas where Peregrine Falcons have been observed to nest in 

the past. As this is a cliff-nesting species and as the area around historic or potential nest sites are 

primarily rock, the Action Alternatives would not affect the nesting habitat of the species. 

However, mechanical treatments and prescribed fire would restore grasslands, meadows, and 

savannas toward pre-settlement conditions to which the species adapted and evolved and would 

therefore benefit the species. Alternative 2 would better restore more grasslands, meadows, and 

savannas than Alternatives 3-4, as more openings would be created.

The ecosystems within the project area have all adapted and evolved to periodic fire (USDA 

2012), and it is reasonable to assume that the species within these ecosystems have also adapted 

and evolved to this disturbance. Herbaceous vegetation would increase in abundance and 

diversity with prescribed fire. This would cause an increase in the population of terrestrial prey, 

which would benefit peregrine falcons. Herbaceous growth and related benefits would be higher 

under Alternative 2 than Alternatives 3-4, as canopies would be more open across the project 

area, which would in turn promote higher herbaceous growth.

Noise from mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels may disturb falcons. However, timing 

restrictions around active nests would prevent noise disturbance from affecting reproductive 

success. Smoke from prescribed fire may disturb the species. These disturbances may cause the 

species to abandon areas and become more vulnerable to predators. Impacts from smoke are 

reduced by the coordination of timing and type of burning with wind direction, topography, and 

time of year. 

Road decommissions (and for Alternatives 2-3, conversion of road to trail) would restore more 

native habitat and reduce disturbance by humans. They would improve the condition of the soil 

and watersheds in the species’ habitat. Construction of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary 

and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and snags across approximately 304-312 acres. 

Construction of fireline would clear up to approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. 

Construction of fireline, temporary roads, Maintenance-Level 1 roads, and trail would cause soil 

erosion and sedimentation of waterways, which may reduce the habitat (and ultimately, 

populations) of falcon prey. This may, in turn, affect fitness of the species. Maintenance-Level 1 

road construction would have more impact on habitat of falcons’ prey, as Maintenance-Level 1 

roads would not be obliterated. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts than 

Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads or trails would be constructed under this 

Alternative. See Tables 3.6-3 and 4 for a quantitative description of habitat attributes and fire 

hazard in falcon habitat under Alternatives 2-4.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are 

contributing, and will contribute to the fitness of peregrine falcons on the Kaibab National Forest:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 211

• Grasslands, meadows, and wetlands – including those in the Southwest – evolved to 

periodic disturbance from fire (USDA 2012). Historic fire exclusion from wetlands 

decreased the amount of open-water habitat for waterfowl. The Forest Service excluded 

fire from the Kaibab National Forest throughout much of the twentieth century, causing 

the encroachment of trees onto grasslands, meadows, and savannas; this reduced, 

fragmented, and degraded foraging habitat for falcons. The Forest Service now embraces 

the natural role of fire on the landscape; current and future wildland fire management 

(including the use of wildfire) will increase, connect, and improve falcon habitat. 

• Historic overgrazing has reduced protective cover and food for terrestrial vertebrates, 

which reduces their population size and the amount of prey for falcons. This could 

potentially reduce the fitness of falcons on the Forest. Although current levels of grazing 

have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces herbaceous vegetation. The 

current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s Report and Hat 

Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest System may increase 

the protective cover and food available for terrestrial vertebrates. This will increase prey 

populations for peregrine falcons and ameliorate potentially negative effects on the 

fitness of eagles in the project area. For example, current exclusion of sheep around 

water bodies in the project area will increase herbaceous growth around these water 

bodies. This would in turn provide protective cover and food for terrestrial vertebrates 

and waterfowl, which peregrine falcons eat.

• Past use of dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane (DDT) caused a decrease in the population of 

raptor species, including peregrine falcons. A ban on this chemical has caused the 

species to continually grow in population size (BNA Online 2012).

• Recreation (e.g., rock-climbing, hiking) around cliff habitat has occurred and continues to 

occur in and around the project area. Recreationists may disturb falcons and cause them 

to abandon suitable habitat (BNA Online 2012).

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, higher 

temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which will increase the probability of standreplacing wildfire and desertification of open lands, causing habitat loss for the species. 

Climate change will also lead to more opportunities for invasive species to establish and 

spread, and invasive species may outcompete with these species or their prey, or they 

may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects such as this may 

help species be more resilient and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused 

reductions and enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of 

specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

By not creating more foraging habitat, the No-Action Alternative would hinder the conservation 

of peregrine falcons. It would exacerbate the effects of historic overgrazing, historic fire 

exclusion, past use of DDT, elk-grazing, and recreation. The No-Action Alternative may 

therefore have an adverse impact on peregrine falcons.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of falcons. In the context of 

these other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact peregrine falcons, but their cumulative 

contribution would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

212 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 may adversely impact the American peregrine falcon, but it would not cause a trend 

toward listing or loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the process of forest and woodland 

encroachment of the open-land habitat which these species inhabit.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the American peregrine falcon in the short term but would 

cause a long-term beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or 

loss of viability. More habitat would be restored for prey species under Alternative 2 than under 

Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to restore openings that existed in presettlement times. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts on prey species than 

Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads would be constructed under this Alternative. 

Four-Spotted Skipperling

Existing Conditions

Biologists have not detected the four-spotted skipperling within the project area. However, 

suitable habitat exists within the project area. These butterfly species inhabit moist meadows, 

seeps, springs, and streams within ponderosa pine and mixed conifer forests.

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect the four-spotted skipperling in the short term. 

Habitat conditions for these species would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural 

processes. However, the No-Action Alternative would degrade the habitat for skipperlings in the 

long term. By not removing conifers which have encroached upon meadows, the No-Action 

Alternative would hinder restoration of habitat for skipperlings. Invading conifers would 

continue to take in water that would otherwise flow in seeps, springs, and wet meadows. This 

could adversely impact these species.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would benefit the species by restoring meadows and reducing the amount of 

water-consuming, invaded conifers in seeps, springs, and meadows. Alternative 2 would remove 

encroaching conifers from meadows, seeps, and springs more than Alternatives 3-4, as more areas 

would be restored to pre-settlement conditions. This would restore herbaceous growth (that 

serves as protective cover and food for skipperlings) and therefore increase the species’ fitness. 

Prescribed fire may cause direct mortality of the species. 

Road decommissions, road closures, and conversion of road to trail would restore more native 

habitat. Construction of temporary (and for Alternatives 2-3, Maintenance-Level 1) roads would 

cause degradation of habitat through soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways. Construction 

of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and 

snags across approximately 304-312 acres. Construction of fireline would clear up to 

approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. and temporary and Maintenance-Level 1 

roads would cause loss of habitat where roads pass through meadows or other areas used by the 

species. Maintenance-Level 1 roads, unlike temporary roads, would not be obliterated after 

implementation and would therefore have longer-term effects on habitat. Unlike Alternatives 2-3, 

which involve construction of 22-23 miles of Maintenance-Level 1 roads, Alternative 4 does not 

involve construction of any Maintenance-Level 1 roads. This Alternative would therefore have 

the least road-related degradation of habitat for the species. Mechanical treatment of hazardous 

fuels, prescribed fire, road construction, road decommissions, and trail construction may reduce 

the habitat of skipperlings in the short term or cause direct mortality, but such effects would not 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 213

cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability. See Tables 3.6-3 and 4 for a quantitative 

description of habitat attributes and fire hazard to the species’ habitat under Alternatives 2-4. 

Note that higher fire hazard indicates a higher probability of detrimental impacts to the species’ 

habitat (e.g., soil erosion and sedimentation).

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are 

contributing, and will contribute to the fitness of skipperlings on the Kaibab National Forest:

• The species richness and abundance of invertebrates increases with the structural 

diversity of plants (Brose 2003; Remsburg and Turner 2009). Sheep consume 

herbaceous vegetation in meadows. Historic overgrazing decreased the amount of cover 

and food for skipperlings, which may have decreased their abundance. Although current 

levels of grazing have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces herbaceous 

vegetation. The current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s 

Report and Hat Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest 

System will increase the herbaceous vegetation available to skipperlings. This will 

therefore increase their fitness.

• Meadows, including those in the Southwest, evolved to periodic disturbance from fire 

(USDA 2012). The Forest Service excluded fire from the Kaibab National Forest 

throughout much of the twentieth century, causing the encroachment of conifers onto 

meadows; this reduced, fragmented, and degraded habitat for skipperlings. Furthermore, 

it has increased the potential of high-severity wildfires, which could cause direct 

mortality of skipperlings and a long-term loss of microhabitat (e.g., downed logs and 

woody debris). Fire exclusion has also contributed to the encroachment of conifers that 

invade meadows and take in water would otherwise flow in seeps, springs, and moist 

meadows. The Forest Service now embraces the natural role of fire on the landscape; 

current and future wildland fire management (including the use of wildfire) will increase, 

connect, and improve habitat for these species.

• Recreation (e.g., off-road vehicle driving, hiking, biking, and camping) and road travel 

reduce vegetation and compact soils. Recreational activities would continue to occur in 

the project area, resulting in decreased habitat for skipperlings.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, and higher 

temperatures which will increase the probability of desertification of grasslands, causing 

habitat loss for the species. Climate change will also lead to more opportunities for 

invasive species to establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete with these 

species or their prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). Restoration 

projects such as this may help species be more resilient and adapt to climate change 

(USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused 

reductions and enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of 

specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the encroachment of meadows by trees. It would 

exacerbate the reduction in habitat for skipperlings from historic overgrazing, fire exclusion, and 

recreation. The No-Action Alternative may therefore have an adverse effect on skipperlings.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of skipperlings. In the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

214 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

context of these other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact skipperlings, but their cumulative 

contribution would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 may adversely impact the four-spotted skipperling, but it would not cause a trend 

toward listing or loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the process of forest and woodland 

encroachment of the meadows, seeps, and springs which this species inhabits.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the four-spotted skipperling in the short term but would 

cause a long-term beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or 

loss of viability. More habitat would be restored for the species under Alternative 2 than under 

Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to restore openings that existed in presettlement times, and more water would return to seeps, springs, and moist meadows. Alternative 

4 would have less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads 

would be constructed under this Alternative. 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES

This section describes the effects of each project alternative on Forest-level population and 

habitat trends of Management Indicator Species (MIS) with indicator habitat or habitat 

components in the project’s action area (Table 3.6-16). See the Botanist’s Report for an analysis 

of effects on Arizona bugbane (Cimicifuga arizonica), a plant management indicator species that 

also occurs in the project area. The following MIS were considered but eliminated for analysis 

due to lack of currently or potentially suitable habitat in the project area: aquatic 

macroinvertebrates, cinnamon teal (Anas cyanoptera), Lucy’s warbler (Vermivora luciae), 

Lincoln’s sparrow (Melospiza lincolnii), and yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens). 

A living document summarizes current knowledge of population and habitat trends for species 

identified as Management Indicator Species of the Kaibab National Forest (USDA 2010). It 

contains detailed descriptions of the habitat of each MIS, including seral stage. Note that the 

concept of seral stage in this section may differ from the silvicultural concept of seral stage. The 

Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZGFD) annually estimate population trends for game 

species (i.e. elk, pronghorn, mule deer, white-tailed deer, and turkey), for each Game 

Management Unit (GMU) in the state, and these estimates help inform MIS analyses. See the 

Wildlife Specialist’s Report for details on assumptions used to calculate habitat acreages for MIS.

Existing Conditions

All MIS but Red-naped Sapsucker have been confirmed to occur within the project area, although 

habitat for this species does exist. See Table 3.6-17 for a summary of existing conditions and the 

Wildlife Specialist’s Report for a more detailed description of existing conditions.

Direct and Indirect Effects

Tables 3.6-16 and 17 summarize Forest-wide habitat and population trends, Forest-wide acreages 

of habitat component indicators, the existing condition of the habitat component indicator of each 

MIS, and the effects of each Action Alternative on the habitat component indicators within the 

project area.

For species that serve as a habitat component indicator for late-seral ponderosa pine (northern 

goshawk; pygmy nuthatch; wild turkey), thinning and burning the forest under Alternatives 2-4 

would benefit these MIS and their habitat components for which they serve as an indicator. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 215

Alternative 2 would most increase late-seral ponderosa pine forest, primarily by reducing intertree competition and fire hazard among groups of the largest trees. Alternative 3 would result in a 

larger increase in this habitat component than Alternative 4, primarily due to treatments on steep 

slopes that would reduce competition and fire hazard among the largest trees. The No-Action 

Alternative would perpetuate high risk of fire hazard and outbreaks of insects and disease, and 

inter-tree competition would continue to slow the growth of late-seral ponderosa pines. See the 

Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Specialist’s Report for more detailed analysis.

For species that serve as a habitat component indicator for late-seral mixed-conifer forest 

(Mexican spotted owl; red squirrel), thinning and burning the forest under Alternatives 2-4 would 

benefit these MIS and their habitat components for which they serve as an indicator. Alternative 

3 would most increase late-seral mixed conifer forest, primarily by reducing inter-tree 

competition through the removal of trees <9” DBH. However, fire hazard to mixed conifer forest 

would be lowest under Alternative 2 (Tables 3.6-3 and 4); Alternative 2 may therefore result in 

the highest acreage of late-seral mixed conifer forest, and greatest benefit to associated MIS, over 

the long term. The only caveat to this statement is that cable-logging treatments will result in a 

loss of all trees and snags across approximately 2 acres of late-seral mixed-conifer forest. 

Alternative 2 would result in a larger increase in this habitat component than Alternative 4, 

primarily due to treatments on steep slopes that would reduce fire hazard and competition among 

the largest trees. If no mechanical treatments other than fire-line construction occur on steep 

slopes before burning under Alternatives 2-3, then Alternatives 2-4 would have virtually identical 

effects on these MIS. The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate high risk of fire hazard and 

outbreaks of insects and disease, and inter-tree competition would continue to slow the growth of 

late-seral trees in mixed-conifer forest. See the Biological Evaluation and Wildlife Specialist’s 

Report for more detailed analysis.

For species that serve as an MIS for snags (hairy woodpecker; red-naped sapsucker), Alternative 

2 would most benefit these species by most reducing fire hazard in and around these species’ 

habitat components (Tables 3.6-3 and 4), and for snag MIS, by most protecting recruitment snags 

(i.e., live pre-settlement and other large trees). The only caveat to this statement is that cablelogging treatments will result in a loss of all trees and snags across approximately 2 acres of lateseral mixed-conifer forest. Alternative 3 would be more preferable than Alternative 4, as the risk 

of stand-replacing fire would be lower under Alternative 3 than Alternative 4 (Tables 3.6-3 and 

4). The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate high risk to snags, and inter-tree competition 

would continue to slow the growth of late-seral trees (recruitment snags). See the Biological 

Evaluation and Wildlife Specialist’s Report for detailed analysis.

For species that serve as an MIS for early seral ponderosa pine forest (elk; Abert’s squirrel), all of 

the Alternatives would result in a decrease in the forest type. The greatest decrease in early seral 

pine forest would occur under Alternative 3, followed by Alternative 4, Alternative 2, and last, 

Alternative 1. The Action Alternatives would reduce the density of trees in the ponderosa pine 

forest of the project area. A reduction in canopy cover would decrease the amount of interlocking 

crowns, infection levels of mistletoe, and number of mid-seral trees important to the species. 

This in turn may decrease fitness of the species. However, goshawk nest areas, PFAs, and pineoak forest would maintain canopy cover levels of 40-70%, and these areas would continue to 

provide substantial amounts of nesting habitat. Alternative 2 would reduce fire hazard and 

protect snags, groups of trees >18” DBH, and other important habitat attributes more than 

Alternatives 3-4, as forest thinning would be more extensive. Alternatives 3-4 would be identical 

in terms of effects from thinning and burning.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

216 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Elk also serves as an MIS for early seral mixed-conifer forest. All of the Alternatives would 

result in an increase in this habitat component, and the Action Alternatives would have negligibly 

comparable effects on the acreage of early seral mixed-conifer forest, with Alternative 3 having 

the greatest increase, followed by Alternative 2, and last Alternative 4. If mechanical treatments 

are implemented before prescribed fire in the mixed conifer forest on steep slopes, then 

Alternative 2 would reduce fire hazard to forest more than Alternative 3, and Alternative 3 would 

reduce fire hazard more than Alternative 4. If mechanical treatments do not occur on steep slopes 

(i.e., only fireline and prescribed fire is implemented) under Alternatives 2-3, then Alternatives 2-

4 would have identical effects on elk, with a substantially higher probability of large patches of 

trees being replaced to torching than if areas were first mechanically treated (Tables 3.6-3 and 4). 

This would lead to greater creation of early-seral mixed conifer forest and ultimately benefit elk.

Alternatives 2-4 would have similar direct effects on late-seral pinyon-juniper woodland (juniper 

titmouse), early- and late- seral grasslands (pronghorn antelope), and early- and late- seral aspen 

(mule deer and red-naped sapsucker, respectively). The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate 

high risk of fire hazard to pinyon-juniper woodland and aspen. Slightly more late-seral aspen 

may be lost (and more early-seral aspen may be created), under Alternative 4 than Alternatives 2-

3, as aspen is adapted to a stand-replacing wildfire regime that causes mature trees to die and 

suckers and saplings to flourish, and Alternative 4 (which does not include mechanical treatment) 

would have the highest fuel loadings and therefore the highest-severity fire. That being said, if no 

mechanical treatments other than fire-line construction occur on steep slopes before burning 

under Alternatives 2-3, then Alternatives 2-4 would have virtually identical effects on red-naped 

sapsucker and mule deer MIS habitat. Also, Alternative 2 may indirectly conserve more lateseral pinyon-juniper woodlands than Alternatives 3-4, as fire hazard in the matrix around this 

habitat would be most reduced under this Alternative (Tables 3.6-3 and 4). (Tables 3.6-3 and 4), 

and it would perpetuate encroachment of conifers into historic grasslands. See the Biological 

Evaluation and Wildlife Specialist’s Report for more detailed analysis.

Smoke from prescribed fire and noise from mechanical treatments may disturb the species. These 

disturbances may cause the species to abandon areas and become more vulnerable to predators. 

Impacts from smoke are reduced by the coordination of timing and type of burning with wind 

direction, topography, and time of year

Road decommissions (and for Alternatives 2-3, conversion of road to trail) would restore more 

native habitat and reduce disturbance by humans. They would improve the condition of the soil 

and watersheds in the species’ habitat. Construction of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary 

and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and snags across approximately 304-312 acres. 

Construction of fireline would clear up to approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. 

Firelines, temporary roads, Maintenance-Level 1 roads, and trail would cause soil erosion and 

sedimentation of waterways, which may reduce the habitat the species. This may, in turn, affect 

fitness. Maintenance-Level 1 road construction would have more impact on habitat, as 

Maintenance-Level 1 roads would not be obliterated. Alternative 4 would have less road-related 

impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads or trails would be constructed 

under this Alternative.

Cumulative Effects
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 217

Many past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions have affected and continue to affect MIS 

habitat. Historic timber management caused a reduction in the amount of late seral ponderosa 

pine forest within the project area. Historic fire exclusion increased fire hazard for all MIS 

habitat components. Recreational disturbance may affect the survival and reproductive success of 

MIS. Illegal fuelwood harvest may adversely affect late-seral ponderosa pine, mixed-conifer, 

and pinyon-juniper MIS and their habitat components. Insect and disease infestations (due to 

uncharacteristically dense forest and woodland conditions) has decreased the amount of late-seral 

forests and woodlands. Hunting affects wild turkey, elk, mule deer, and pronghorn antelope, 

although management by the AZGFD has maintained viable populations. Historic overgrazing 

by livestock has reduced herbaceous growth that serves as food and cover for all MIS and their 

prey and that would have historically carried low-intensity surface fire throughout forests and 

woodlands. Hazard-tree removal along power-lines, roads, and fire control lines has reduced 

habitat for late-seral pine and mixed-conifer species. Climate change has resulted in a warmer, 

drier climate, which has increased the probability of stand-replacing wildfire in forests and 

woodlands, desertification of grassland, and establishment of more invasive species in the project 

area. Such effects of climate change would result in a decrease in all MIS populations and/or 

habitat. Although these activities have reduced habitat within the Project Area and across the 

Forest, when considered in the context of the cumulative impact of these actions, none of the 

Alternatives result in a substantial increase or decrease in Forest-wide habitat or population trends 

for any MIS. See the Wildlife Specialist’s Report for a detailed cumulative effects analysis for 

each MIS.

Alternative 1 may adversely impact MIS in the long term by perpetuating current high fire hazard 

and delaying restoration to pre-settlement conditions. However, such impacts are not substantial 

enough to change Forest-wide habitat or population trends for any MIS. In general, Alternative 2 

would most favor MIS and their habitat, followed by Alternative 3, and Alternative 4, as fire 

hazard would be least under this Alternative, and restoration and maintenance of ecosystems at 

pre-settlement conditions would benefit most species (although see the Wildlife Specialist’s 

Report for detailed comparisons of Alternatives). Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact MIS 

species in the short term but would cause a long-term beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 involve 

changes to MIS habitat in terms of quantity and quality. These changes may adversely impact 

MIS species and their habitats, but not enough to change Forest-wide habitat or population trends 

for any MIS. See the Wildlife Specialist’s Report for a detailed analysis of effects on each MIS. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

218 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-16. Management Indicator Species within the action area of the project, along 

with Forest-wide habitat component indicator and population trends.

Manageme

nt Indicator 

Species

Habitat 

Component 

Indicator for 

which MIS 

serves

Habitats on Williams 

District (WD) and/or 

Tusayan District (TD) of 

Kaibab National Forest, 

Including Those for which 

MIS does not Serve as an 

Indicator

ForestWide 

Populatio

n Trend

ForestWide 

Trend for 

Habitat 

Componen

t 

Know

n to 

Occur 

in 

Projec

t Area

Northern 

goshawk 

(Accipiter 

gentilis) 

late-seral 

ponderosa 

pine 

ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, spruce-fir, and aspen 

forests; pinyon-juniper 

woodland. Declining Decreasing Yes

Hairy 

woodpecker 

(Picoides 

villosus) 

snags in 

ponderosa 

pine, mixed 

conifer, and 

spruce-fir 

ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, spruce-fir, aspen 

forests

Stable Increasing Yes

Red-naped 

sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicu

s nuchalis)

late-seral 

aspen and 

snags within 

late-seral 

aspen

ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, spruce-fir, aspen 

forests

Stable to 

increasing Decreasing

No, 

but 

possibl

e.

Juniper 

titmouse 

(Baeolophus 

ridgwayi) 

late-seral 

pinyonjuniper, and 

snags in 

pinyonjuniper

pinyon-juniper woodland.

Declining Increasing Yes

Pygmy 

nuthatch 

(Sitta 

pygmaea)

late-seral 

ponderosa 

pine

ponderosa pine forest.

Stable to 

declining Decreasing Yes

Mexican 

spotted owl 

(Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida)

late-seral 

mixed 

conifer and 

spruce-fir 

mixed conifer forest in 

Sycamore Canyon, Bill 

Williams Mtn, Sitgreaves 

Mtn., and Kendrick Mtn.

Declining Decreasing Yes

Wild turkey 

(Meleagris 

gallopavo) 

late-seral 

ponderosa 

pine

ponderosa pine, mixed 

conifer, aspen forests; 

pinyon-juniper woodland.

Variable 

but 

overall 

increasing Decreasing Yes
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 219

Manageme

nt Indicator 

Species

Habitat 

Component 

Indicator for 

which MIS 

serves

Habitats on Williams 

District (WD) and/or 

Tusayan District (TD) of 

Kaibab National Forest, 

Including Those for which 

MIS does not Serve as an 

Indicator

ForestWide 

Populatio

n Trend

ForestWide 

Trend for 

Habitat 

Componen

t 

Know

n to 

Occur 

in 

Projec

t Area

Elk (Cervus 

elaphus) 

early-seral 

ponderosa 

pine, mixed 

conifer, 

spruce-fir

all forest and woodland 

cover types and grassland.

Stable Increasing Yes

Mule deer 

(Odocoileus 

hemionus) 

early-seral 

aspen and 

pinyonjuniper 

all forest and woodland 

cover types and grassland.

Stable to 

increasing

Decreasing 

(aspen); 

Increasing 

(pinyonjuniper) Yes

American 

pronghorn 

(Antilocapra 

americana) 

early- and 

late-seral 

grassland

grassland, pinyon-juniper, 

open ponderosa pine forest.

Declining Decreasing Yes

Red squirrel 

(Tamiasciur

us 

hudsonicus)

late-seral 

mixed 

conifer and 

spruce-fir

mixed conifer and spruce-fir 

forests.

Declining Decreasing Yes

Abert's 

squirrel 

(Sciurus 

aberti)

early-seral 

ponderosa 

pine

ponderosa pine forest.

Stable Increasing Yes
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

220 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.6-17. Management Indicator Species within the action area of the project, along 

with acreage of each MIS’s habitat component on the Kaibab NF, in the project area, and 

increased or decreased by each Action Alternative.

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Acreage of 

Habitat 

Component 

on the 

Kaibab NF

Existing 

Condition: 

Acres of 

Habitat 

Component 

Indicator 

Present in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 1 

(No 

Action): 

Change 

in 

Habitat 

in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 2: 

Change in 

Habitat in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 3: 

Change in 

Habitat in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 4: 

Change in 

Habitat in 

Project 

Area

Northern 

goshawk 

(Accipiter 

gentilis) 27,921 1,897 1,400 5,500 4,800 4,300

Hairy 

woodpecker 

(Picoides 

villosus) 

N/A

Approx. 2 

snags/acre 

in mixed 

conifer; 

Approx. 0.5 

snags/acre 

in pine.

Approx. 

1 

snag/acre 

in MC; 

Approx. 

1 

snag/acre 

in pine.

Approx. 

1.5 

snags/acre 

in MC; 

Approx 1 

snag/acre 

in pine.

Approx. 

0.5 

snags/acre 

in MC and 

pine.

Approx. 2 

snags/acre 

in MC; 

Approx. 

0.5 

snags/acre 

in pine.

Red-naped 

sapsucker 

(Sphyrapicus 

nuchalis)

28,500 acres 

of aspen

Up to 140 

acres of late 

seral aspen. 

Snags/acre 

unknown.

Decrease 

in aspen 

and 

aspen 

snags.

Increase in 

aspen and 

aspen 

snags.

Increase in 

aspen and 

aspen 

snags.

Increase in 

aspen and 

aspen 

snags.

Juniper 

titmouse 

(Baeolophus 

ridgwayi) 657,900 

acres of 

pinyonjuniper Up to 654

Increase: 

PJ 

invasion 

would 

continue.

Stable; Presettlement 

PJ would 

be 

conserved.

Stable; Presettlement 

PJ would 

be 

conserved.

Stable; Presettlement 

PJ would 

be 

conserved.

Pygmy 

nuthatch 

(Sitta 

pygmaea) 27,921 1,897 1,400 5,500 4,800 4,300

Mexican 

spotted owl 

(Strix 

occidentalis 

lucida) 39,122* 345 100 400 600 300
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 221

Management 

Indicator 

Species

Acreage of 

Habitat 

Component 

on the 

Kaibab NF

Existing 

Condition: 

Acres of 

Habitat 

Component 

Indicator 

Present in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 1 

(No 

Action): 

Change 

in 

Habitat 

in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 2: 

Change in 

Habitat in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 3: 

Change in 

Habitat in 

Project 

Area

Alt. 4: 

Change in 

Habitat in 

Project 

Area

Wild turkey 

(Meleagris 

gallopavo) 27,921 1,897 1,400 5,500 4,800 4,300

Elk (Cervus 

elaphus) 

7,411

Pine: 4645; 

MC: 1074

Pine: -

1600 

MC: 200

Pine: -

2300; MC: 

460

Pine: -

3200; MC: 

499

Pine: -

2600; MC: 

422

Mule deer 

(Odocoileus 

hemionus) 

28,500 acres 

of aspen; 

657,900 

acres of 

pinyonjuniper*

Up to 654 in 

pinyonjuniper; Up 

to 140 in 

aspen.

Decrease 

in aspen; 

Increase 

in 

pinyonjuniper.

Increase in 

aspen; 

decrease in 

pinyonjuniper.

Increase in 

aspen; 

decrease in 

pinyonjuniper.

Increase in 

aspen; 

decrease in 

pinyonjuniper.

American 

pronghorn 

(Antilocapra 

americana) 

216,000 64

Decrease 

due to 

continue

d conifer 

invasion.

Increase 

due to 

removal of 

invading 

conifers in 

existing 

grasslands.

Increase 

due to 

removal of 

invading 

conifers in 

existing 

grasslands.

Increase 

due to 

removal of 

invading 

conifers in 

existing 

grasslands.

Red squirrel 

(Tamiasciuru

s hudsonicus) 39,122* 345 100 400 600 300

Abert's 

squirrel 

(Sciurus 

aberti) 7,411 4,645 -1,600 -2,300 -3,200 -2,600

* With the best available stand data on aspen, pinyon-juniper woodlands, mixed conifer forest, 

and spruce-fir forest, it is not possible to determine at this time how much is early-seral stage vs. 

late-seral stage. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

222 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

OTHER WILDLIFE CONCERNS

Golden Eagles

Existing Conditions

Golden eagles breed and winter on the Kaibab National Forest, where they primarily occupy 

grasslands (JJD personal observation, unpublished data). Only 64 acres of grasslands occur in the 

project area. They prefer tall cliffs, canyons, and trees (especially ponderosa pine) as nest areas. 

They require large openings in which to forage. At lower elevations, golden eagles can begin 

nesting in February, and as late as April at higher elevations. Fledging occurs as late as mid-June 

in Arizona. More than 75% of the diet of golden eagles consists of mammals (e.g., hares, rabbits, 

ground squirrels, prairie dogs). Humans easily disturb the species. Population trends remain 

unknown in Arizona, but the species appears to be declining as a whole in the West (Corman and 

Wise-Gervais 2005; BNA Online 2012). Only 12 historic or existing nests have been found on 

the Williams Ranger District. In 2011, only four pairs showed signs of breeding. The species 

likely occurs in the project area, and nesting individuals have been detected in the project area.

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect golden eagles in the short term. Habitat conditions 

for the species would not change, notwithstanding the effects of natural processes. However, the 

No-Action Alternative would perpetuate overly dense forest conditions in fire-dependent 

ecosystems. Such conditions increase the potential for high-severity wildfire in and around eagle 

habitat. This may reduce the amount of trees >18” DBH and negatively affect other important 

habitat attributes for golden eagles.

Tree densities would continue to increase under the No-Action Alternative. This would 

exacerbate competition among trees, slow their growth into larger diameter classes, and thereby 

limit the development of larger trees (18”+ DBH) that eagles use for nesting. By not reversing 

conifer encroachment in grasslands, the No-Action Alternative reduces the amount of open land

upon which golden eagles rely for foraging habitat. By not reducing hazardous fuels, not 

allowing for tree growth, and not creating more foraging habitat, the No-Action Alternative 

would hinder the conservation of the habitat of golden eagles and their prey. This could result in 

an adverse effect on the species. 

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Alternatives 2-4 would benefit the species by restoring grasslands, meadows, and savannas 

important to foraging eagles. Alternative 2 would remove encroaching conifers from grasslands, 

meadows, and savannas more than Alternatives 3-4, as more areas would be restored to presettlement conditions. This would restore herbaceous growth (that serves as protective cover and 

food for golden eagles’ prey) and therefore increase the species’ fitness.

Road decommissions, road closures, and conversion of road to trail would restore more native 

habitat. Construction of temporary (and for Alternatives 2-3, Maintenance-Level 1) roads would 

cause degradation of habitat through soil erosion and sedimentation of waterways. Construction 

of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and 

snags across approximately 304-312 acres. Construction of fireline would clear up to 

approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels. Construction of fireline and temporary and 

Maintenance-Level 1 roads would cause loss of habitat where roads pass through grasslands or 

other areas used by the species. Maintenance-Level 1 roads, unlike temporary roads, would not 

be obliterated after implementation and would therefore have longer-term effects on habitat. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 223

Unlike Alternatives 2-3, which involve construction of 22-23 miles of Maintenance-Level 1 

roads, Alternative 4 does not involve construction of any Maintenance-Level 1 roads. This 

Alternative would therefore have the least road-related degradation of habitat for the species. 

Mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels, prescribed fire, road construction, road decommissions, 

and trail construction may reduce the habitat of golden eagles’ prey in the short term or cause 

direct mortality. See Tables 3.6-3 and 4 for a quantitative description of habitat attributes and fire 

hazard to the species’ habitat under Alternatives 2-4.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are 

contributing, and will contribute to the fitness of golden eagles on the Kaibab National Forest:

• The abundance of trees in the late seral stage remains largely unchanged from historical 

conditions on slopes greater than 40%. However, even-aged forest management led to a 

loss of large, old trees, generally on slopes less than 40% and primarily from the 1960s 

through the early 1990s. Recent projects in forest management (see appendix in EIS) 

emphasize restoration and fire hazard reduction, thereby promoting the sustainability of 

the species’ habitat in and around the project area. The Forest Plan currently does not 

permit the harvest of trees greater than 24” DBH in mixed conifer or pine-oak forest; 

harvest of pre-settlement trees rarely occurs anymore, and in this and recent thinning and 

burning projects, pre-settlement tree conservation has been included as a mitigation 

measure. Current management generally aims to restore the Forest to pre-settlement 

conditions. This will increase the amount of trees >18” DBH (which eagles use for 

nesting), offsetting historic losses.

• Land managers extirpated prairie dogs, a primary prey species of golden eagles, from 

much of their historic range. Conflicts between ranchers and prairie dogs may continue 

to pose a challenge for the conservation of golden eagles.

• Local permittees have killed eagles within the past 10 years, leading to a direct reduction 

in the population size of the species.

• Small mammals (i.e., the prey of golden eagles) and sheep compete for the consumption 

of grasses, forbs, and sedges (Hoffmeister 1986). Historic overgrazing decreased the 

amount of food for small mammals, which likely decreased the abundance of smallmammal populations and therefore decreased the fitness of golden eagle populations. 

Although current levels of grazing have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces 

herbaceous vegetation. The current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland 

Specialist’s Report and Hat Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National 

Forest System will increase the biomass available for small mammals, thereby improving 

the foraging habitat for golden eagles.

• Most ecosystems of the Southwest evolved to periodic disturbance from fire (USDA 

2012). The Forest Service excluded fire from the Kaibab National Forest throughout 

much of the twentieth century, causing the encroachment of trees onto grasslands, 

meadows, and savannas; this reduced, fragmented, and degraded foraging habitat for 

eagles. Fire exclusion increased the probability of stand-replacing wildfire, which would 

consume trees >18” DBH that eagles use as nesting habitat. The Forest Service now 

embraces the natural role of fire on the landscape; current and future wildland fire 

management (including the use of wildfire) will increase, connect, and improve eagle 

habitat. 

• Historic overgrazing has reduced protective cover and food for terrestrial vertebrates, 

which may have reduced their population size and the amount of prey for eagles. This 

could potentially reduce the fitness of eagles on the Forest. Although current levels of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

224 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

grazing have improved, the presence of livestock still reduces herbaceous vegetation. 

The current, adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s Report and Hat 

Allotment Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest System will increase 

the protective cover and food available for terrestrial vertebrates. This will increase prey 

populations for golden eagles and ameliorate potentially negative effects on the fitness of 

eagles in the project area.

• Recreation (e.g., use of off-highway vehicles, camping, hiking, biking) in and around 

lakes has occurred and continues to occur in and around the project area. Recreationists 

may disturb eagles and cause them to abandon suitable habitat (BNA Online 2012).

• The removal of hazardous trees along powerlines, roads, and fire control lines has 

reduced and will continue to reduce the number of snags and trees >18” DBH in the 

project area, which eagles use as nest areas.

• Illegal fuelwood harvest has caused and will continue to cause a loss of snags important 

for nesting, roosting, and foraging.

• Insect and disease outbreaks have killed and will continue to kill trees. Insect- and 

disease-related mortality creates more snags, and eventually, downed logs. Prey use 

downed logs, and eagles use snags for nesting, roosting, and as foraging perches. 

However, eagles also use large, live trees that insects and disease kill.

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, and higher 

temperatures which may cause desertification of grasslands, causing habitat loss for the 

species. Climate change will also lead to more opportunities for invasive species to 

establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete with these species or their 

prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects such as 

this may help species be more resilient and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused 

reductions and enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of 

specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

By not reducing hazardous fuels, not allowing for tree growth, and not creating more foraging 

habitat, the No-Action Alternative would hinder the conservation of the habitat of golden eagles 

and their prey. It would exacerbate the effects of historic timber management, historic 

overgrazing, historic fire exclusion, persecution of prairie dogs, recreation, and hazard-tree 

removal. The No-Action Alternative may therefore have an adverse impact on golden eagles.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact the species in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. They would combine with the aforementioned past, ongoing, and reasonably 

foreseeable actions and events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of golden eagles. In the 

context of these other factors, Alternatives 2-4 may impact golden eagles, but their cumulative 

contribution would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability.

Determination of Effects 

Alternative 1 may adversely impact golden eagles, but it would not cause a trend toward listing or 

loss of viability. No action would perpetuate the process of forest and woodland encroachment of 

the grasslands, meadows, and savannas which this species and its prey inhabits.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact golden eagles in the short term but would cause a longterm beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of 

viability. More habitat would be restored for the species under Alternative 2 than under 

Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to restore grasslands, meadows, and forest 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 225

openings that existed in pre-settlement times. Alternative 4 would have less road-related impacts 

than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads would be constructed under this 

Alternative. Unintentional take of eagles would not occur under any of the Alternatives.

Migratory Birds

Existing Conditions 

USFWS Birds of Conservation Concern and Arizona Partners in Flight priority species were 

evaluated. These birds require various habitats including ponderosa pine and mixed conifer 

forests, aspen, pinyon-juniper woodlands, and grasslands. Spruce-fir forest and perennial riparian 

areas do not exist within the project area, so species restricted to this habitat are not considered. 

See Table 3.6-18 for a list of migratory bird species of concern within the project area. For more 

information about migratory birds’ habitat and existing conditions, refer to the Wildlife 

Specialist’s Report. 

Table 3.6-18. List of migratory birds of conservation concern that occur on the Kaibab 

National Forest, with notes on whether they occur or have habitat within the project action 

area.

Species* Habitat Seasonal Occurrence

Suitable 

Habitat Present 

and/or 

Occupied

Bald eagle a variety of ecosystems, esp. wetlands winter Yes

Northern goshawk mixed conifer and pine year-round Yes

Common black-hawk riparian summer/ rare No

Swainson's hawk grassland summer Yes

Ferruginous hawk grassland migrant/winter Yes

Peregrine falcon usually near cliffs and open areas year-round Yes

Flammulated owl pine summer Yes

Mexican spotted owl mixed conifer and pine-oak year-round Yes

Burrowing owl grasslands with burrowing animals summer No

Lewis's woodpecker open pine year-round Yes

Three-toed woodpecker spruce-fir and mixed conifer year-round Yes

Red-naped sapsucker mixed conifer and aspen summer Yes

Olive-sided flycatcher mixed conifer and pine summer Yes

Gray flycatcher pinyon/juniper summer/migrant Yes

Cordilleran flycatcher pine summer Yes

Gray vireo pinyon/juniper summer Yes

Pinyon jay pinyon/juniper year-round Yes

Purple martin pine summer Yes

Juniper titmouse pinyon/juniper year-round Yes

Golden-crowned kinglet spruce-fir year-round No

Swainson's thrush spruce-fir migrant No

Bendire's thrasher open brushy areas summer/ rare No

Sprague's pipit short grass prairie winter/migrant/ rare No

Phainopepla pinyon/juniper, pine summer Yes

Olive warbler open conifer summer/ rare Yes
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

226 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Species* Habitat Seasonal Occurrence

Suitable 

Habitat Present 

and/or 

Occupied

Lucy's warbler low elevation riparian summer No

Yellow warbler low elevation riparian and woodland summer/ rare No

Black-throated gray 

warbler pinyon/juniper and dry oak woodlands summer

Yes

Grace's warbler tall pines summer Yes

Red-faced warbler pine, pine-oak, fir summer Yes

Canyon towhee open brushy areas year-round/ rare No

Yellow-breasted chat low elevation riparian summer No

Black-chinned sparrow grasslands; scrub summer/ rare Yes

Lark bunting grasslands winter/migrant/ rare Yes

Grasshopper sparrow grasslands; scrub mostly migrant/ rare Yes

Chestnut-collared 

longspur grasslands; dry, open areas mostly migrant / rare

Yes

Pine grosbeak spruce-fir Rare No

* 

The Southwestern Regional Office of the Forest Service recommends that all projects are 

developed in consideration of effects to the following: (1) Species of Concern listed by Arizona 

Partners in Flight; (2) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s List of Birds of Conservation Concern; (3) 

Important Bird Areas (IBAs); (3) Effects to important over-wintering areas. The following is an 

attempt to disclose the impacts, if any, of this project. This analysis considers said species and 

habitats. Names are standardized according to the American Ornithological Union.

Direct and Indirect Effects for the No-Action Alternative (Alternative 1)

The No-Action Alternative would not affect migratory birds of conservation concern (henceforth 

referred to as “birds”). Habitat conditions for birds would not change, notwithstanding the effects 

of natural processes. However, the No-Action Alternative would degrade the habitat for birds in 

the long term; by not using mechanical treatments and prescribed fire to restore unnaturally dense 

forests, woodlands, meadows, and grasslands, the No-Action Alternative would hinder restoration 

of habitat for birds. Furthermore, unnaturally dense forests increase the probability of standreplacing wildfire. Such fire would degrade or destroy the mature forests and trees >18” DBH 

and snags on which many birds rely. The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the high 

probability of active crown fire in the pinyon-juniper habitat of the pinyon jay, a globally 

threatened species (see Tables 3.6-3 and 4). The No-Action Alternative would not result in any 

unintentional take from management activities.

Direct and Indirect Effects for Alternatives 2-4 

Treatments would benefit this diversity of species. Under Alternatives 2-4, thinning and 

prescribed fire would improve forest and woodland habitat for birds in the long term. These 

treatments would develop a mosaic of uneven-aged forest and woodland across the landscape, 

including habitat for a variety of birds. Prescribed fire would restore grasslands and meadows. 

Alternatives 2-4 would conserve groups of larger trees (typically 18” DBH or greater), especially 

important to cavity nesters and raptors. Alternative 2 would do the most to restore grassland 

meadow habitat, as much of the treatments in ponderosa pine forests would restore ecosystems to 

pre-settlement times, thereby restoring pine savannas. By thinning unnaturally dense forests, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 227

Alternatives 2-4 would reduce competition among trees, thereby promoting the growth of larger 

trees. Furthermore, thinning and prescribed fire would reduce the probability of stand-replacing 

wildfire in forests, thereby conserving the mature forest and trees >18” DBH and snags on which 

many birds rely. Species that rely on montane forest and drainages would most benefit from 

Alternatives 2 or 3, as treatments would reduce fire hazard while still conserving canopy cover, 

trees >18” DBH, snags, and other important habitat attributes (Tables 3.6-5 through 14).

Under Alternatives 2-4, unintentional take may occur. When prescribed burning occurs during 

the spring and early summer, there could be some take of migratory birds from smoke impacting 

breeding birds and potentially impacting nesting success. Unintentional take could occur if nests 

are burned during implementation. All Alternatives may cause unintentional take from loss of 

eggs or nestlings to prescribed fire. Unintentional take may occur for all species but bald eagle, 

Swainson’s Hawk, Ferruginous Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, and Lark Bunting. These exceptions

exist because these species do not breed in the area or they nest on cliffs or high in trees within 

grasslands and the probability of fire entering or causing smoke-related asphyxiation in these fine, 

flashy fuels is so low that it is negligible.

Prescribed fire and mechanical treatment of hazardous fuels may result in a loss of snags and loss 

of eggs or nestlings for cavity-nesting species. Alternative 2 may result in a slight short-term 

decrease in snags followed by an increase over the long term. This short-term loss of snags 

would not affect the overall distribution of birds on the Forest.

Road decommissions (and for Alternatives 2-3, conversion of road to trail) would restore more 

native habitat and reduce disturbance by humans. They would improve the condition of the soil 

and watersheds in the species’ habitat. Construction of approximately 38-39 miles of temporary 

and Maintenance-Level 1 roads would clear trees and snags across approximately 304-312 acres. 

Construction of fireline would clear up to approximately 2,500 acres of snags and ladder fuels., 

temporary roads, Maintenance-Level 1 roads, and trail would cause soil erosion and 

sedimentation of waterways, which may reduce the habitat of birds and their prey. This may, in 

turn, affect fitness. Maintenance-Level 1 road construction would have more impact on habitat of 

birds, as Maintenance-Level 1 roads would not be obliterated. Alternative 4 would have less 

road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads or trails would be 

constructed under this Alternative.

Under Alternative 2, approximately 72 acres would be denuded for cable-logging operations in 

forested areas, resulting in the loss of snags >18” DBH and pre-settlement trees, features that are 

important to many bird species and their prey.

Alternatives 2-4 would decrease the chance of stand-replacing wildfire in the pinyon-juniper 

habitat of birds of forests and woodlands, with Alternative 2 causing the greatest reduction in fire 

hazard (Tables 3.6-3 and 4).

See the Project Implementation Checklist and Section 2.3.1 of the EIS for details on measures to 

be taken to conserve bird habitat.

Cumulative Effects

Several past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and events have contributed, are 

contributing, and will contribute to the fitness of birds on the Kaibab National Forest:
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

228 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• The abundance of trees in the late seral stage remains largely unchanged from historical 

conditions on slopes greater than 40%. However, even-aged forest management led to a 

loss of large, old trees, generally on slopes less than 40% and primarily from the 1960s 

through the early 1990s. Recent projects in forest management (see appendix in EIS) 

emphasize restoration and fire hazard reduction, thereby promoting the sustainability of 

the species’ habitat in and around the project area. This caused a reduction in habitat for 

birds of mixed conifer and ponderosa pine forest. The Forest Plan currently does not 

permit the harvest of trees greater than 24” DBH in mixed conifer or pine-oak forest; 

harvest of pre-settlement trees rarely occurs anymore, and in this and recent thinning and 

burning projects, pre-settlement tree conservation has been included as a mitigation 

measure. Current management generally aims to restore the Forest to pre-settlement 

conditions.

• The species richness and abundance of invertebrates increases with the structural 

diversity of plants (Brose 2003; Remsburg and Turner 2009). Sheep consume 

herbaceous vegetation, especially in grasslands, meadows, and savannas. Sheep use 

riparian areas as places to drink water. Historic overgrazing decreased the amount of 

protective cover for grassland birds; reduced the structural diversity of plants and thereby 

decreased the diversity and abundance of arthropod prey; and degraded riparian areas. 

This may have decreased the abundance and diversity of birds, especially those that use 

grasslands, meadows, and riparian areas. Although current levels of grazing have 

improved, the presence of livestock still reduces herbaceous vegetation. The current, 

adaptive-management approach (see Rangeland Specialist’s Report and Hat Allotment 

Management Plan) to grazing across the National Forest System will ameliorate the 

effects of historic overgrazing.

• Historic conversion of “unproductive” pinyon-juniper woodlands to grazing lands caused 

a large-scale reduction in habitat for birds of this ecosystem (BNA Online 2012). The 

Kaibab National Forest now seeks to restore the land to its presettlement condition.

• Illegal fuelwood harvest in pinyon-juniper woodlands may cause a loss of seeding pinyon 

pines, a tree upon which the pinyon jay relies for food (BNA Online 2012).

• The forests, meadows, grasslands, and wetlands in the project area are far removed from 

their historical fire regime (Tables 3.6-3 and 4). The Forest Service excluded fire from 

the Kaibab National Forest throughout much of the twentieth century, causing ponderosa 

pine, mixed conifer, and pinyon-juniper forests to grow unnaturally dense and become at 

risk of stand-replacing wildfire. Furthermore, fire exclusion caused the encroachment of 

grasslands, meadows, and savannas by trees. Fire exclusion has increased the potential 

for high-severity wildfires, which could cause direct mortality of birds; a long-term loss 

of snags and large trees upon which cavity-nesters rely; and a mid-term loss of forests 

and woodlands. The Forest Service now embraces the natural role of fire on the 

landscape; current and future wildland fire management (including the use of wildfire) 

will increase, connect, and improve habitat for birds.

• Recreation (e.g., off-road vehicle driving, hiking, biking, and camping) and road travel 

may disturb birds. Recreational activities would continue to occur in the project area, 

resulting in a potential decrease in the fitness of birds. Implementation of the Travel 

Management Rule will reduce off-highway vehicle use, restore habitat, and therefore 

benefit birds.

• The removal of hazardous trees along powerlines, roads, and fire control lines has 

reduced and will continue to reduce the number of snags and trees >18” DBH in the 

project area, resulting in a decline in important microhabitat for many birds.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 229

• Climate change will cause a decrease in precipitation, an increase in drought, higher 

temperatures, and a longer wildfire season, which will increase the probability of standreplacing wildfire and may cause desertification of grasslands, causing habitat loss for the 

species. Climate change will also lead to more opportunities for invasive species to 

establish and spread, and invasive species may outcompete with these species or their 

prey, or they may alter the species’ habitat (USGCRP 2009). Restoration projects such as 

this may help species be more resilient and adapt to climate change (USDA 2011).

• Past projects (e.g., those related to roads or vegetation management) have caused 

reductions and enhancements of the species’ habitat. See appendix in EIS for a list of 

specific projects also considered in this cumulative effects analysis.

The No-Action Alternative would perpetuate the unnaturally dense conditions in the coniferous 

forests of the project area. It would exacerbate the reduction in habitat from changes in historic 

timber management, historic overgrazing, historic fire exclusion, historic conversion of pinyonjuniper woodlands, fuelwood harvest, recreation, and hazard-tree removal. The No-Action 

Alternative may therefore have an adverse effect on birds.

Alternatives 2-4 would combine with these past, ongoing, and reasonably foreseeable actions and 

events for a cumulative effect on the fitness of birds. In the context of these other factors, the 

cumulative contribution of Alternatives 2-4 are too small to alter Forest-wide habitat, population, 

or community trends for birds.

Determination of Effect

Alternative 1 may adversely impact birds, but it would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of 

viability, or change community trends for birds. No action would perpetuate the process of 

encroachment of and increasing fire hazard in the grasslands, meadows, savannas, woodlands, 

and forests on which these species rely.

Alternatives 2-4 may adversely impact birds in the short term but would cause a long-term 

beneficial impact. Alternatives 2-4 would not cause a trend toward listing or loss of viability, or 

change community trends for birds. In general, more habitat would be restored for birds under 

Alternative 2 than under Alternatives 3-4, as there would be more flexibility to restore grasslands, 

meadows, woodlands, and forests to their pre-settlement conditions. Alternative 4 would have 

less road-related impacts than Alternatives 2-3, as no Maintenance-Level 1 Roads would be 

constructed. Unintentional take may occur for all species but bald eagle, Swainson’s Hawk, 

Ferruginous Hawk, Peregrine Falcon, and Lark Bunting. These exceptions exist because these 

species do not breed in the area or they nest on cliffs or high in trees within grasslands and the 

probability of fire entering or causing smoke-related asphyxiation in these fine, flashy fuels is so 

low that it is negligible. Although unintentional take may occur to some migratory bird species, 

the widespread distribution of these species over hundreds of thousands of acres (BNA Online 

2012) precludes such take from causing a measurable effect to the population of the species. 

Furthermore, the level of incidental mortality caused by project implementation activities would 

be proportional to how many acres are treated during the spring nesting season of April, May, 

June, and July. Most of the prescribed burning on the Williams District occurs during the fall, 

outside of the spring nesting season. Since only a small percentage of habitats would be treated at 

any one time, the removal of any eggs or fledgling would not result in a measurable negative 

effect to the birds populations listed above.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

230 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.7 Invasive Species

3.7.1 Affected Environment’s Existing Condition

The scope of this analysis focuses on invasive plant species within a 1-mile buffer of the proposed project 

perimeter. A 1-mile buffer was used because of the potential for currently established invasive species 

outside of the projected treatment boundary to move within the project boundary. Several non-native 

plant species have been documented within the 1-mile buffer (Table 3.7.1, NRIS 2011). It is possible that 

other non-native species occur. 

Table 3.7-3: Invasive plant species that have been documented within a 1-mile buffer of the 

project area perimeter.

Common Name Scientific Name Invasive Noxious

bull thistle Cirsium vulgare x x

cheatgrass Bromus tectorum x x

common mullein Verbascum thapsus x

dalmatian toadflax Linaria dalmatica x x

diffuse knapweed Centaurea diffusa x x

field bindweed Convolvulus arvensis x

Mexican fireweed Kochia scoparia x

redstem stork’s bill Erodium cicutarium x

Russian knapweed Acroptilon repens. x x

Russian olive Elaeagnus angustifolia x x

Siberian elm Ulmus pumila x x

yellow salsify Tragopogon dubius x

yellow sweetclover Melilotus officinalis x

Following are species descriptions for those that have been documented within a 1-mile buffer of the 

project boundary (see Figure 3.7-1): 

1. Bull thistle is a stout biennial thistle with purple flowers from Eurasia that commonly invades 

disturbed sites that include slash piles, log decks, burned areas, and roadsides. Regeneration occurs 

solely from short-lived seed. Bull thistle is widespread across the ponderosa pine vegetation type on 

Williams Ranger District where it can successfully establish. 

2. Cheatgrass is an erect cool season annual grass that was introduced from Europe. Cheatgrass is a 

prolific seed producer that can quickly establish and persist following disturbances that increase 

resource availability (e.g., fire). The presence of cheatgrass can increase fire frequency, creating a 

positive feedback loop that can result in cheatgrass monocultures. Relatively small cheatgrass 

populations are likely to be widespread across the Williams Ranger District.

3. Common mullein can be biennial, perennial or, rarely, an annual with a deep tap root that is native to 

Europe and Asia. In its first year it produces a low vegetative rosette up to 60 cm in diameter which 

overwinters and is followed in the succeeding growing season by a stout flowering stem 5-18 dm tall. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 231

An individual may produce 100,000-180,000 seeds, and seeds may remain viable for up to 100 years. 

Common mullein is likely to be widespread across the Williams Ranger District where appreciable 

disturbance has occurred.

4. Dalmatian toadflax is an ornamental, perennial introduced from the Mediterranean Region. It can 

grow up to 3 feet tall, and reproduces from both seed and vegetative reproduction from buds on 

creeping roots. One plant can produce up to 500,000 seeds, as well as lateral roots that can produce 

new individuals up to 10 feet from the parent plant. Dalmatian toadflax may crowd out native plants 

and reduce forage on rangelands. Dalmation toadflax has been documented in several areas of the 

Williams Ranger District, but is most prominent following disturbances in ponderosa pine.

5. Diffuse knapweed is an annual or short-lived perennial from the Mediterranean region, growing 1-2 

feet tall. Knapweeds are members of the sunflower family, with a single strong taproot. It 

reproduces by seed, and seeds can remain viable to 12 years. Dead plants break off at ground level 

and tumble via wind, spreading seed as they move. It produces chemical compounds that inhibit other 

species (even other knapweeds) from growing around it. Diffuse knapweed populations are limited 

on the Williams Ranger District

6. Field Bindweed is a perennial vine arising from deep, persistent spreading roots. It reproduces by 

rhizomes and seeds. Field bindweed intertwines and topples native species. It is one of the most 

serious weeds of agricultural fields on temperature regions of the world. Field bindweed is common 

on the eastern portion of the Williams Ranger District where appreciable disturbance has occurred. 

7. Mexican fireweed is an annual in the Chenopodium family. The plant reproduces by seed, 

and a single plant can produce up to 50,000 seeds annually under favorable conditions. 

Because of its low water requirements, Mexican fireweed can grow in warm, dry 

environments. It can spread long distances very rapidly, outcompeting and displacing natives 

along the way. Mexican fireweed populations are limited across the Williams Ranger District, 

and occur mostly in areas that have received appreciable disturbance

8. Redstem stork’s bill is an annual or biennial native to Europe or Asia, and is now common 

around the world. It is grown for forage, and is usually only considered a serious problem 

when it crowds out more valuable crops. Redstem stork’s bill populations are limited across 

the Williams Ranger District, and occur mostly in areas that have received appreciable 

disturbance.

9. Russian knapweed is a creeping, herbaceous perennial native to southern Ukraine, southeast 

Russia, Iran, Kazakhstan and Mongolia that reproduces from seed and vegetative root buds. 

Shoots, or stems, are erect, 18 to 36 inches tall, with many branches. It emerges in early 

spring, bolts in May to June (elevation dependent) and flowers through the summer into fall. 

It produces seeds sparingly, approximately 50 to 500 per shoot. Seeds are viable for two to 

three years in soil. Its primary method of reproduction is from vegetative propagation, with 

seed of secondary importance. The weed forms dense, single species stands over time due to 

competition and allelopathy. Russian knapweed populations are limited on the Williams 

Ranger District.

10. Russian olive is a woody species forming large shrubs to medium-sized trees. Until recently, 

this species was promoted for windbreaks and erosion control. It has been planted extensively 

in areas throughout northern Arizona and can invade riparian areas where it eventually 

replaces native tree species. Russian olive individuals are limited on the Williams Ranger 

District.

11. Siberian Elm is widely grown in many areas of northern Arizona as a shade tree. However, it 

is not appropriate in wildland settings where it can out-compete native tree species in riparian 

zones and other sensitive areas. The trees reproduce through winged seeds that can be 

transported long distances on the wind or by vehicles to new locations. The abundant 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

232 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

production of seed will make this species difficult to control under favorable growing 

conditions. Siberian Elm individuals are limited on the Williams Ranger District.

12. Yellow salsify Western Salsify grows as an annual or occasionally biennial forb, reaching a height of 

typically 20-60 cm. It is regarded as invasive in most states of the USA. Yellow salsify populations 

are limited on the Williams Ranger District.

13. Yellow sweetclover is an erect annual or biennial that grows from strong taproots; often forming 

colonies. It reproduces by seeds that are drought tolerant and cold hardy. It can outcompete native 

species by overtopping and shading. Yellow sweetclover populations are widespread on the Williams 

Ranger District.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 233

Figure 3.7-5: Invasive plants within a 1-mile buffer of the project areas.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

234 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Of these species, cheatgrass has the potential to be one of the most problematic following the 

proposed treatment. Cheatgrass is an opportunistic species that is very successful at maximizing 

available moisture and nutrients from the upper layer of soil, and it is capable of growing in years 

of drought and in poor soil conditions. Cheatgrass’ ability to sequester resources prior to later 

emerging species, high seed production, and low resource requirements allows this species to 

become dominant following disturbances. Cheatgrass plants produce many seeds, depending on 

the environment and the spacing and size of the plants. Individual plants growing in high 

densities may produce about 25 seeds each, while a large, open-grown plant can produce about 

400 seeds (Zouhar 2003). The design of the seed allows it to be easily transported via clothing, 

animals, and vehicles. 

Other species of concern include non-native thistles, knapweeds, and dalmation toadflax. These 

species will be monitored and treated when possible prior to project initiation and monitored for 

the duration of the project and beyond. 

3.7.2 Environmental Consequences

Effects Common to All Alternatives

The Williams Ranger District will continue its invasive species program, which includes 

inventory, treatment, and monitoring of invasive plant species, with those populations having the 

most significant ecological impact and those having the greatest chance of successful control 

being the highest priority. Implementation of Best Management Practices described in Appendix 

B (Design Features, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation Measures) in the Final 

Environmental Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the 

Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai 

Counties, Arizona (2004) would assist in the protection of habitat quality from non-native 

invasives within the project area.

Alternative 1

In the absence of severe wildfire, invasive species would continue to be introduced and spread at 

the current rate. However, with no action taken there is an inevitable risk of severe wildfire on 

Bill Williams Mountain (see Fire and Fuels Specialist Report for details). Hunter et al. (2006) 

found that severe wildlfire had a greater impact on the establishment of non-native species than 

did fuels treatments, and noted several other studies in which severe wildfires resulted in 

increased establishment of non-native species (e.g., Crawford et al. 2001; Griffis et al. 2001).

Crawford et al. (2001) reported higher cover of cheatgrass on severely burned sites when 

compared to less severely burned sites in ponderosa pine forests in Arizona. Anecdotal evidence 

from relatively recent fires occurring on the Williams Ranger District (e.g., 2000 Pumkin Fire, 

2004 Trick Fire, 2009 Cross Fire, 2009 Wildhorse Fire, 2010 Eagle Rock Fire) that had isolated 

patches of high burn severity is also consistent with these studies. Comparable results have also 

been found on the North Kaibab Ranger District (Kaibab National Forest) from the 1996 Bridger 

Knoll Fire (Dustin Burger, pers. comm.). Frequency data collected in 2003 in both pinyon-juniper 

and ponderosa pine forests found multiple high severity areas that were noted for having 

cheatgrass as the dominant species. In contrast, low burn severity areas had cheatgrass present, 

but at a lower frequency. The low burn severity areas also had a higher frequency of native 

species relative to high burn severity areas. Results from Hunter et al. (2006) also suggest that the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 235

occurrence of large and severe wildfires may be one of the more important mechanisms for 

continued spread of non-native species in semi-arid forests in the west.

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Although mechanistic explanations for such are commonly inconsistent (e.g., Davis et al. 2001, 

Lonsdale et al. 1999), invasion ecology theory often suggests that there is an increased probability 

of invasive species recruitment and for the spread of existing infestations with increased 

disturbance. Without early detection and treatment, invasive species have the ability emerge and 

proliferate into disturbed areas, potentially outcompeting native understory species and 

redirecting a plant community’s successional trajectory. Further, there is an increased threat of 

introducing new species via equipment and personnel that enter a project area. New and expanded 

invasions can be expected with all Action Alternatives. Invasive species monitoring and 

treatments will address invasive species issues for all Action Alternatives. Assuming that 

successful control of invasive plants occurs during project activities, all Action Alternatives can 

result in improved ground cover and vigor for native understory species (Moore et al. 2006, 

Abella 2004). The proposed treatments may also result in increased species richness and 

functional group diversity which can reduce site invasibility (Elton 1958, Davis et al. 2001). All 

Action Alternatives further reduce the potential for severe wildfire, where the risk of invasions is 

considerably higher. 

Alternative 2 

Alternative 2 would result in the greatest reduction of tree densities of all Action Alternatives, 

thus having the greatest impact on species abundance, and potentially species richness, of 

understory plant communities at the project scale. Alternative 2 would also result in the greatest 

reduction in the risk of severe wildfire compared to all other Alternatives, which would provide 

the greatest safeguard against the undesirable effects that are associated with such. The 

combination of the ground disturbing activities associated with timber harvesting and enhanced 

resource availability following treatments will likely result in Alternative 2 having the highest 

probability of short-term invasions relative to the other Action Alternatives. Because Alternative 

2 has the highest probability of reducing the risk of severe wildfire, it may have the lowest 

probability of long-term invasions relative to other Alternatives. 

Mechanical Treatments

While the effects of the thinning treatments would be positive with the implementation of the 

mitigation measures described above, the operational effects of the various logging methods vary. 

The operational effects of helicopter and ground based logging are not likely to have long-term 

adverse effects due to the limited level of disturbance associated with such. The effects of ground 

based and helicopter logging will likely result in short-term invasions by non-native plant species. 

Cable logging operations require cable corridors that are approximately 100 feet apart and 15 feet 

wide for the length of these operability zones that will be denuded of woody vegetation. Cable 

logging operations will result in appreciable disturbance along cable corridors that will result in

the removal of resident vegetation and provide opportunities for non-native species to establish. 

Implementation of Best Management Practices may mitigate these issues. However, noxious 

weed infestations will be difficult to treat in areas where cable logging occurs due to accessibility. 

Strategic Fuels Treatments
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

236 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Strategic Fuels Treatments will occur under Alternative 2 using ground based logging methods 

and hand felling. These treatments will be consistent with the mitigation measures described 

above. The effects of ground based logging operations are described above. 

Transportation and Trails

Alternative 2 includes the construction of 23 miles of new roads, 16 miles of temporary roads, 

and 1 mile of new trail. Although the direct loss of plant species habitat may be not be significant 

at this scale, roads and trails act as dispersal corridors for invasive species. Invasive species can 

negatively affect natives through direct competition that results in degraded habitat quality. 

Implementation of Best Management Practices described in Appendix B (Design Features, Best 

Management Practices, and Mitigation Measures) in the Final Environmental Impact Statement 

for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott 

National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona (2004) would 

assist in the protection of habitat quality from non-native invasives within the project area. 

Alternative 2 also includes 28 miles of road obliteration, which would improve understory 

conditions by limiting invasive species dispersal rates. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would remove fewer trees than Alternative 2 due to diameter caps that restrict the 

size of trees that can be removed and the exclusion of cable logging. Alternative 3 would have a 

less improved understory response at the project scale when compared to Alternative 2 due to the 

diameter cap; therefore would be less resistant to invasions. Alternative 3 would result in less of a 

reduction in the risk of severe wildfire compared to Alternative 2, which would provide less of a 

safeguard against the undesirable effects that are associated with such. Because Alternative 3 has 

a lower probability of reducing the risk of severe wildfire when compared to Alternative 2, it may 

be more susceptible to long-term invasions should a severe wildfire occur.

The exclusion of cable logging would result in less disturbance, in turn resulting in less risk of 

future invasions in these areas in the absence of severe wildfire. 

The effects of the mechanical treatments, ground based and helicopter logging operations, 

strategic fuels treatments, and transportation and trails are described in detail above under 

Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would remove the fewest number of trees of all Action Alternatives due to diameter 

caps that restrict the size of trees that can be removed and the exclusion of both cable and 

helicopter logging. Alternative 4 would have a less improved understory response at the project 

scale when compared to Alternatives 2 and 3 due to the diameter cap; therefore would be less 

resistant to invasions. Excluding both cable and helicopter logging would result in 4,087 

untreated acres within the project area. Areas proposed for these treatments are generally the 

steepest areas within the project area, thus the most susceptible to crown fires. Alternative 4 

would result in the lowest level of disturbance at the project scale, thus would result in the lowest 

probability of short-term invasions of all Action Alternatives. Because Alternative 4 would result 

in the highest probability of severe wildfire of all Action Alternatives, it has the highest 

probability of long-term invasions of all Action Alternatives. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 237

The effects of the mechanical treatments, ground based logging operations, strategic fuels 

treatments, and transportation and trails are described in detail above under Alternative 2. Items 

not addressed under Alternative 2 are discussed below. 

Mechanical Treatments

The exclusion of cable and helicopter logging would result in less disturbance, in turn resulting in 

less risk of future invasions in these areas in the absence of severe wildfire. Excluding these areas 

will result in increased risk of severe wildfire, in turn increasing the risk of long-term invasions in 

the project area. 

Transportation and Trails

Alternative 4 excludes the construction of 23 miles of new road construction in exchange for 38 

miles of temporary roads. Excluding permanent roads would limit long-term invasive species 

expansion. Temporary roads may result in short-term invasions. 

3.7.3 Cumulative Effects

Grazing

The project area falls within the Hat Grazing Allotment (See Rangeland Ecology and 

Management Specialist Report for detail). The proposed vegetation treatments will be managed in 

coordination with grazing management so that grazing within the project area is deferred or 

avoided during implementation, and a recovery period will follow for treated pastures if needed. 

Allowing treated pastures to fully recover prior to livestock re-entry will promote the 

establishment of a diverse native understory, thus reducing the invasibilty of the treated area 

(Elton 1958). 

Livestock grazing before or after burning can influence invasive species establishment, 

persistence, and spread, but the interaction of grazing with invasive species and fire is poorly 

understood (Zouhar et al. 2008). However, the dispersal of invasive species propagule while 

stressing more palatable native species deserves consideration. Several studies have shown that 

heavy livestock use can lead to increases in aggressive invasive species establishment (Zouhar et 

al. 2008). There have also been studies that indicate that well managed grazing with low stocking 

rates can be comparable to grazing rest. On a seven year study performed in north central Arizona 

during drought conditions, Loeser et al. (2006) compared exotic species colonization on plots 

experiencing high impact grazing, moderate intensity, and livestock removal. Their study noted 

that high impact grazing resulted in a considerable increase in exotic species, especially 

cheatgrass, while moderate grazing and complete livestock removal plots experienced very 

similar results of only small increases in exotic species. 

Currently the Hat Allotment is stocked appropriately for their annual forage production. Given 

that an anticipated effect of the treatment will increase understory growth, re-entry of livestock to 

areas treated after recovery should not have an adverse effect to continued understory species 

response. Combining sufficient understory recovery and planned aggressive weed monitoring and 

treatment, there is no anticipated effects of increases in non-native species once grazing pressure 

resumes. Adaptive management will be implemented to address the interaction of invasive plant 

and grazing (USDA 2009). Best Management Practices will be implemented within the project 

area, with those populations posing the greatest ecological threat and/or having the greatest 

likelihood of successful control being the highest priority for treatment to mitigate the treat of 

invasive species.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

238 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Fuels and Timber Management Activities

(Spring Valley, Pine-Aire, Beacon, Williams, Clover, City, Twin, Bill Williams Cap, Elk, Lee, 

Wright Hill, Horse Pine, Frenchy, Moose, Government 2, Dog Town, McCracken, 4FRI, KA, 

Ishman, Pomeroy, Community Tank)

Fuels and Timber Management Activities often result in recruitment of invasive plant species that 

can degrade habitat for native plant species. If neighboring fuels and timber management projects 

are currently invaded by invasive plants, the risk of invasion within the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project is likely increased due to high propagule pressure. Currently, known invasive 

plant populations within these project areas are being treated, and will continue to be treated until 

control is achieved. The mitigation measures described above are designed to limit invasions 

within the Bill Williams Mountains Restoration Project boundary. Best Management Practices 

will be implemented within the project area, with those populations posing the greatest ecological 

threat and/or having the greatest likelihood of successful control being the highest priority for 

treatment to mitigate the treat of invasive species.

Williams RD Travel Management Project

The cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives and Williams RD Travel Management Project 

are expected to have positive effects on invasive plant species management due to reductions in 

dispersal rates associated with fewer roads. 

Recreation

Recreational activities often accelerate seed dispersal rates of invasive plants. This can be 

especially problematic in recently disturbed areas, such as areas where fuels and timber 

management activities have occurred. Best Management Practices will be implemented within the 

project area, with those populations posing the greatest ecological threat and/or having the 

greatest likelihood of successful control being the highest priority for treatment to mitigate the 

treat of invasive species. 

Climate

Global climate change models project warmer, more arid conditions in the southwestern United 

States (Seager et al. 2007). However, the impact of global climate change on species’ 

distributions is mostly uncertain (Thuiller et al. 2007). Climate change may result in more 

frequent and severe droughts, as well as more high-intensity wildfires. Drought and high-intensity 

wildfire may result in plant community conversions, habitat loss, and the loss of species viability. 

Restoration treatments that result in improvements to the understory plant community health may 

increase understory resistance and resilience to invasive plant invasions. 

3.8 Rare Plants

3.8.1 Affected Environment’s Existing Condition

The scope of this analysis focuses on Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, 

Conservation Agreement, and Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species (rare plants, hereafter) 

within the project area perimeter. The analysis includes both known occurrences and potential 

habitat for rare plant species. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 239

The Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area contains several cover types that range from 

Douglas fir and aspen at the upper range of elevations to grasslands at the lower range of 

elevations (Table 3.8-1). Because of the lack of data documenting the understory plant 

community component in the project area, it is difficult to provide a site specific assessment of its 

existing condition as it pertains to rare plant species. However, we can make some assumptions 

based on studies conducted in northern Arizona forests. Laughlin et al. (2011) found that 

ponderosa pine basal area increased from an average of 4m2

/ha in the early 1900s to 29 m2/ha in 

2007, which resulted in a decline of understory plant foliar cover by 21%, species richness by 2 

species/m2

, and declines in functional richness. Bakker and Moore (2007) found that species 

density declined by 34%, herbaceous plant density by 37%, shrub cover by 69%, total herbaceous 

cover by 59%, graminoid cover by 39%, and forb cover by 82% between 1941 and 2004, and that 

these changes were negatively correlated with overstory vegetation. Arnold (1950) noted a 25% 

reduction in grass density in ponderosa pine stands near Flagstaff, Arizona between 1912 and 

1947 due to establishment and growth of ponderosa pine trees. Covington and Moore (1994) 

projected similar trends using a simulation model that showed herbage production (lbs/ac) may 

have declined approximately 84 % in an untreated ponderosa pine forest between 1907 and 1947. 

Repeat photography that was conducted in 2011 specific to the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project and for the Hat Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment (USDA 2009), 

which is partially included within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project boundary, 

indicates that both ponderosa pine and juniper species have increased within the project area. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the trends described above continue today in areas 

where tree encroachment and canopy closure continues to occur in northern Arizona forests, and 

that understory species, including rare plant species, are more competitively stressed than they 

were under pre-settlement conditions and are likely declining due to their inability to rapidly 

adapt to an altered environment (Laughlin et al. 2011). 

More specific information for individual species is provided below in the Methodology and 

Analysis Process section. 

Table 3.8-4: Cover types within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Area 

boundary.

Cover Type Acres % of Project Area

Douglas-fir 363 2.1

Aspen 102 0.6

Grasslands 887 5.0

Juniper Woodland 942 5.3

Mixed Hardwood 146 0.8

Mountain-Mahogany, Bitterbrush, Skunkbrush 40 0.2

Oak Woodland 657 3.7

Pinyon-Juniper 659 3.7

Ponderosa Pine 11,391 64.5

Rockland, Talus, Scree 23 0.1

Treeland 20 0.1

Urban Residential Areas 842 4.8
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

240 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.8.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

A review was conducted to determine if Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, 

Conservation Agreement, Forest Service Sensitive, or Kaibab National Forest Management 

Indicator Species and/or habitats were known to occur within or near the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project area. The following references were used: USFWS Internet list of 

Threatened, Endangered, Proposed, Candidate, and Conservation Agreement species occurring in 

Coconino and/or Yavapai County; Arizona Game and Fish Department Heritage Data 

Management System; USDA Forest Service Region 3 Rare Species List; Arizona Rare Plant 

Field Guide; and Southwest Environmental Information Network (Appendix B).

A search of known locations of rare plant species was conducted using spatial data from Arizona Game 

and Fish Department Heritage Data Management System, US Forest Service rare plant database (NRIS), 

and Southwest Environmental Information Network (Appendix B). Arizona bugbane (Cimicifuga 

arizonica) and Flagstaff beardtongue (Penstemon nudiflorus) are known to occur within the project 

boundary. Potential habitat may also exist for Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort (Arenaria aberrans) and 

Rusby’s milkvetch (Astragalus rusbyi). 

Arizona bugbane is both a Management Indicator Species and a Conservation Agreement 

Species. Most of the known populations are located along moist, shady canyon bottoms and lower 

canyon slopes (at times under overhangs) in association with Douglas fir, white fir, bigtooth 

Rocky Mountain maple, and sometimes aspen with a diverse herbaceous understory and abundant 

duff. Some populations are found on mountains at seeps and springs, in drainages and on shaded 

north slopes. It grows in moist, loamy soil of ecotone between coniferous forest and riparian 

habitat and stays close to the ecotone. It appears to require deep shade from forest or riparian 

overstory. Major threats include general disturbance to riparian areas, together with recreation, 

off-road vehicle use and grazing by livestock. Water transfers may also be a threat. A small 

number of populations and a small amount of area covered by each population render this species 

vulnerable (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2008). Only four population areas are known to 

occur; all of which occur in central Arizona (Phillips and Popowski 1995). A single population of 

Arizona bugbane occurs on the northern aspect of Bill Williams Mountain, and is the only known 

population to occur on the Kaibab National Forest. The population extends for approximately 

one-half mile and generally occupies a strip of habitat measuring 20 to50 feet wide on the slopes 

of Bill Williams Mountain (Warren 1991). In 1988, there were approximately 1,150 plants in this 

population (Galeano-Popp 1988). In 1998, there were at least 1,200 total plants (USDA 1998), 

suggesting a stable population. Data collected in 2007 by a Forest Service TEAMS Enterprise 

Unit and by Kaibab/Coconino National Forests between 1990 -2010 suggests a similar trend 

(TEAMS 2007 unpublished data, USDA Forest Service 2010 unpublished data). 

At this time, there is less concern for the immediate bugbane population than there is for the 

health of the forest surrounding and supporting the population. Uncharacteristic wildfire currently 

threatens the habitat of Arizona bugbane in the Bill Williams Botanical Area due to low levels of 

successful regeneration of aspen and the loss of large old-growth conifers. Further, existing aspen 

trees are dying following a severe frost event weakened them, followed by infestations of 

secondary agents including cytospora canker, bronze poplar borer and other canker fungi and 

insects (Fairweather 2006, personal communication). 

White Fir 1,593 9.0

Total 17,665 100.0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 241

Flagstaff Beardtongue occurs in dry ponderosa pine forests in mountainous regions south of the 

Grand Canyon, Arizona at elevations ranging from 5,035 to 7,375 feet (Arizona Game and Fish 

Department 2003). Little is known about Flagstaff Beardtongue ecology. However, species 

responded favorably to low intensity fire in the Trick Fire on the Kaibab National Forest (USDA 

2007). Two populations have been documented within the project area and occur at the top of Bill 

Williams Mountain. 

Rusby’s milkvetch occurs in open meadows in ponderosa pine forests and at edges of thickets 

and aspen groves. It occurs on dry, basaltic soils at elevations ranging from 7,000 to 8,000 feet 

(Arizona Rare Plant Committee 2001). There are no known populations of Rusby’s milkvetch 

within or near the project boundary, but suitable habitat may exist. Rusby’s milkvetch can be a 

dominant native perennial forb species in ponderosa pine stands (Laughlin et al. 2006, Moore et 

al. 2006), and a recent study has shown positive responses to thinning and burning treatments 

(Laughlin et al. 2008). 

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort is poorly understood, and is one of twenty species in the genus 

Arenaria that occurs throughout the US. The species aberrans only occurs in Arizona. It occurs 

mainly in oak and pine forests. It is found in open pine and pine-pinyon woodlands, and among 

junipers (Arizona Game and Fish Department 2004). There are no known populations of Mt. 

Dellenbaugh sandwort within or near the projects boundary, but suitable habitat may exist.

This analysis is focused on those species listed above that either occur within the project 

boundary or those for which potential habitat exists. 

Effects Common to All Alternatives

Both known populations and newly discovered populations of all Threatened, Endangered, 

Proposed, Candidate, Conservation Agreement, and Forest Service Sensitive Plant Species on the 

Kaibab National Forest will continue to be monitored and protected from management activities 

that may have adverse effects. 

Alternative 1: No Action

Current management would result in a continuance of understory plant community habitat 

degradation. Trees would continue to increase in both density and size which will lead to more 

intense competition for understory plant species. More intense competition will result in lower 

levels of species abundance, productivity, and vigor, and potentially reductions in species 

richness. Competition in ponderosa pine forests can also result in understory plant community 

conversions that are dominated by shade- and stress-tolerant species (Laughlin et al. 2011). In 

addition, there is an extreme risk of uncharacteristic wildfire within the project area under the No 

Action Alternative. Severe wildfire in the project area may result in unprecedented levels of 

habitat loss for rare plant species, and perhaps complete conversions of habitat types. Severe 

wildfire in the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area may result in the loss of this unique habitat (i.e., 

deep loamy soil and deep shade from overstory tree species) and may potentially displace the 

population. Severely burned areas may experience some level of reduction in site productivity, 

especially those with slope related erosion hazards (Bormann et al. 2008). Such losses can result 

in habitat loss for rare plant species, as well as their associates. Severe wildfire may also result in 

extensive non-native plant invasions that will further reduce the habitat quality for rare plant 

species. 

Further, Kaye and Kirkland (1994) hypothesized that hardwood trees play an important role in 

forest dynamics that support tall bugbane (Cimicfuga elata). The deciduous trees where Arizona 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

242 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

bugbane is established are leafless in the spring allowing direct sunlight to reach the forest floor. 

Direct sunlight can heat the top layers of the soil, which may contribute to stimulated growth and 

enhanced germination and establishment. In the summer, leaves on the deciduous tree associates 

provide shade to maintain moisture and cooler temperatures. Under the No Action Alternative, 

shade-tolerant coniferous species have the potential to rise above the deciduous tree associates of 

Arizona bugbane and outcompete them in the absence of prescribed or natural fire, resulting in 

the degradation of habitat components that support Arizona bugbane’s microenvironment. 

The No Action Alternative may adversely affect the Arizona bugbane population due to habitat 

loss should a catastrophic wildfire occur within the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area. In the 

absence of catastrophic wildfire, the No Action Alternative may also adversely affect the Arizona 

bugbane population due to habitat loss by allowing coniferous trees to outcompete its deciduous 

tree associates. Given that only four population areas are known to occur worldwide, such 

adverse effects could contribute to a trend toward federal listing and a loss of species and 

population viability. 

The No Action Alternative is not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal 

listing or a loss of species viability due to their limited occurrence and/or absence within the 

immediate project area. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

Plant communities in the western United States have been dramatically altered by fire exclusion, 

overgrazing by livestock, and selective timber harvesting; all of which have combined to form 

highly dense and unhealthy forests. Increased ponderosa pine density has resulted in a significant 

loss of the herbaceous understory due to alterations in resource allocation within the stand, which 

can adversely affect both structural and functional properties of the forest understory (Laughlin et 

al. 2011, Stoddard et al. 2011). Ecological restoration can be applied to convert high-density 

ponderosa pine forests to an open canopy structure similar to that found at the time of EuroAmerican settlement (Moore et al. 2006), potentially reestablishing understory properties to near 

pre-settlement conditions (Stoddard et al. 2011). Forest thinning and prescribed burning are often 

proposed and implemented to reverse the undesirable changes in ponderosa pine forests in 

Arizona (Abella 2004). Forest thinning and prescribed burning can make resources (e.g., light, 

nutrients, and water) more readily available for understory plant species. Increasing resource 

availability can provide the herbaceous component of a plant community the opportunity to 

capitalize, which can result in increased species abundance, vigor, and productivity, and 

potentially enhance species richness (Griffis et al. 2001, Abella 2004, Moore et al. 2006, 

Laughlin et al. 2008, Stoddard 2011). The proposed restoration treatments would provide 

structural diversity to promote suitable habitat for a host of understory species with differing 

resource requirements (e.g., shade-tolerant vs. shade-intolerant), and would have potential to 

increase the abundance of rare plant species. 

All Action Alternatives include the implementation of the mitigations described above to ensure 

the protection and viability of rare plant species populations and their habitats.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would result in the greatest reduction of tree densities of all Action Alternatives,

thus having the greatest impact on overall species abundance, and potentially species richness, of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 243

understory plant communities at the project scale. Alternative 2 would also result in the greatest 

reduction in the risk of high intensity wildfire compared to all other Alternatives, which would 

provide the greatest safeguard against the undesirable effects that are associated with such. 

Arizona Bugbane 

Mechanical Treatments

Varying levels of mechanical treatments in the Botanical Area may provide opportunities for 

habitat enhancement. As stated above for tall bugbane (Cimicfuga elata), Kaye and Kirkland 

(1999) hypothesized that hardwood trees play an important role in forest dynamics. The 

deciduous trees where Arizona bugbane is established are leafless in the spring allowing direct 

sunlight to reach the forest floor. Direct sunlight can heat the top layers of the soil, which may 

contribute to stimulated growth and enhanced germination and establishment. In the summer, 

leaves on the deciduous tree associates provide shade to maintain moisture and cooler 

temperatures. Since shade-tolerant coniferous species have the potential to rise above the 

deciduous tree associates of Arizona bugbane and outcompete them in the absence of prescribed 

or natural fire, low intensity thinning of understory coniferous species in the Botanical Area may 

promote the health and sustainability of Arizona bugbane’s deciduous tree associates. Coniferous 

and deciduous trees that are part of the upper canopy and contribute to this unique habitat, as well 

as deciduous trees/shrubs greater than 5 inches in diameter, would be left on site to promote and 

maintain the deep shading that facilitates factors contributing to the microenvironment (i.e., 

reduced temperature, increased moisture, and seasonal light) for which Arizona bugbane is 

thought to be dependent. Further, improving tree health through density reductions may also 

result in long-term resistance/resilience to disturbances (e.g., insect outbreaks, drought), thus 

enhancing the long-term sustainability of the microenvironment. Interestingly, Kaye (1994) found 

that tall bugbane populations in clearcuts and thinned stands were taller and produced more 

flowers than that in uncut forests or second growth (>70 years). While this isn’t meant to 

advocate heavy thinning within the Botanical Area on Bill Williams Mountain, it does provide 

insight into treatment tolerance. 

 

Cable, helicopter, and ground based logging are being proposed within the Arizona Bugbane 

Botanical Area under Alternative 2. While the effects of the thinning treatments in the Botanical 

Area would be positive with the implementation of the mitigation measures described above, the 

operational effects of the various logging methods vary. Within the Botanical Area, helicopter 

logging (416 acres, 67% of the Botanical Area) would result in the least amount of disturbance, 

followed by ground based (136 acres, 22%) and cable (67 acres, 11%) logging, respectively. With 

the implementation of the mitigation measures within the Botanical Area, the operational effects 

of helicopter and ground based logging are not likely to have long-term adverse effects on 

Arizona bugbane due to the limited level of disturbance associated with such. Cable logging 

operations require cable corridors that are approximately 100 feet apart and 15 feet wide for the 

length of these operability zones that will be denuded of woody vegetation. Trees will then be 

dragged through these corridors causing additional soil disturbance. Most important, the scale of 

disturbance associated with the operational requirements of cable logging within the Botanical 

Area could potentially disrupt the microclimate (i.e., patterns of temperature, moisture, wind, and 

light) of this unique ecosystem (Chen et al. 1999), and may adversely affect the Arizona bugbane 

population. It is unlikely that the required Mitigation Measures designed to protect the unique 

microenvironment and the operational requirements of cable logging within the Botanical Area 

can coincide. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

244 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Helicopter and ground based logging are not likely to adversely affect the Arizona bugbane 

population due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, and will not likely contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability. 

Cable logging may adversely affect this Arizona bugbane population by altering its critical 

microenvironment. This may be especially problematic with projected climatic shifts towards a 

warmer and drier environment in the southwestern United States (Seager et al. 2007). Given that 

only four population areas are known to occur, such adverse effects could contribute to a trend 

toward federal listing and a loss of species and population viability. 

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic fuels treatments are proposed in the Botanical Area and consist of heavy thinning using 

ground based logging methods and hand felling. Given that the location of the proposed treatment 

within the Botanical Area is immediately adjacent to the Arizona bugbane population, the 

treatment may adversely affect the Arizona bugbane population by disrupting the microclimate. 

Variations in microclimates can be dramatic near edges of treatments up to several tree lengths 

(Chen et al. 1999). Such changes in microclimate condition near edges can modify or impair 

ecosystem functions (Chen et al. 1999), in turn having adverse effects on the Arizona bugbane 

population. 

Strategic fuels treatments may adversely affect the Arizona bugbane population by altering its 

critical microenvironment. This may be especially problematic with projected climatic shifts 

towards a warmer and drier environment in the southwestern United States (Seager et al. 2007). 

Given that only four population areas are known to occur, such adverse effects could contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing and a loss of species and population viability.

Prescribed Fire

Prescribed fire may provide opportunities for habitat enhancement (Phillips and Popowski 1995). 

Monitoring in 2004 following the 2003 Fry Fire on the Coconino National Forest showed that 

Arizona bugbane populations had remained stable one year after the fire (USDA 2004). 

Additional monitoring of the Fry Fire conducted in 2010 had similar results seven years following 

the fire (B. Phillips, pers. comm.). A separate population occurring on the Coconino National 

Forest has also remained stable since a watershed-scale fire occurring in the 1970’s (B. Phillips, 

pers. comm.). As mentioned above, restricting shade-tolerant coniferous species from rising 

above Arizona bugbane’s deciduous tree associates and out-competing them within the Botanical 

Area may promote the health and sustainability of Arizona bugbane’s deciduous tree associates; 

and therefore the health and sustainability of the Arizona bugbane population. Fire can also 

increase net nitrogen (N) mineralization, making N more readily available for plant uptake (Kaye 

and Hart 1998). Improved nutrient cycling following restoration treatments can increase 

production in remaining vegetation, resulting in enhanced plant community and ecosystem health. 

Fire can also consume surface litter where Arizona bugbane exists allowing for its seeds to reach 

mineral soil. Soil-seed contact may facilitate germination and recruitment of new Arizona 

bugbane individuals, as was evident at the Fry Fire population (B. Phillips, pers. comm.). 

Although the long-term effects of fire on Arizona bugbane are largely unknown due to a lack of 

long-term empirical data, anecdotal evidence and fire regime related inferences support positive 

effects of low to moderate intensity fire in these ecosystems. 

Alternative 2 includes a Forest Plan amendment that would allow flexibility when burning within 

the Botanical Area. Currently, the Forest Plan restricts average annual burned areas to 1/10 acres. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 245

Restricting burn accomplishments to this size annually would require approximately 6,180 years 

to treat the entire Botanical Area with fire. This Forest Plan Guideline will not reduce fuels in a 

timely manner, and will provide opportunity for high intensity wildfires within the Botanical 

Area. Given the projected climatic conditions (Seager et al. 2007), the risk of high severity 

wildfire within the Botanical Area can be considered inevitable. Following high intensity 

wildfire, there is potential for the permanent loss of Arizona bugbane on Bill Williams Mountain 

due to sedimentation and/or erosion within the drainage where it exists, as well as the permanent 

loss of its habitat. Sedimentation and/or erosion may also occur following prescribed fire, but the 

extent would be significantly less than that from a severe wildfire. The proposed Forest Plan 

amendment would deviate from these restrictions, and allow more progressive fuels management, 

ultimately protecting Arizona bugbane and its habitat. With the implementation of Mitigation 

Measures, burning areas greater than 1/10 acres/year would have a long-term benefit to the 

Arizona bugbane population by reducing fuels, thus reducing the likelihood for high intensity 

wildfire. 

Prescribed fire (i.e., low to moderate fire intensity) is not likely to adversely affect the Arizona 

bugbane population due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, and will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability. 

Transportation and Trails

No new roads or trails are proposed within the Botanical Area

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, Rusby’s milkvetch, Flagstaff Beardtongue 

Mechanical Treatments

Mechanical treatments would provide structural diversity to promote suitable habitat for a host of 

understory species with differing resource requirements (e.g., shade-tolerant vs. shade-intolerant), 

and may increase the abundance of rare plant species. Although little is known about the ecology 

of the rare plant species specific to this project, it is thought that Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort and 

Rusby’s milkvetch prefer forest openings; therefore it would be expected that reductions in tree 

densities would favor these species. Laughlin et al. (2008) showed that Rusby’s milkvetch 

increased in frequency following thinning treatments. Given that mechanical treatments would 

provide structural diversity at the project scale, treatments may increase Flagstaff beardtongue 

abundance and distribution at the project scale. 

The overall effects of mechanical treatments on rare plant species would be positive with the 

implementation of the mitigations described above. Helicopter logging would result in the least 

amount of disturbance, followed by ground based and cable logging, respectively. With the 

implementation of the mitigation measures, the operational effects of helicopter and ground based 

logging are not likely to have long-term negative effects on rare plant species due to the limited 

level of disturbance associated with such. Cable logging would result in appreciable disturbance. 

However, cable logging makes up only 3% of the project area and the long-term effects of these 

treatments would benefit rare plant species at the project scale by diversifying structural 

properties in those areas where cable logging is being proposed and by reducing the risk of severe 

wildfire. 

Mechanical treatments are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

246 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area. 

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic Fuels Treatments will occur under Alternative 2 using ground based logging methods 

and hand felling. These treatments will be consistent with the mitigation measures described 

above; therefore the treatments are not expected to adversely affect rare plant species viability. 

Strategic Fuels Treatments will occur within the Botanical Area. The effects of ground based 

logging operations are described above. 

Strategic fuels treatments are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area.

Prescribed Fire

Given that these species evolved in a fire-adapted ecosystem, it is unlikely that prescribed fire of 

low to moderate intensities would negatively affect species viability. Both Flagstaff beardtongue 

and Rusby’s milkvetch have shown positive responses to fire (USDA 2007, Laughlin et al. 2008). 

Laughlin et al. (2008) showed that Rusby’s milkvetch showed an increase in frequency following 

prescribed fire. Prescribed fire has the potential to expand the current abundance and distribution 

of rare plant species by enhancing structural (e.g., variable shading) and functional (e.g., nutrient 

flow) ecosystem properties. Further, it is not reasonable to expect infinite fire exclusion on Bill 

Williams Mountain. This area will experience fire at some point in time, and prescribed fire 

would provide the greatest opportunity to protect rare plant species habitat when compared to an 

intense wildfire. 

Prescribed fire is not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s milkvetch, or Mt. 

Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, and will not likely 

contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to their relatively 

limited occurrence within the project area.

Transportation and Trails

Road construction and trails would cause the direct loss of habitat for rare plant species. 

However, the land area that would be converted to roads and trails is minimal, and would not 

result in significant habitat loss for any particular species or threaten species viability. The design 

criteria for roads and trails would minimize negative impacts to rare plant species (see above 

mitigations). Roads and trails also provide opportunities for the establishment and spread of 

invasive plants. However, invasive plant mitigations would protect rare plant populations from 

the adverse effects associated with invasions (see Invasive Weeds Specialist Report for 

mitigation measures). 

Road construction and trails are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area. 

 

Alternative 3 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 247

Alternative 3 would remove fewer trees than Alternative 2 due to diameter caps that restrict the 

size of trees that can be removed and the exclusion of cable logging. Given that cable logging 

makes up only 3% of the project area, its exclusion would not dramatically affect rare plant 

species at the project scale. Alternative 3 would have a less improved understory response at the 

project scale when compared to Alternative 2 due to the diameter cap. Alternative 3 would result 

in less of a reduction in the risk of severe wildfire compared to Alternative 2, which would 

provide less of a safeguard against the undesirable effects that are associated with such (see 

Alternative 2 for a description of severe wildfire effects on rare plant species). 

Arizona Bugbane 

Mechanical Treatments

Helicopter and ground based logging are being proposed within the Botanical Area containing 

Arizona bugbane under Alternative 3. The effects of mechanical treatments, as well as specific 

effects of helicopter and ground based logging operations, on Arizona bugbane are described in 

detail under Alternative 2. The exclusion of cable logging would result in approximately 11% of 

the Botanical Area being untreated, which would increase the risk of severe wildfire in the 

untreated areas. 

Mechanical treatments under Alternative 3 are not likely to adversely affect the Arizona bugbane 

population due to the implementation of mitigation measures, and will not likely contribute to a 

trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability. However, Alternative 3 would leave the 

Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area more vulnerable to high intensity wildfire relative to Alternative 

2, which could result in adverse effects to the Arizona bugbane populations, and potentially 

contributing to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability if a high intensity 

wildfire were to occur. 

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic Fuels Treatments are proposed for the Botanical Area using ground based logging 

methods and hand felling. Given that the location of the proposed treatment within the Botanical 

Area is immediately adjacent to the population, the treatment may adversely affect the Arizona 

bugbane population. Variations in microclimates can be dramatic near edges of treatments up to 

several tree lengths (Chen et al. 1999). Such changes in microclimate condition near edges can 

modify or impair ecosystem functions (Chen et al. 1999), in turn having negative impacts on the 

Arizona bugbane population. 

Strategic fuels treatments may adversely affect the Arizona bugbane population by altering its 

critical microenvironment. This may be especially problematic with projected climatic shifts 

towards a warmer and drier environment in the southwestern United States (Seager et al. 2007). 

Given that only four population areas are known to occur, such adverse effects could contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing and a loss of species and population viability.

Prescribed Fire

The effects of prescribed fire on Arizona bugbane are described in detail under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 3 would restrict the average annual burned area within the Botanical Area to 1/10 acre 

per Forest Plan guidelines. Restricting burn accomplishments to this size annually would require 

approximately 6,180 years for the entire botanical area to experience fire. This guideline will not 

reduce fuels in a timely manner, and will likely result in a severe wildfire. Severe wildfire has the 

potential to cause unprecedented levels of disturbance on Bill Williams Mountain, resulting in the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

248 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

loss of entire plant communities, including those associated with rare plant species. There is 

potential for the permanent loss of Arizona bugbane following severe fire due to sedimentation 

and/or erosion within the drainage where it exists, as well as the permanent loss of its habitat due 

to consumption of its associate species. 

Prescribed fire (i.e., low to moderate fire intensity) is not likely to adversely affect Arizona 

bugbane individuals, and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of 

species viability. However, the limitations on prescribed fire under Alternative 3 would leave the 

Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area more vulnerable to high intensity wildfire relative to Alternative 

2, which could result in adverse effects to the Arizona bugbane populations, and potentially 

contributing to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability if a high intensity 

wildfire were to occur.

Transportation and Trails

No new roads or trails are proposed within the Botanical Area

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, Rusby’s milkvetch, Flagstaff Beardtongue 

Mechanical Treatments

The effects of mechanical treatments, as well as helicopter and ground based logging operations, 

on rare plant species are described in detail under Alternative 2. The exclusion of cable logging 

under Alternative 3 would leave 3% of the project area untreated, which would increase the risk 

of severe wildfire in the untreated areas. Alternative 3 is not likely to adversely affect the rare 

plant species with the implementation of mitigation measures.

Mechanical treatments under Alternative 3 are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff 

Beardtongue, Rusby’s milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the 

mitigation measures, and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of 

species viability due to their relatively limited occurrence within the project area. 

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic Fuels Treatments will occur under Alternative 3 using ground based logging methods 

and hand felling. These treatments will be consistent with the mitigation measures described 

above; therefore the treatments are not expected to adversely affect rare plant species viability. 

The effects of ground based logging operations are described above. 

Strategic fuels treatments are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area.

Prescribed Fire

Given that these species evolved in a fire-adapted ecosystem, it is unlikely that prescribed fire of 

low to moderate intensities would negatively affect species viability. Both Flagstaff beardtongue 

and Rusby’s milkvetch have shown positive responses to fire (USDA 2007, Laughlin et al. 2008). 

Laughlin et al. (2008) showed that Rusby’s milkvetch showed an increase in frequency following 

prescribed fire. Prescribed fire has the potential to expand the current abundance and distribution 

of rare plant species by enhancing structural (e.g., variable shading) and functional (e.g., nutrient 

flow) ecosystem properties. Further, it is not reasonable to expect infinite fire exclusion on Bill 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 249

Williams Mountain. This area will experience fire at some point in time, and prescribed fire 

would provide the greatest opportunity to protect rare plant species habitat when compared to a 

severe wildfire. 

Prescribed fire under Alternative 3 is not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, 

Rusby’s milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation 

measures, and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species 

viability due to their relatively limited occurrence within the project area.

Transportation and Trails

Road construction and trails would cause the direct loss of habitat for rare plant species. 

However, the land area that would be converted to roads and trails is minimal, and would not 

result in significant habitat loss for any particular species or threaten species viability. The design 

criteria for roads and trails would minimize negative impacts to rare plant species (see above 

mitigations). Roads and trails also provide opportunities for the establishment and spread of 

invasive plants. However, invasive plant mitigations would protect rare plant populations from 

the adverse effects associated with invasions (see Invasive Weeds Specialist Report for 

mitigation measures). 

Road construction and trails are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area. 

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 would remove the fewest number of trees of all Action Alternatives due to diameter 

caps that restrict the size of trees that can be removed and the exclusion of both cable and 

helicopter logging. Excluding both cable and helicopter logging would result in 4,087 untreated 

acres within the project area. Areas proposed for these treatments are generally the steepest areas 

within the project area, thus the most susceptible to crown fires. Alternative 4 would likely result 

in the least improved (i.e., enhanced abundance, vigor, productivity) understory of all Action 

Alternatives. Understory plant communities in areas identified for cable and helicopter logging 

would continue to degrade as tree densities and size increase. Alternative 4 would reduce the risk 

of severe wildfire the least when compared to all other Action Alternatives, which would provide 

the lowest level of safeguard against the undesirable effects that associated with such (see 

Alternative 2 for a description of severe wildfire effects on rare plant species). 

Arizona Bugbane 

Mechanical Treatments

Only ground based logging is being proposed within the Botanical Area containing Arizona 

bugbane under Alternative 4. The effects of ground based logging operations on rare plant species 

are described in detail above under Alternative 2. The exclusion of helicopter and cable logging 

would result in approximately 78% of the Botanical Area being untreated, resulting in high risk 

for severe wildfire. Alternative 4 is not likely to directly affect the Arizona bugbane population 

with the implementation of mitigation measures. However, there is potential for the permanent 

loss of Arizona bugbane following severe wildfire due to sedimentation and/or erosion within the 

drainage where it exists, as well as the permanent loss of its habitat due to consumption of its 

associate species. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

250 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Mechanical treatments under Alternative 4 are not likely to adversely affect the Arizona bugbane 

population due to the implementation of mitigation measures, and will not likely contribute to a 

trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability. However, Alternative 4 would leave the 

Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area more vulnerable to high intensity wildfire relative to 

Alternatives 2 and 3, which could result in adverse effects to the Arizona bugbane populations, 

and potentially contributing to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability if a high 

intensity wildfire were to occur.

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic fuels treatments are proposed for the Botanical Area using ground based logging 

methods and hand felling. Given that the location of the proposed treatment within the Botanical 

Area is immediately adjacent to the population, the treatment may adversely affect the Arizona 

bugbane population. Variations in microclimates can be dramatic near edges of treatments up to 

several tree lengths (Chen et al. 1999). Such changes in microclimate condition near edges can 

modify or impair ecosystem functions (Chen et al. 1999), in turn having negative impacts on the 

Arizona bugbane population. 

Strategic fuels treatments may adversely affect the Arizona bugbane population by altering its 

critical microenvironment. This may be especially problematic with projected climatic shifts 

towards a warmer and drier environment in the southwestern United States (Seager et al. 2007). 

Given that only four population areas are known to occur, such adverse effects could contribute to 

a trend toward federal listing and a loss of species and population viability.

Prescribed Fire

The effects of prescribed fire on Arizona bugbane are described in detail under Alternative 2. 

Alternative 4 would restrict the average annual burned area within the Botanical Area to 1/10 acre 

per Forest Plan guidelines. Restricting burn accomplishments to this size annually would require 

approximately 6,180 years for the entire botanical area to experience fire. This guideline will not 

reduce fuels in a timely manner, and will likely result in a severe wildfire. Severe wildfire has the 

potential to cause unprecedented levels of disturbance on Bill Williams Mountain, resulting in the 

loss of entire plant communities, including those associated with rare plant species. There is 

potential for the permanent loss of Arizona bugbane following severe fire due to sedimentation 

and/or erosion within the drainage where it exists, as well as the permanent loss of its habitat due 

to consumption of its associate species. 

Prescribed fire (i.e., low to moderate fire intensity) is not likely to adversely affect Arizona 

bugbane individuals, and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of 

species viability. However, the limitations on prescribed fire under Alternative 4 would leave the 

Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area more vulnerable to high intensity wildfire relative to 

Alternatives 2 and 3, which could result in adverse effects to the Arizona bugbane populations, 

and potentially contributing to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability if a high 

intensity wildfire were to occur.

Transportation and Trails

No new roads or trails are proposed within the Botanical Area

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, Rusby’s milkvetch, Flagstaff Beardtongue 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 251

Mechanical Treatments

Only ground based logging is being proposed under Alternative 4. The effects of mechanical 

treatments and ground based logging operations on rare plant species are described in detail 

above under Alternative 2. The exclusion of helicopter and cable logging would result in 

approximately 27% of the Project Area being untreated, which would increase the risk of severe 

wildfire in the untreated areas. 

Mechanical treatments are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area.

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic fuels treatments will occur under Alternative 4 using ground based logging methods and 

hand felling. These treatments will be consistent with the mitigation measures described above; 

therefore the treatments are not expected to adversely affect rare plant species viability. The 

effects of ground based logging operations are described above. 

Strategic fuels treatments are not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

but will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area.

Prescribed Fire

Given that these species evolved in a fire-adapted ecosystem, it is unlikely that prescribed fire of 

low to moderate intensities would negatively affect species viability. Both Flagstaff beardtongue 

and Rusby’s milkvetch have shown positive responses to fire (USDA 2007, Laughlin et al. 2008). 

Laughlin et al. (2008) showed that Rusby’s milkvetch showed an increase in frequency following 

prescribed fire. Prescribed fire has the potential to expand the current abundance and distribution 

of rare plant species by enhancing structural (e.g., variable shading) and functional (e.g., nutrient 

flow) ecosystem properties. Further, it is not reasonable to expect infinite fire exclusion on Bill 

Williams Mountain. This area will experience fire at some point in time, and prescribed fire 

would provide the greatest opportunity to protect rare plant species habitat when compared to a 

severe wildfire. 

Prescribed fire under Alternative 3 is not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, 

Rusby’s milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation 

measures, and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species 

viability due to their relatively limited occurrence within the project area.

Transportation and Trails

Road construction and trails would cause the direct loss of habitat for rare plant species. 

However, the land area that would be converted to roads and trails is minimal, and would not 

result in significant habitat loss for any particular species or threaten species viability. The design 

criteria for roads and trails would minimize negative impacts to rare plant species (see above 

mitigations). Roads and trails also provide opportunities for the establishment and spread of 

invasive plants. However, invasive plant mitigations would protect rare plant populations from 

the adverse effects associated with invasions (see Invasive Weeds Specialist Report for 

mitigation measures). 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

252 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Road construction and trails is not likely to adversely affect Flagstaff Beardtongue, Rusby’s 

milkvetch, or Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort due to the implementation of the mitigation measures, 

and will not likely contribute to a trend toward federal listing or a loss of species viability due to 

their relatively limited occurrence within the project area. 

3.8.3 Cumulative Effects

Invasive Plant Species and Treatments

Timber management activities and prescribed burning remove portions of the overstory, 

understory, and/or litter cover, with the objective of maintaining or improving forest health and 

enhancing the herbaceous understory. Understory plant communities that are abundant and 

diverse can increase plant communities’ resistance to non-native plant invasion (Elton 1958). 

Reducing fuels and tree canopy cover can also reduce the threat of severe wildfires that often 

times provide optimal conditions for weeds to establish. Invasive plants can degrade habitat for 

rare plant species, and can be spread by heavy equipment, vehicles, and personnel associated with 

these activities. All Action Alternatives may result in the recruitment/expansion of invasive plant 

species populations, and the extent of the invasions will likely be dependent on the level of 

disturbance. Alternative 2 would result in the greatest level of disturbance when compared to all 

Alternatives, followed by Alternative, 3, 4, and 1, respectively. Inventory, treatments, and 

monitoring, as well as Best Management Practices, will be implemented within the project area, 

with those populations posing the greatest ecological threat and/or having the greatest likelihood 

of successful control being the highest priority for treatment. See Invasive Weeds Specialist 

Report for more details on invasive plant mitigations. Precautionary measures will be taken to 

protect rare plant species from invasions and invasive plant treatments.

Livestock Grazing

Sheep grazing does occur within the project area. See the Rangeland Ecology and Management 

Specialist Report for more information. Livestock grazing does not occur in the Arizona Bugbane 

Botanical Area. Grazing ungulates may target rare plant species depending on their abundance, 

palatability, nutritional values, and availability of other forage species. If livestock grazing poses 

a threat to rare plant species viability, those areas where the populations are of concern will be 

deferred from grazing.

Fuels and Timber Management Activities (Spring Valley, Pine-Aire, Beacon, Williams, Clover, 

City, Twin, Bill Williams Cap, Elk, Lee, Wright Hill, Horse Pine, Frenchy, Moose, Government 

2, Dog Town, McCracken, 4FRI, KA, Ishman, Pomeroy, Community Tank)

Fuels and Timber Management Activities often result in recruitment of invasive plant species that 

can degrade habitat for rare plant species. See Invasive Weeds Specialist Report for details on 

invasive plant mitigations. Precautionary measures will be taken to protect rare plant species from 

invasions and invasive plant treatments.

Williams RD Travel Management Project

The cumulative effects of the Action Alternatives and Williams RD Travel Management Project 

are not expected to affect rare plant species. 

Climate
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 253

Global climate change models project warmer, more arid conditions in the southwestern United 

States (Seager et al. 2007). However, the impact of global climate change on species’ 

distributions is mostly uncertain (Thuiller et al. 2007). Climate change may result in more 

frequent and severe droughts, as well as more high-intensity wildfires. Drought and high-intensity 

wildfire may result in plant community conversions, habitat loss, and the loss of species viability. 

Restoration treatments that result in improvements to the understory plant community health may 

increase understory resistance and resilience to disturbance. 

Determination of Effects

Region 3 Sensitive Species

Based on the above information above it has been determined that all alternatives considered in 

the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project may impact individuals of Flagstaff beardtongue, 

Mt. Dellenbaugh sandwort, and Rusby’s milkvetch, but are not likely to result in a trend toward 

Federal listing or loss of viability due to their limited presence within the project area. 

Region 3 Sensitive Species and Management Indicator Species

Based on the information above, it has been determined that all alternatives considered in the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project may adversely affect Arizona bugbane, and because there 

is only a single known population on the Kaibab National Forest, all alternatives may also result 

in decreasing Forest-wide habitat or population trends for the species.

3.9 Rangeland Resources

3.9.1 Affected Environment

The scope of this analysis focuses on the understory plant communities that occur within the proposed 

project perimeter, as well as the affect that the project may have on grazing activities within the proposed 

project perimeter. 

Understory Plant Community

Plant communities in the western United States have been dramatically altered by fire exclusion, 

overgrazing by livestock, and selective timber harvesting; all of which have combined to form 

highly dense and unhealthy forests. Increases in density in ponderosa pine forests have resulted 

in a significant loss of the herbaceous understory (understory, hereafter) due to alterations in 

resource allocation within the stand, which can adversely affect both structural and functional 

properties of a forest. Ecological restoration can be applied to convert high-density ponderosa 

pine forests to an open canopy structure similar to that found at the time of Euro-American 

settlement (Moore et al. 2006), and reestablish historical structural and functional ecosystem 

properties. Forest thinning and prescribed burning are often proposed and implemented to 

reverse the undesirable changes in ponderosa pine forests of Arizona (Abella 2004). 

Forest thinning and prescribed burning can make resources (e.g., light, nutrients, water) more 

readily available for understory plant species by reducing overstory competition and enhancing 

nutrient cycling. Increasing resource availability can provide the herbaceous component of a 

plant community the opportunity to capitalize, which can result in increased species abundance, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

254 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

vigor, and productivity; and potentially enhance species diversity. Diverse and abundant 

understory plant communities provide soil stability, enhanced habitat and forage for wildlife, 

forage for livestock, and increases resistance against non-native plant invasions. 

The Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project area contains several cover types that range from 

Douglas fir and aspen at the upper range of elevations to grasslands at the lower range of 

elevations (Table 3.9-1). Because of the lack of data documenting the understory plant 

community component in the project area, it is difficult to provide a site specific assessment of its 

existing condition. However, we can make some assumptions based on studies conducted in 

northern Arizona forests. Laughlin et al. (2011) found that ponderosa pine basal area increased 

from an average of 4m2

/ha in the early 1900s to 29 m2/ha in 2007, which resulted in a decline of 

understory plant foliar cover by 21%, species richness by 2 species/m2

, and declines in functional 

richness. Bakker and Moore (2007) found that species density declined by 34%, herbaceous plant 

density by 37%, shrub cover by 69%, total herbaceous cover by 59%, graminoid cover by 39%, 

and forb cover by 82% between 1941 and 2004, and that these changes were negatively correlated 

with overstory vegetation. Arnold (1950) noted a 25% reduction in grass density in ponderosa 

pine stands near Flagstaff, Arizona between 1912 and 1947 due to establishment and growth of 

ponderosa pine trees. Covington and Moore (1994) projected similar trends using a simulation 

model that showed herbage production (lbs/ac) may have declined approximately 84 % in an 

untreated ponderosa pine forest between 1907 and 1947. 

Repeat photography that was conducted in 2011 specific to the Bill Williams Mountain 

Restoration Project and for the Hat Grazing Allotment Environmental Assessment (USDA 2009), 

which is partially included within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project boundary, 

indicates that both ponderosa pine and juniper species have increased within the project area. 

Therefore, it is appropriate to assume that the trends described above continue today in areas 

where tree encroachment and canopy closure continues to occur in northern Arizona forests, and 

that understory species are more competitively stressed than they were under pre-settlement 

conditions and are likely declining due to their inability to rapidly adapt to an altered environment 

(Laughlin et al. 2011). 

Table 3.9-5: Cover types within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project Area 

boundary.

Cover Type Acres % of Project Area

Douglas-fir 363 2.1

Aspen 102 0.6

Grasslands 887 5.0

Juniper Woodland 942 5.3

Mixed Hardwood 146 0.8

Mountain-Mahogany, Bitterbrush, Skunkbrush 40 0.2

Oak Woodland 657 3.7

Pinyon-Juniper 659 3.7

Ponderosa Pine 11,391 64.5

Rockland, Talus, Scree 23 0.1

Treeland 20 0.1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 255

Grazing Management

Approximately 9,444 acres of the project area are within the 105,049 acre Hat Grazing Allotment

(Figure 1, approximately 9 percent of the allotment), which allows grazing by up to 4,160 ewes 

from May 1-October 31 and 140 rams from June 1-July 15 that run in a minimum of two bands 

rotating throughout the Allotment. The grazing management system incorporates seasonal 

deferment, with an emphasis on spring deferment from May 1 to June 15, which minimizes the 

number of areas used during this time period to promote cool season plant development. 

As with the loss of much of the understory, forage species are also on the decline as a result of 

management activities. Because of past overgrazing, increasing tree densities, and unfavorable 

climatic conditions, livestock numbers have been cut significantly on the Hat Allotment from 

approximately 21,000 animal unit months in 1945 to the current figure of approximately 5,000 

animal unit months. Although increasing livestock numbers is not an anticipated result of the 

restoration treatments associated with this project due to climatic uncertainty, we can expect 

improved forage conditions for both livestock and wildlife in addition to improved watershed 

stability.

Urban Residential Areas 842 4.8

White Fir 1,593 9.0

Total 17,665 100.0
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

256 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.9-6: The Hat Grazing Allotment and the Bill Williams Restoration Project 

Boundary. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 257

3.9.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternative 1: No Action

Current management would result in a continuance of understory plant community habitat 

degradation. Trees would continue to increase in both density and size which will lead to more 

intense competition for understory plant species. More intense competition will result in lower 

levels of species abundance, productivity, and vigor, and potentially reductions in species 

richness. Competition in ponderosa pine forests can also result in understory plant community 

conversions that are dominated by shade- and stress-tolerant species (Laughlin et al. 2011). In 

addition, there is an extreme risk of uncharacteristic wildfire within the project area under the No 

Action Alternative. Severe wildfire in the project area may result in unprecedented levels of 

habitat loss for understory plant communities, and perhaps complete conversions of habitat types. 

Further, areas burned at high-severity may experience some level of reduction in site 

productivity, especially those with slope related erosion hazards (Bormann et al. 2008). Such 

losses can result in habitat loss for rare plant species, as well as their associates. Severe wildfire 

may also result in extensive non-native plant invasions that will further reduce the habitat quality 

for rare plant species.

At the present time, the grazing allotments are appropriately stocked for the average annual 

forage production. However, the understory plant community within the project area will 

continue to decline as competition becomes increasingly more intense due to the canopy closure. 

Grazing management will be in accordance with Allotment Management Plans until resources 

become limited to the point that available forage is reduced to a level where higher forage 

utilization occurs, at which time livestock numbers would be reduced. 

Effects Common to All Action Alternatives

All Action Alternatives considered may ultimately result similar understory plant responses. 

Ecological restoration can be applied to convert high-density ponderosa pine forests to an open 

canopy structure similar to that found at the time of Euro-American settlement (Moore et al. 

2006), potentially reestablishing understory properties to near pre-settlement conditions 

(Stoddard et al. 2011). Forest thinning and prescribed burning are often proposed and 

implemented to reverse the undesirable changes in ponderosa pine forests in Arizona (Abella 

2004). Forest thinning and prescribed burning can make resources (e.g., light, nutrients, and 

water) more readily available for understory plant species. Increasing resource availability can 

provide the herbaceous component of a plant community the opportunity to capitalize, which can 

result in increased species abundance, vigor, and productivity, and potentially enhance species 

richness (Griffis et al. 2001, Abella 2004, Moore et al. 2006, Laughlin et al. 2008, Stoddard 

2011). The proposed restoration treatments would provide structural diversity to promote suitable 

habitat for a host of understory species with differing resource requirements (e.g., shade-tolerant 

vs. shade-intolerant), and would have potential increase the abundance of rare plant species.

Comparisons in anticipated forage production increases for each management action is difficult to 

estimate, as specific forage production may be influenced by factors including soil type and 

condition, slope, moisture, and available propagules. It is appropriate to assume that tree removal 

and prescribed burning will improve both forage quantity and quality. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

258 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Soil disturbances associated with these projects may recruit/expand invasive plant species 

populations that degrade understory habitat quality. Livestock grazing after burning can influence 

invasive species establishment, persistence, and spread, but this interaction is poorly understood 

(Zouhar et al. 2008). The dispersal of invasive species propagules while stressing more palatable 

native species deserves consideration. Burned areas are usually rested from grazing until native 

plants have successfully established, thus no adverse affects are expected from grazing following 

prescribed burning. Once livestock are allowed to graze the burned area, the Forest Service 

monitors their effects and applies adaptive management when warranted. Best management 

practices and mitigation measures are implemented at project sites to reduce the introduction and 

spread of weed species.

Alternative 2

Alternative 2 would remove the highest number trees of all Action Alternatives due to the 

absence of diameter caps, and would likely result in the greatest understory improvement (i.e., 

enhanced abundance, vigor, productivity). More importantly, Alternative 2 would result in the 

greatest reduction in the risk of severe wildfire, which would provide the greatest safeguard 

against the undesirable effects that are associated with such. Severe wildfires on Bill Williams 

Mountain may result in irreversible effects to understory plant communities due to the erosion 

hazard on steeper slopes that may result in the loss of site productivity. 

Mechanical Treatments

Ground-based logging operations will have minimal temporary impacts to the understory plant 

community with the implementation of Best Management Practices. 

Cable logging operations will result in appreciable disturbance along cable corridors. Areas 

identified for cable logging will have swaths that occur approximately 100 feet apart and are 

approximately 15 feet wide for the length of these operability zones. These swaths will be 

denuded of woody vegetation. Trees will be dragged through these swaths causing soil 

disturbance that will result in the removal of resident vegetation and provide opportunities for 

non-native species to establish. Implementation of Best Management Practices may mitigate these 

issues. However, noxious weed infestations will be difficult to treat due to accessibility. 

Helicopter logging operations will have minimal temporary impacts to the understory plant 

community with the implementation of Best Management Practices.

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic Fuels Treatments will consist of heavy thinning in areas identified by Fuels Specialists. 

These treatments will improve the understory plant community with the implementation of Best 

Management Practices while reducing the risk of large-scale severe wildfire.

Transportation and Trails

Alternative 2 includes the construction of 23 miles of new roads, 16 miles of temporary roads, 

and 1 mile of new trail. Although the direct loss of plant species habitat may be not be significant 

at this scale, roads and trails act as dispersal corridors for non-native invasive species. Invasive 

species can negatively affect the native understory through direct competition and degraded 

habitat quality. Implementation of Best Management Practices described in Appendix B (Design 

Features, Best Management Practices, and Mitigation Measures) in the Final Environmental 

Impact Statement for Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds on the Coconino, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 259

Kaibab, and Prescott National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, 

Arizona (2004) would assist in the protection of habitat quality from non-native invasives within 

the project area. Alternative 2 also includes 28 miles of road obliteration, which would improve 

understory conditions by limiting invasive species expansion and restoring roadbeds to native 

vegetation. 

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 would remove fewer trees than Alternatives 2 due to diameter caps that restrict the 

size of trees that can be removed. Alternative 3 would limit harvested trees to less than 16”. This 

Alternative may have a similar or a slightly less improved understory response when compared to 

Alternative 2. Alternative 3 would result in less of a reduction in the risk of severe wildfire 

compared to Alternative 2, which would provide less of a safeguard against the undesirable 

effects that are associated with such. Severe wildfires on Bill Williams Mountain may result in 

irreversible effects to understory plant communities due to the erosion hazard on steeper slopes 

that may result in the loss of site productivity. 

The effects of mechanical treatments, strategic fuels treatments, and transportation and trails are 

similar to Alternative 2; therefore not described in detail. 

Alternative 4 

Alternative 4 would remove the fewest number of trees of all Action Alternatives due to diameter 

caps that restrict the size of trees that can be removed and the exclusion of cable and helicopter 

logging. Similar to Alternative 3, Alternative 4 would limit harvested trees to less than 16”.

Alternative 4 would likely result in the least improved (i.e., enhanced abundance, vigor, 

productivity) understory of all Action Alternatives. Understory plant communities in areas 

identified for cable and helicopter logging would continue to degrade as tree densities and size 

increase. Alternative 4 would reduce the risk of severe wildfire the least when compared to all 

other Action Alternatives, which would provide the lowest level of safeguard against the 

undesirable effects that associated with such. Severe wildfires on Bill Williams Mountain may 

result in irreversible effects to understory plant communities due to the erosion hazard on steeper 

slopes that may result in the loss of site productivity. 

Mechanical Treatments

Ground-based logging operations will have minimal temporary impacts to the understory plant 

community with the implementation of Best Management Practices. 

The exclusion of cable logging operations will result in less disturbance and may restrict the 

establishment of non-native species to accessible terrain, which would facilitate invasive plant 

treatments within the project area. The exclusion of helicopter logging operations may also 

restrict the establishment of non-native species to accessible terrain. Understory plant 

communities in untreated areas will continue to decline due to increasing tree densities and size. 

Untreated areas will also be at high risk for severe wildfire that will likely result in undesirable 

effects to site understory potential where erosion hazards are high. Understory habitat type 

conversions may occur following severe erosion.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

260 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Strategic Fuels Treatments

Strategic Fuels Treatments will consist of heavy thinning in areas identified by Fuels Specialists. 

These treatments will improve the understory plant community with the implementation of Best 

Management Practices while reducing the risk of large-scale severe wildfire.

Transportation and Trails

Alternative 4 excludes the construction of 23 miles of new roads, which would reduce invasive 

species expansion. The effects of temporary roads and road obliteration are similar for all Action 

Alternatives. 

3.9.3 Cumulative Effects

Invasive Plant Species

Timber management activities and prescribed burning remove portions of the overstory, 

understory, and/or litter cover, with the objective of maintaining or improving forest health and 

improve the herbaceous understory. Understory plant communities that are abundant and diverse 

can increase the community’s resistance to non-native plant invasion (Elton 1958). Reducing 

fuels and tree canopy cover can also reduce the threat of catastrophic wildfires that often times 

provide optimal conditions for weeds to establish. Weeds could be spread by heavy equipment, 

vehicles, and personnel associated with these activities. The Proposed Action may result in the 

recruitment/expansion of invasive plant species populations. Inventory, treatments, and 

monitoring, as well as Best Management Practices, will be implemented within the project area, 

with those populations posing the greatest ecological threat and/or having the greatest likelihood 

of successful control being the highest priority for treatment. 

Recreation

Recreational activities often accelerate seed dispersal rates of non-native invasive plants which 

can negatively affect habitat quality of understory plant communities. Inventory, treatments, and 

monitoring, as well as Best Management Practices, will be implemented within the project area, 

with those populations posing the greatest ecological threat and/or having the greatest likelihood 

of successful control being the highest priority for treatment to mitigate the treat of invasive 

species. 

Climate

Global climate change models project warmer, more arid conditions in the southwestern United 

States (Seager et al. 2007). However, the impact of global climate change on species’ 

distributions is mostly uncertain (Thuiller et al. 2007). Climate change may result in more 

frequent and severe droughts, as well as more high-intensity wildfires. Drought and high-intensity 

wildfire may result in forage species mortality, habitat loss, and the loss of species viability.

Improving understory plant communities may increase forage species ability to resist drought due 

to a well developed root system, resulting in the persistence of a native understory.

3.10 Recreation Resources

This report documents the analysis of effects of the proposed Bill Williams Project vegetation 

treatments on recreation resources located in the area. 

3.10.1 Existing Condition
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 261

The following is a discussion of existing and expected trends in recreation use levels, recreation 

activities visitors engage in, current recreation facility developments located in and adjacent to 

the project area, and Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) settings in the project area.

Information on current recreation use levels and preferences is derived from public contacts, field 

observations, and surveys of visitors, local tourism businesses, and residents. Although exact 

figures are not known, recreation use in the project area is estimated by recreation managers to 

have high use. The National Visitor Use Monitoring Survey conducted on the forest in 2010 

indicates that there are 757,000 visitors to the Kaibab National Forest yearly. The National 

Visitor Use Monitoring (NVUM, 2005 and 2010) and visitor survey conducted in 2000-2002 by 

Northern Arizona University (NAU- Boussard, 2002) indicate area visitors come from the local 

area, the surrounding region (Arizona, Colorado River, Las Vegas) and from across the nation 

and abroad. While local residents are consistent users of the project area, and have immediate 

access to the national forest, the project area receives a significant amount of recreational visitors 

from the lower-elevation, densely populated Phoenix Valley urban communities and Colorado 

River communities. There is also a fairly significant amount of recreation use in the project area 

by visitors from accross the US and abroad, as Williams is part of the “Grand Circle” Colorado

Plateau region, and adjacent to the Grand Canyon, which brings 4-5 million visitors to the region 

annually. Known as “The Gateway to the Grand Canyon,” Williams has a long history as a 

tourism destination, and tourism as an industry has received increasing emphasis in the past 

decades.

Within the project area there are several recreation sites, which include the Bill Williams, 

Benham, Bixler, Clover Spring Loop, City Link, and Buckskinner Trails. Immediately adjacent 

to the project area are some of the most heavily visited developed recreation sites on the Williams 

Ranger District. Sites found adjacent to this planning area include Dogtown Lake Recreation 

Complex, Overland Trail, Stage Station Loop Mountain Bike Trail, and Historic Route 66 Devil 

Dog Mountain Bike Loop. Privately and municipally operated recreation facilities under special 

use permit on National Forest System lands within the project area are the Elk Ridge Ski Area 

and Buckskinner Park. A number of private recreation-based businesses are also located adjacent 

to the area (Young Life’s Lost Canyon Organizational Camp, the Grand Canyon Railway, and 

several RV parks, motels, etc.)

As recreation use increases, the types of recreation activities visitors engage in are likewise 

increasing and diversifying. The types of recreation activities visitors pursue in the project area 

are varied and occur in mostly dispersed settings in all seasons. These activities include camping, 

picnicking, hiking, mountain biking, boating, fishing, hunting, horseback riding, riding ATVs and 

motorcycles, driving, viewing wildlife and scenery, viewing historic features (such as Route 66), 

family gatherings, cross-country skiing, snowshoeing, sledding, and snow-play. General relaxing 

and escaping the heat of lower-elevations is one significant reason visitors mention for traveling 

to this area. 

National Forest visitors are diverse in their preferences for recreational settings, experiences, and 

activities, and for the reasons mentioned above, as well as changing demographics, are becoming 

increasingly diverse. In order to provide a diversity of settings and opportunities the Forest 

Service uses the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum (ROS) as a management tool to inventory and 

describe recreation setting objectives for the National Forest System lands. Forest Plan ROS 

mapping was completed for the Kaibab National Forest south zone in 2004. The Bill Williams 

Project area encompasses four ROS classes: Rural on the far north end of the project area; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

262 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Roaded Natural forms a ring around the project area on the lower slopes of Bill Williams 

Mountain; Semi-primitive Motorized encompasses the middle slopes on the south and west side 

of Bill Williams; and Semi-primitive Non-motorized occurs on the highest slopes of the 

mountain. Forest Plan direction states that ROS classes are to be considered in the design of 

project activities and ROS classes maintained or enhanced. 

Following are the total ROS acres for the Bill Williams Project area.

Table 3.10-1 shows the Recreation Opportunity Spectrum Classification by Acres for the 

Project Area.

ROS Class Acres in Project Area General Setting 

Description (Desired 

Condition)

Rural (R) 1,282 Landscapes may be highly 

modified but managed to 

maintain general scenic 

attractiveness, and may 

include culturally modified 

and extensively developed 

recreation sites. Rural 

settings are highly modified 

and managed; there is 

generally a natural 

appearing backdrop.

Roaded Natural (RN) 8,776 Landscapes are carefully 

managed to maintain or 

enhance recreation and 

scenic values, sites and 

features, to be natural 

appearing, with changes 

designed to appear in 

harmony with natural 

setting. May contain highly 

developed recreation sites 

and travel routes.

Semi-Primitive Motorized

(SPM)

4,910 Maintain predominately 

undeveloped landscapes and 

scenic vistas and limited 

recreation developments. 

Recreation uses are nonmotorized.

Semi-Primitive Nonmotorized (SPNM)2,698 SPNM
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 263

Desired Condition

A spectrum of high-quality outdoor recreation settings and opportunities will be available in the 

Bill Williams Project area; Roaded Natural ROS areas with high scenic and recreational values 

and use is high; and Semi-Primitive settings occur where use is lower and the setting is more 

natural-appearing. Recreation facilities and recreation trails will continue to be provided and 

maintained, and options for development of future facilities in response to public demand or need 

are analyzed and implemented if they meet Forest and ecosystem objectives.

The National Forest System lands surrounding Bill Williams Mountain will continue to provide 

high quality recreation opportunities and settings that compliment and support the City of 

Williams’ tourism industry, and contribute to local residents’ quality of life. Management 

activities on National Forest System lands are consistent with recreation setting objectives. 

Additional complimentary recreation facilities and services may be developed in the area over 

time.

The Forest manages for a wide spectrum of desired settings that provide opportunities for the 

public to engage in a variety of developed and dispersed recreational activities, in concert with 

other resource management and protection needs.

3.10.2 Direct and Indirect Effects Analysis

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, forested lands in the Bill Williams Project area would not receive 

treatments to improve ecosystem health and sustainability, improve the vegetative age classes, 

species and structure; move stand condition towards pre-settlement fire regimes, nor reduce the 

risk of stand replacing fires.

Under the no-action alternative there would be little immediate direct or indirect effects on the 

existing recreational setting or facilities. Since no direct management actions would occur, the 

existing recreational setting would not change. However, the Bixler Trail would continue to be 

underutilized as access was limited under the 2011 decision for Travel Management. Hikers 

would have to hike up the closed Forest Road 45 to the existing trailhead in order to access the 

trail. Stand densities would remain unnaturally high, although some visitors are not aware of the 

unnatural condition of the forest, and their experience and perception of forest conditions would 

continue to be largely positive. However, due to unnaturally high stand densities and fuel 

loadings, there would continue to be the potential for disturbance processes to affect the 

landscape negatively, such as insect outbreaks, diseases, and wildfires. 

Of great concern to maintaining high recreation values is a high potential for large, stand 

replacing wildfires to occur in the project area. If a large stand replacing wildfire swept through 

the area, it could seriously damage or completely destroy recreational settings in the Bill 

Williams project area along with many of the recreation sites that fall within the Bill Williams 

Mountain watershed (including, but not limited to Dogtown Lake and Campground, Santa Fe 

Reservoir, City Reservoir, Buckskinner Park, Cataract Lake and Campground). The quality of 

life of local residents and other national forest visitors who value forest recreation opportunities 

and facilities would be negatively affected for decades after a stand replacing wildfire on the 

mountain. Tourism could also be negatively affected if visitors decide not to visit the Williams 

area due to the negative effects a large wildfire could have on recreation resources.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

264 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 2 – Proposed Action 

Under the proposed action, 15,200 acres in the Bill Williams Project area would be treated by a 

variety of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire in order to improve ecosystem health and 

sustainability; improve the vegetative age classes distribution, species and structure; move stand 

condition towards pre-settlement fire regimes; and reduce the risk of stand replacing fires.

Under this alternative, it is expected that there will be some short-term direct and indirect effects 

to the recreation setting. Directly affecting the SPM and the SPNM ROS character of the 

mountain is the percentage of land that will fall under treatment during project implementation. 

This alternative will treat 95% if the SPM and 100% of the SPNM ROS classification area. The 

standard direction for the SPM and SPNM ROS areas on the mountain is that up to 25% of an 

individual area may be mechanically treated at one time. However, exceptions to this standard 

may be made without requiring an amendment to the Forest Plan (Kaibab NF Forest Plan, as 

amended 11/04 pg. 34-1). Also directly affecting the SPNM ROS classification is the 

determination that approximately 2/3 of a mile of a re-opened maintenance level 1 (ML-1) road

will be required for the project. The road will be closed to continued use and restored to original 

conditions when the project is completed. 

Direct effects to recreation settings from mechanical treatments would be a short-term, temporary 

change in ROS setting quality, which would persist until activity slash is treated and the treated 

area recovers to an “undisturbed” appearance. The effects of low and even some moderateintensity fires on outdoor recreation settings are not to be considered as negative, rather fire is 

recognized as an integral part of the forest landscape and setting. 

Direct effects of mechanical treatments and prescribed burning have the potential for short-term 

displacement of recreationists during implementation (campers may need to be moved out, trail 

users may not be able to use certain trails during implementation, etc.), or reduced visitor 

satisfaction (seeing activities slash, experiencing smoky conditions while people are visiting the 

area). Also, there is the potential for those recreationists seeking a specific setting, especially a 

non-motorized experience, to not be able to achieve that on Bill Williams Mountain, even in the 

SPNM ROS classified area. Mitigation measures have been designed to ensure that the direct 

effects of the project activities are short term and important recreation values are protected long 

term. 

This alternative better provides for the long-term protection of recreation settings and facilities by 

improving stand conditions and reducing fuel loading. Improving the forest manager’s ability to 

maintain healthy, green forests and reduce the risk of high-intensity stand replacing wildfires in 

the project area would have a positive effect on the ability to protect and maintain high quality 

recreation settings long into the future.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 265

Table 3.10-2 shows the Acres for Alternative 2 by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Operability Zone

Operability 

Zone Rural Acres

Roaded 

Natural

Acres

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Acres

Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized

Acres

Conventional-01 323 5,168 3,059 192

Steep 

Conventional-02 59 147 383 200

Adverse 

Forwarder-03 0 23 0 45

Excaline with 

Forwarder 

Swing Skid-04 0 45 11 76

Skyline Yarding05 0 168 134 47

Mixed 

Conventional-06 0 676 620 106

Helicopter-07 7 959 468 2,032

Total Acres 389 7,196 4,675 2,698

Alternative 3 

Same as Alternative 2.

Alternative 4 

Under Alternative 4, 11,150 acres in the Bill Williams Project area would be treated by a variety 

of mechanical treatments and prescribed fire in order to improve ecosystem health and 

sustainability; improve the vegetative age classes distribution, species and structure; move stand 

condition towards pre-settlement fire regimes; and reduce the risk of stand replacing fires.

Under this alternative, it is expected that there will be some short-term direct and indirect effects 

to the recreation setting. Directly affecting the SPM character for the mountain is the percentage 

of land that will fall under treatment during project implementation. This alternative will treat 

83% if the SPM classification area. The standard direction for the SPM ROS areas on the 

mountain is that up to 25% of an individual area may be mechanically treated at one time. 

However, exceptions to this standard may be made, without requiring an amendment to the Forest 

Plan (Kaibab NF Forest Plan, as amended 11/04 pg. 34-1). 

Direct effects to recreation settings from mechanical treatments would be a short-term, temporary 

change in ROS setting quality, which would persist until activity slash is treated and the treated 

area recovers to an “undisturbed” appearance. The effects of low and even some moderate-
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

266 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

intensity fires on outdoor recreation settings are not to be considered as negative, rather fire is 

recognized as an integral part of the forest landscape and setting. 

Direct effects of mechanical treatments and prescribed burning have the potential for short-term 

displacement of recreationists during implementation (campers may need to be moved out, trail 

users may not be able to use certain trails during implementation, etc.), or decreased visitor 

satisfaction (seeing activities slash, experiencing smoky conditions while people are visiting the 

area). Also, there is the potential for those recreationists seeking a specific setting, especially a 

non-motorized experience, to not be able to achieve that on Bill Williams Mountain, even in the 

SPNM ROS classified area. Mitigation measures have been designed to ensure that the direct 

effects of the project activities are short term and that important recreation values are protected 

long term. 

This alternative better provides for the long-term protection of recreation settings and facilities by 

improving stand conditions and reducing fuel loading. Improving the forest manager’s ability to 

maintain healthy, green forests and reduce the risk of high-intensity stand replacing wildfires in

the project area would have a positive effect on the ability to protect and maintain high quality 

recreation settings long into the future.

Table 3.10-3 shows the Acres for Alternative 4 by Recreation Opportunity Spectrum and 

Operability Zone

Operability

Zone Rural Acres

Roaded 

Natural

Acres

Semi-Primitive 

Motorized 

Acres

Semi-Primitive 

Non-Motorized

Acres

Conventional-01 323 5,172 3,059 192

Steep 

Conventional-02 59 337 383 200

Adverse 

Forwarder-03 0 0 0 0

Excaline with 

Forwarder 

Swing Skid-04 0 0 11 0

Skyline Yarding05 0 0 134 0 

Mixed 

Conventional-06 0 676 620 106

Helicopter-07 0 0 468 0

Total Acres 389 6,175 4,059 498

3.10.3 Cumulative Effects

The area chosen for the cumulative effects analysis of this project is bounded by the northern 

Williams Ranger District boundary, west to the forest boundary in Bellemont, Arizona, east to the 

forest boundary near Ash Fork, Arizona, and south to the forest boundary (the border with the 

north end of the Prescott National Forest). This area was chosen because the project area is the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 267

view-shed of Bill Williams Mountain, a popular recreation area for local residents and out-oftown visitors and recreationists.

Recently implemented and current ongoing projects in this analysis area include: Clover High, 

Williams High Risk, Dogtown Fuels, and the Twin Burn. Potential future projects include 

McCracken Project and the Four Forest Restoration Initiative. There isn’t enough information 

known about these projects at this time to predict the extent of the potential impact from these 

projects. With the increased emphasis for reducing hazardous fuels in the urban interface, it is 

estimated that at least 10-15% of the area of the cumulative effects analysis area could either be 

in the physical state of being mechanically treated, awaiting final slash treatment and prescribed 

burning, or in a post treatments recovery phase over the next 20 years.

The cumulative effects analysis extends 20 years from the first phases of implementation of the 

Bill Williams Project. Twenty years was chosen because large complex projects can take 10 or 

more years to complete treatments. Once activities are completed in a treatment unit it takes 

approximately one to three years for treated areas to recover until they are generally unnoticeable 

to the average forest visitor (one to two years of drying to dispose of slash after thinning projects, 

plus up to one more year for the visual effects of mechanical fire line preparation and prescribed 

burning to recover). Fuels reduction and stand improvement treatments including, thinning, noncommercial and commercial tree harvesting, fuelwood sales, and prescribed burning will occur 

over time and in phases within the different project areas; thus different project areas will be in 

varying stages of treatment or recovery over the 20-year time period across the cumulative effects 

analysis area. The effects of mechanical treatments are addressed in this analysis. Recurring 

maintenance burning is typically low intensity and the area usually recovers within one year of 

implementation and thus is considered to have minimal effects on recreation resources.

Alternative 1 - No Action

Recreation user displacement, noise and dust are effects from past, present, and reasonably 

foreseeable projects have and will affect the recreation resources on the district. Past experience 

has shown that these effects are usually short in duration and generally localized to the project 

area. When combined with the direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternative 1, the 

cumulative effects on recreation resources are minimal, as most recreationists do not recognize 

the unnatural state of the forest and have generally positive experiences in the pursuit of their 

recreational activities. In this alternative the threat to the mountain of a wildfire and the potential 

for a catastrophic wildfire would remain unchanged. Under the no action alternative 

recreationists would not be displaced by project activities in the Bill Williams Project area, but 

could be potentially be displaced by increase fire danger in the Bill Williams Watershed, closures 

of the watershed, and by fire activity on the mountain.

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action

The cumulative effects of the proposed action when combined with past, current, and future 

planned actions, would be to greatly increase the total number of acres being treated or recovering 

from treatment by approximately 5 – 7 %, throughout the cumulative effects analysis area, as 

described. It is difficult to determine exactly how much mechanical treatment will be 

accomplished in the cumulative effects analysis area in any given year. If the assumption is made 

that all of the projects’ initial treatments will be completed in 5 - 20 years, the annual mechanical 

vegetation treatment acreages could range from 1,520 to 3,040 and from 5,000 to 10,000 acres 

burned each year. This would leave an approximate range of 17,296 – 26,336 acres treated and in
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

268 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

a physical state of recovery from mechanical treatment and final slash treatments, throughout the 

cumulative effects analysis area, at any one time. 

The potential for displacement of recreationists during the project implementation is increased 

over the cumulative effects area, although the exact numbers cannot be determined. In this 

alternative, the greatest potential of displacement would be for those recreationists choosing to 

recreate in the SPNM setting, where there would be the greatest amount of disturbance during 

implementation inside of the SPNM area. 

There are mitigation measures for the project that will minimize the impacts to the recreation 

setting in particular areas, such as along heavily used recreation roads, protecting the historic and 

recreational trails, and reducing the impact to the setting from treatment slash. However, outside 

of those areas the vegetation treatments in progress, or recently completed, will be evident for up 

to 5 years, having a short-term negative effect on the recreation setting. These treatment areas 

will be scattered across the landscape and in varying stages of recovery from year to year. There 

will be some short term negative effects to recreation settings, especially with regards to the 

percentage of the settings for SPM and SPNM in recovery from treatment. The long-term effects 

of reducing fuels and improved stand conditions are considered to be very beneficial; the 

improvements will provide for better long-term protection of forest health from potentially large 

and damaging stand-replacing wildfires, or from widespread damaging insect kill. Healthy forest 

are critical to providing high quality and highly desirable recreation settings and opportunities. 

The Bill Williams project would improve the cumulative effectiveness and overall ability to 

protect recreational resources in the long term across the cumulative effects analysis area.

Alternative 3

Same as Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

The cumulative effects of the proposed action when combined with past, current, and future 

planned actions, would be to greatly increase the total number of acres being treated or recovering 

from treatment by approximately 3 – 7 %, throughout the cumulative effects analysis area, as 

described. It is difficult to determine exactly how much mechanical treatment will be 

accomplished in any given year. If the assumption is made that all of the projects initial 

treatments will be completed in 5 - 20 years, the annual mechanical vegetation treatment acreages 

could range from 1,520 to 3,040 and from 5,000 to 10,000 acres burned each year. This would 

leave an approximate range of 17,296 – 26,336 acres treated and in a physical state of recovery 

from mechanical treatment and final slash treatments, throughout the cumulative effects analysis 

area, at any one time. 

The potential for displacement of recreationists during the project implementation is increased 

over the cumulative effects area, although the exact numbers cannot be determined.

There are mitigation measures for the project that will minimize the impact to the recreation 

setting in particular areas, such as along heavily used recreation roads, protecting the historic and 

recreational trails, and reducing the impact to the setting from treatment slash. However, outside 

of those areas the vegetation treatments in progress, or recently completed, will be evident for up 

to 5 years, having a short-term negative effect on the recreation setting. These treatment areas 

will be scattered across the landscape and in varying stages of recovery from year to year. There 

will be some short term negative effects to recreation settings, especially with regards to the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 269

percentage of the settings for SPM and SPNM in recovery from treatment. The long-term effects 

of reducing fuels and improved stand conditions are considered to be very beneficial; the 

improvements will provide for better long-term protection of forest health from potentially large 

and damaging stand-replacing wildfires, or from widespread damaging insect kill. Healthy 

forests are critical to providing high quality and highly desirable recreation settings and 

opportunities. The Bill Williams project would improve the cumulative effectiveness and overall 

ability to protect recreational resources in the long term across the cumulative effects analysis 

area.

3.11 Scenic Resources

3.11-1 Purpose and Need

The Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project (shortened to BWMR) will thin vegetation and 

use prescribed fire to improve the health and sustainability of the forested conditions on and 

surrounding Bill Williams Mountain. There will be related road construction activities, and a 

trailhead and trail will be relocated.

Plant communities throughout the project area have changed significantly from their historic 

condition due to fire suppression, historic logging and other management activities. Historic 

vegetation components of quaking aspen and meadows have declined across the landscape 

because of fire suppression and conifer encroachment. The regeneration of aspen in the project 

area is poor due to dense forest conditions and browsing pressure on aspen saplings. Springs and 

seeps have reduced function due to drought, lack of fire and closed forest canopies. The Kaibab 

National Forest (KNF) has identified the needed road system for public and administrative 

motorized travel and roads and routes that should be decommissioned due to resource concerns.

The scope of this analysis focuses on scenery management within the approximately 18,000 acres 

Bill Williams Mountain project area.

This report documents the analysis of effects of proposed Bill Williams Project vegetation 

treatments on scenic resources located in the area. 

Recreation and scenic resource are closely related resources, as high quality scenery is often very 

important to providing high quality recreation settings. This close relationship is reflected in 

Spectrum and Scenery Management System direction and mapping. Both of these cultural and 

social resources are extremely important to the City of William’s tourism industry and on the 

local resident’s quality of life.

3.11-2 Introduction

Viewing scenery is one of the most sought after recreation activities on the KNF (Forest Service 

2012). Scenic quality within the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration (BWMR) project area is 

particularly important to those who enjoy the views from the City of Williams, Interstate 40, 

Highway 89A, adjacent Forest Roads, developed recreation sites and trails (USDA 2007). 

Scenery also contributes indirectly to local quality of life, tourism and economic vitality, and the 

KNF’s scenic heritage.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

270 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

The BWMR project will help achieve the desired conditions for scenery as defined in the forest 

plan (Forest Service 2010): “Protect and enhance the scenic and aesthetic values of the Kaibab 

National Forest”. 

3.11-3 Project Level Scenic Inventory

Sense of Place

Bill Williams Mountain serves as a backdrop to Williams, Arizona, and is the dominant element 

in forming the city’s sense of place nestled at the base of the mountain on the north side. Bill 

Williams Mountain (BWM) has served as a local landmark from prehistory through the present. It 

has been a resource for humans through time providing water, forest products, forage for 

livestock, habitat that supports game and wildlife, and as a part of people’s lives and culture. The 

mountain is a reminder of seasonal change, as well as viewing pleasure. The BWM is highly 

visible from major highways in the surrounding area including Interstate 40, US Highway 89A, 

and State Highway 64, as well as the BNSF railroad which includes Amtrak passenger train 

service. Thousands of people travelling through the area view the attractive picture of the small 

town in the mountainous setting. As such, Bill Williams Mountain is a part of the community’s 

image and sense of place.

Bill Williams Mountain’s forested character and role as a backyard forest is recognized and 

documented in the 2007 KNF Recreation Niche (Forest Service):

“Settings, Special Places, and Values: ... the Forest steps up through extensive forests of 

...ponderosa pine to forests of fir and spruce...The Kaibab National Forest is the traditional 

home of Native people and continues to play an important role in their lives. It is a backyard 

forest with generations of family connections and provides commodities and tourism’s 

economic benefits for local businesses... Providing respite from the valley heat, the Forest is 

also a destination for those seeking a summer oasis to relax, and enjoy activities such as 

hiking, bird-watching, fishing and sightseeing. 

Oasis - Provide opportunity to escape the heat in the desert valleys. Higher elevation; 

includes the sky islands - Bill Williams Mountain, Sitgreaves Mountain, and the Kaibab 

Plateau, dominated by ponderosa pine forest and scenic meadows and prairies.”

Existing Landscape Character

The following is the existing landscape character description from the Kaibab NF ROS/SMS 

Guidebook (Forest Service 2004). “The Bill Williams Project is located within the Flagstaff 

Character Type, a fairly un-dissected plateau with extensive lava flows and volcanic cones, 

drained by dry washes with a few natural and created reservoirs. Coniferous forest, primarily 

montane conifer, is the predominate vegetation. Mountain meadow grassland, aspen, plains 

grassland, and pinyon-juniper woodland are common to parts of the area. Stringers of riparian 

deciduous forest and woodland are common along watercourses.”

Site Specific Characteristics

Landform: Bill Williams Mountain is the highest point on the KNF at an elevation of 9,256 feet 

above sea level. It is part of the San Francisco volcanic field (USGS 2001). Bill Williams 

Mountain is made of a cluster of lava domes. Lava domes are formed from viscous lava that piles 

up into dome-shaped mounds. Other dome-cluster mountains in the San Francisco volcanic field 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 271

include Sitgreaves Mountain and Kendrick Mountain (Forest Service 2011). The volcanic origins 

of the mountain result in rocky outcrops and formations. Finger Rock as depicted below in Figure 

3.11-2 is found on the south side of Bill Williams Mountain. Many of the smaller outcrops and 

rocky terrain are not visible through the thick vegetative cover. Large rock formations are 

dominant features in the foreground and middleground of the mid and upper regions of BWM.

The landform has received minor modifications as forest roads have been built, trails constructed, 

utility corridors cleared, and structures erected. These structural features are noticeable and 

detract somewhat from the scenic integrity of the mountain.

Figure 3.11-2. Finger Rock formation on Bill Williams Mountain.

Waterform: Seeps, springs and ephemeral drainages are minor attributes of the landscape 

character. They contribute to the valued image of the landscape, but are less noticeable. Springs 

and seeps on the mountain provide isolated green oases where plant and animal life and activity 

occur. Many different plant species can be found in these places and they provide brief climatic 

relief and contrast to the surrounding coniferous forest. Springs are special for viewing 

wildflowers and moisture loving plants, butterflies, moths, bees and other insects, as well as birds 

and other wildlife. Springs have provided water for human occupants and visitors over time. In 

addition, a number of ephemeral drainages provide seasonal flowing water, a rare commodity on 

the KNF.

Vegetation: The overstory vegetation is the most dominant scenic attribute in the project area. 

The mountain has coniferous cover in most places. In the foothills of Bill Williams Mountain 

ponderosa pine trees prevail. Secondary components include white fir, Gambel oak, and alligator 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

272 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

juniper. At upper elevations, the vegetation changes to mixed conifer where components of 

Douglas fir and white fir increase and are mixed with scattered aspen and ponderosa pine. On the 

west side of the mountain, there is a pinyon-juniper unit included in the project area. Species 

include alligator juniper, scattered ponderosa pine, Gambel oak, Utah juniper, and pinyon pine.

Understory vegetation is currently a minor attribute. It includes small trees and shrubs such as 

choke cherry, maple, mountain mahogany and cliff rose, currant and wild rose, grasses such as 

Arizona fescue and mountain muhly, and forbs. In the pinyon-juniper forest types, the understory 

component changes to include different shrub, grass and forb species.

Aspen is an important visual component on the mountain, both for the contrasting color, scale and 

texture that stands provide and for the seasonal color change that attracts viewers to the area. 

Gambel oak is also an important hardwood visual component. Oak trees provide a contrast in 

color, texture and scale. Aspen and oak are minor attributes that contribute to the valued image.

Natural meadows, grasslands, open savannahs and forest openings within the project are notable 

visual components because of the contrast in color, texture, shape and scale they provide. 

Openings are minor attributes.

Scenic Identity

The BWMR project area’s dominant scenic identity is its largely continuous, conifer forest and 

openings overlaying the moderate to steeply sloping volcanic landforms. The project area is 

viewed at all distances from inventoried sensitive roadways in and around the project area. The 

major positive scenery attribute of the project area is its coniferous forest vegetation, primarily 

composed of ponderosa pine, mixed conifer stands with meadows and openings. Pinyon and 

juniper occur at lower elevations. Aspen, oak trees, and other mixed hardwoods are interspersed 

(see Figures 3.11-3 and 4). Patterns of this vegetative mosaic are moderate to fine-scaled, with 

many irregular openings. Openings less than 5 acres in size are difficult to distinguish due to 

dense vegetation, yet some openings over 25 acres are distinguishable. Other scenery attributes 

include volcanic rocks and outcrops of all sizes. Seasonal changes including reliable winter 

snowfall accents the scenery as do wildlife sightings of birds and mammals. Research shows that 

such diversity of scenery attributes supports a positive viewing experience for people traveling 

through or recreating within the project area, and supports the quality of life for local residents 

and visitors (Ryan 2005).
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 273

Figure 3.11-3. Bill Williams Mountain in a background view from downtown Williams, AZ.

Figure 3.11-4 Foreground mixed conifer on top of Bill Williams Mountain, and looking to 

background at Williams, AZ.

Ecosystem Context
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

274 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Vegetation is the dominant scenery attribute of the BWMR project area. Landform is a minor 

scenic attribute. Both offer significant opportunities for scenery. The steep slopes of the mountain 

make it a dramatic landscape feature. Rocky outcrops and formations contribute to the unique 

identity of the mountain, and contribute to the complexity of planning management activities that 

may occur there. 

Reference conditions are those vegetative conditions that existed on this forest at a point of time 

prior to Euro-American settlement of the area. As explained in the Existing and Desired 

Conditions Report (Forest Service 2011) The analysis uses the year 1870 as a reference point 

because it is just prior to Euro-American settlement of the area and it is a point in time where past 

tree stocking can still be estimated by looking at presettlement evidence that still exists on the site 

(old trees, stumps, fallen trees, stump holes). 

Research in Northern Arizona show that the average ponderosa pine basal area historically was 

about 40 square feet per acre (sf/ac). The current average basal area of ponderosa pine in the 

project area is 121 sf/acre, almost three times historic conditions (see BWMR EIS Section 3.2 

Silviculture). The basal area of mixed conifer, pinyon and juniper vegetation types have also 

increased. The ponderosa pine and mixed conifer types on the project area are at high risk of 

declining forest health due to dense conditions and competition for sunlight and nutrients, as well 

as susceptibility to high intensity wildfire (see Appendix A Scenic Stability Analysis). In 

addition, the understory of these types is declining since its health is dependent upon forest stand 

openness. The understory is also at high risk due to these same ecological stressors.

Of the minor scenery attributes, aspen is at high risk due to conifer encroachment, lack of fires 

typical of the historic fire regime, and browsing by ungulates. As noted in Section 3-2 (BWMR 

DEIS Silviculture Section), the aspen cover type within the project area have been encroached 

and suppressed by conifer species resulting in a decline to the population (Fairweather et al 

2008).

Due to the spatial arrangement of high density trees and fuels, the slopes of Bill Williams 

Mountain currently pose a high risk of stand replacement crown fire. Over 80% of the project 

area could carry crown fires and about 17% could carry surface fire (see BWMR DEIS Section 3-

4 Fires and Fuels). Closed tree canopies with understory tree regeneration create “ladder fuels” to 

carry surface fires into the overstory. The ponderosa pine type and mixed conifer forest within the 

project area is at a high risk for stand replacing wildfires while the risk for the woodland types in 

the project area ranges from moderate to high. Stands on the slopes of the mountain are at high to 

extreme risk for crown fire.

The dense vegetation and risk of fire has departed from the natural historic range of variability in 

terms of fire history and vegetation condition. The project area’s Scenic Character is in need of 

widespread restoration, primarily through extensive reduction of forest canopy density, , and 

restoration of the historic fire cycle, to re-create historic ecologically diverse and resilient 

conditions that can best sustain desired scenery conditions. 

Trends for these impaired vegetation conditions result in a continuing decline in forest health, and 

scenery attributes. Over time, the excessively dense conifer stands have and will increasingly 

experience competition for available light, water and nutrients, become more stagnant and subject 

to increased insect and disease risks, and gradually die or likely be consumed by wildfire. These 

conditions would further increase the risk of large and intense wildfires that would inevitably 

eliminate many vegetation scenery attributes within large portions of the project area. It is likely 

that large scale burn patterns will be inconsistent with the more historic patterns created by 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 275

natural wildfire cycles. Refer to the BWMR DEIS Silviculture and Fire and Fuels analyses for 

more specifics on vegetation trends (Sections 3.2 and 3.3).

Cultural Context

The project area is highly visible and viewed by large numbers of people form from important 

heavily used travel corridors, including Interstate 40, Highway 64, County Rd 73 (a.k.a. 

Perkinsville Rd, or South Rd), Forest Road (FR) 108 (a.k.a. Bill Williams Mountain Loop Rd.), 

FR 122 (a.k.a. Twin Springs Rd.) and secondary travel-ways through the forest. Beyond the 

project area, private landowners and campers at Dogtown Lake Campground view the planning 

area and the surrounding landscapes from the campground, backyards and porches. The 

landscapes they view on a daily basis is likely very important to their quality of life. Also of 

import are the “special areas” in the project area, which hold high value and meaning for visitors 

and local residents (spiritual, aesthetic, nostalgic, or other). Bill Williams Mountain, Elk Ridge 

Ski Area, Buckskinner Park, Bill Williams Mountain Loop Rd, Twin Springs Rd., and Vista Point 

were all identified specifically as “special places” by respondents of the 2000-2001 South Kaibab 

Visitor Survey (Forest Service). Most respondents to the survey also said they prefer an 

undisturbed natural area with no evidence of humans. 

In the 2010 National Visitor Use Monitoring survey (Forest Service 2012), visitor satisfaction 

was measured. In the comparison of importance and level of satisfaction for condition of the 

environment and scenery, visitors reported the KNF was at or above the highest rating in these 

areas. The importance of the surrounding forested environment and attractive scenery are 

repeated themes mentioned in the Williams Strategic Plan for Economic Development (December 

1994). The benefits of high-quality scenery are numerous despite the fact that a dollar value is 

seldom assigned to it, except in regard to real estate appraisals and overall tourism revenue to the 

town.

Desired Conditions

The desired Scenic Character for the BWMR project area would display a much more open and 

diverse forest canopy and vegetative mosaic. This would include representation of all age groups 

and size classes, especially large, old coniferous and deciduous trees. Trees would be arranged in 

groups with inter-tree space as well as openings around the groups. There would be a greater 

representation of aspen and meadows. The presence of tightly grouped intermediate-sized trees 

would be greatly reduced. Trees that have encroached into meadows and over-shaded aspen 

groves or large oak trees are thinned or removed, opening up these areas. Small and moderate 

sized irregularly shaped openings/grass-forb meadows would be more frequent, bounded by trees 

of all ages, including full-crowned, old, mature conifers and deciduous species (aspen, oak), 

accented by volcanic rock forms. The more open forest will provide improved views to of 

attractive understory vegetation, wildlife, volcanic rock forms, snow features, seasonal color 

changes and more distant views outward from the forest canopy. In some areas wildlife species 

require different habitat conditions, and these are accommodated. See the Wildlife Section 3.6 for 

specific information. Lastly, re-introduction of wildfire evidence into the scenery is desired, 

primarily within finely-scaled and irregularly-shaped, low- and moderate-intensity burn patterns 

that are consistent with historic conditions.

These scenery attributes described above would be distributed through time and space to offer 

increased attractiveness in terms of vegetative forms, colors, canopy texture and immediate 

foreground spatial variety, while improving the overall Scenic Character. These conditions shall 

be strategically arranged to increase the ecological resilience and stability of vegetation scenery 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

276 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

attributes which are central to Bill Williams Mountain’s historic Scenic Character, image, and 

identity.

The Desired Scenic Character for the BWMR project includes two elements: (1) the desired 

Scenic Character described above, and (2) variations to that character as necessary to meet project 

objectives for wildlife habitat, heritage resources, fuels reduction, forest health and resiliency. 

These essential elements as a whole form the fully integrated, holistic Desired Scenic Character 

of the project, and would offer greater ecological resilience and long term stability of the Desired 

Scenic Character.

Scenic Integrity

At the lower foothills of BWM, ponderosa pine vegetation forms a dense coniferous cover. The 

pine trees have a somewhat spreading conical, upright form with brown to black tree boles and 

olive-green fine textured needles. Deciduous trees have a wider, shorter shape in contrast to the 

conical pine trees. Oak and aspen have moderately coarse textures and in growing seasons, a 

brighter green colors that is readily visible in contrast to the olive green conifers. This color 

contrast is even more noticeable in the fall when the deciduous tree leaves turn colors. In winter, 

the lighter grey bark color of the deciduous species contrasts with the brown/black of pine tree 

boles. Below the pine trees is sparse understory of grasses and forbs. The understory is mostly a 

low, fine textured form, although downed logs and rock outcrops provide contrast to the uniform 

texture. Understory colors include greens, tans, and shades of grey. In drainages there are shrubby 

species that add complexity in the midstory complexity of form, as well as contrasts in color, 

texture and pattern.

In the mixed conifer, the narrow, conical nature and varying colors of the different species is 

more noticeable. Less of the tree bole is visible and the tree branches extend down closer to the 

forest floor. There is little understory vegetation under the dense mixed conifer trees. Where 

openings are present, there is a grass-forb understory. In places, aspen is mixed with conifers and 

provides a contrast in color, texture and shape. Meadows provide welcome views as well as low, 

uniform and finely textured shapes.

The pinyon-juniper forest on the west side of BWM has rounder, shorter, less conical shapes. The 

colors of the trees are also different from either pine or mixed conifer forests ranging from a 

darker olive green to grey green. There are more interspaces around individual trees. Understory 

vegetation species change and are more connected and dense, and there is little or no layer of pine 

needles (duff) on the forest floor, bare ground can be seen. Volcanic outcrops and formations 

provide striking contrasts to the vegetation components. Dense conifer vegetation often obscures 

views of existing scenery attributes within and below the understory, and greatly restricts or 

prevents the visibility of many potential scenery attributes.

The vegetation offers opportunities for ecosystem improvement. The current excessive vegetation 

density and hazardous fuels conditions are inconsistent with the Desired Scenic Character and 

scenic sustainability. 

Based on historic photographs, the forest structure, openings, meadows and other features have 

noticeably changed. Figures 3.11-5 and 6 illustrate an example of comparison photographs from 

1910 and a reshoot of the same location taken in 2011. Note the openings, mature, old tree 

component, and sparse versus dense tree cover in the 1910 photo. Human constructed features 

visible include the road on the upper slopes of BWM and possibly a constructed structure at the 

top of the mountain. The ranch structures shown in 1910 no longer exist. In the 2011 photo, the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 277

powerline corridor is dominant. Tree cover is much denser and obscures small openings and tree 

interspaces. The foreground trees almost completely block views into the forest. The road on 

BWM is less visible because of denser tree cover. Fewer openings and inter-tree spaces occur.

The photos found in Figure 3.11-7 don’t have the benefit of a historic comparison, but helps to 

illustrate the pinyon-juniper vegetation type found on the west side of BWM. There are more 

interspace between trees, there is a bunchier understory component, and bare ground is visible 

(versus being covered with pine needles and duff at higher elevations).

Figure 3.11-5. Benham Ranch House ca. 1910 (Benham Collection).

Figure 3.11-6. Benham Ranch reshoot, 2011. (Weintraub)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

278 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.11-7 Photo of the western slopes of Bill Williams Mountain.

Among the many potential scenery attributes that are under-represented are large, old trees, 

diverse age groups and mature forest structures (especially aspen and pines as individual trees and 

groups), and meadows with shrubs, grasses and forbs. Many meadow areas have decreased in size 

and are being encroached upon by conifers, and/or are obscured from view by dense coniferous 

vegetation in ponderosa pine, mixed conifer and pinyon-juniper types. Inter-tree spaces so evident 

in the 1910 photos have mostly disappeared. Aspen stands are old and in some cases decadent 

and reproduction has been hampered by fire suppression and ungulate browsing. Some aspen 

stands are encroached by conifers. Oak thickets are often overtopped or crowded by young 

conifers. The dense conifer vegetation obscures visibility to even nearby volcanic rock forms and 

outcrops, and the understory is often sparse and lacks diversity. Many “view windows” outward 

to adjacent areas of the KNF and to landforms are obscured by vegetation. In addition, human 

constructed features including buildings, recreation sites, roads, trails and utility corridors, as well 

as management activities such as logging, right-of-way clearing and fire suppression have 

interrupted and diminished scenic vegetation attributes in some places within the project area. 

The sum of these occurrences has resulted in forest canopy that is excessively dense and uniform, 

or, fragmented in patterns and shapes inconsistent with the historic, vegetative mosaic.

As noted in the Kaibab NF ROS-SMS Guidebook (Forest Service 2004), historic and more recent 

human disturbances have resulted in changes to the ecosystem: “The area is dominated by 

ponderosa pine type forest, which, although largely natural-appearing, has experienced significant 

changes since European settlement. Above 8,000 feet on Bill Williams Mountain there is mixed 

conifer, a combination of Douglas fire, white fir and blue spruce. Intensive livestock grazing, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 279

forestry practices such as railroad logging, and fire suppression have all contributed to the 

changes in forest structure and ecosystem processes. The historic condition of scattered groups of 

yellow pines with abundant grassy understory and a few denser groups of black jack pines has 

changed to more dense thickets of sapling and pole sized stands of pines. The existing forest is 

less diverse and more prone to catastrophic change than historically, since the previous 

disturbance regime of frequent, low-intensity fires have been replaced by a regime of standreplacing, high-intensity fires.”

Some springs, such as Clover Spring, were piped to provide community water sources. Bill 

Williams Mountain is critical to the City of Williams watershed. Williams is dependent upon a 

number of constructed reservoirs that collect seasonal runoff, as well as groundwater wells that 

provide water for the community. No constructed reservoirs are included in the project area, but 

they are at risk from ecological stressors that could alter the conditions in the project.

Existing roads in the area also offer opportunities for ecosystem improvement. Many of the high 

clearance and closed roads (Maintenance Level 2 and 1) run straight up and down slopes, and a 

few go up drainages. County Road 73 and designated forest roads create linear features through 

the landscape. The roads and the recreation developments also provide viewing platforms into the 

project area as well as from the mountain into the surrounding landscape.

Hikers, mountain bikers and horseback riders use the trails that climb into the foothills at the base 

of, and climb up Bill Williams Mountain. Trails include Benham Trail, Clover Springs Trail, 

Bixler Saddle, and City Link. These provide linear features through the landscape, but are at a 

smaller scale, and can be more easily designed to work with topographic features. 

Many recreationists enjoy camping along FR 122 and 108. In order to get off the forest roads, 

campers typically drive off the shoulder and have created a network of short routes to areas where 

they park and set up camp. Motorized travel management implemented in 2011 designates some 

of these short routes as roads open to public travel (and camping). These linear roads and cleared 

areas contrast with the characteristic landscape. 

Elk Ridge Ski Area attracts winter enthusiasts and also provides some summer activities. It 

includes a series of cleared ski runs, a tow rope and ski lift, as well as a ski lodge and associated 

buildings. The linear, cleared runs and constructed features contrast with the forested landscape.

As noted in the purpose and need of the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project, the health 

and sustainability of forested conditions and hazardous fuels are currently outside of guidelines 

identified in the Kaibab Forest Plan. The proposed project would result in better forest plan 

compliance as well as improved watershed conditions contributing to the City of Williams water 

supply. This will meet Forest Plan direction for scenery is to “Protect and enhance the scenic and 

aesthetic values of the Kaibab National Forest.” In order to reduce risks and enhance scenic 

values, the Forest Plan also encourages management activities “Where existing conditions do not 

meet mapped ROS or Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIOs), design and implement projects to move 

the area toward desired conditions” (Forest Service 2010). Reduction of risk to the scenic 

attributes will help to meet Forest Plan direction as well as ensuring that the valued scenery will 

be available into the future.

3.11-4 Analysis Questions to be Answered

The analysis questions 1-3 are the required scenery indicators that identify and measure scenic 

quality (Scenery Management System, Appendix J, NFMA/Forest Plan)
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

280 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

1. To what degree will the proposed restoration activities affect the scenic integrity of the project 

area? (Measure: Maintain or improve Scenic Integrity - acres)

2. Will the proposed restoration activities sustain the valued scenic character and its scenery 

attributes through time? (Measure: Maintain or improve scenic character – acres, Maintain or 

improve scenic attributes – number of attributes improved)

Analysis questions are related to Scoping/Public Involvement

3. In what ways would prescribed burning smoke affect the scenery? (Measure: Descriptive 

evaluation)

4. Are large, mature trees retained as part of the scenic character? (Measure: Maintain or improve 

scenic attribute – large, mature trees)

3.11-5 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 No Action

If the proposed action were not implemented, the project area would continue to be mostly 

natural-appearing for several years. Important scenery attributes such as open and diverse 

overstory vegetation and healthy understory would continue to have overly dense growing 

conditions and views into and out from the forest would be blocked by trees. Grasslands and 

mixed hardwoods would continue to be overtopped and encroached upon by conifers. The large, 

old tree character that historically contributed to the attractiveness of the area would be limited. 

Historic fire regimes would not be re-established, limiting nutrient recycling and allowing the 

density of forest fuels to increase. Declining aspen would become more and more decadent and 

could at some time disappear altogether from the project area. 

At some point, overstocked vegetative conditions may be attacked by insects or disease, or 

experience an uncharacteristically large and intense wildfire that would burn much of the 

vegetation that is the primary scenic attribute. While some insect and disease activity occurs 

every day, the overly dense conditions combined with extreme weather events characteristic of 

climate change could allow these to escalate and become wide spread. Large, high intensity fires 

have become more common with increasing tree density and lack of a regular fire regime. Large 

scale events such as these would be outside the range of historic variability. 

In the event of an uncharacteristic high severity wildfire such as the Schultz Fire, the existing 

landscape character would be suddenly altered with little opportunity to slow or control the 

change. The SIO’s in the project area would have to be remapped and uncharacteristic high 

severity, large-scale wildfire would redefine and reshape the existing landscape character for 

decades if not centuries. The appearance and character of the area would shift from densely 

forested to patchy and open. The overstory component and green canopy would be absent or 

drastically reduced, depending on the severity of the fire. For a few decades, the landscape would 

be dominated by blackened, dead standing trees; if allowed to come down on their own, the trees 

would likely fall in a dense, jack-straw pattern. Although short term, smoke from high intensity 

wildfire would cause scenic quality to be diminished and if thick enough, would obscure views to 

scenic attributes.

In the short term following high intensity fire, emergency fire suppression actions such as fire 

lines and emergency post-fire rehabilitation treatments could result in unnatural scars on the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 281

landscape. With rehabilitation and other mitigation measures, the immediate impacts of the 

suppression and emergency treatments should not be evident to the casual forest visitor within 2 

to 3 years of completion, although effects from the fire itself would remain visible much longer. 

For two to three growing seasons, the blackened, exposed ground surfaces would be highly 

visible due to lack of vegetation. Sedimentation and erosion would increase, raveling soils that 

would take a long time to revegetate. Eventually these areas would be covered with spotty 

vegetation and invasive weeds until native material became established. Within 5 years, the 

effects of the fire would begin to be viewed in a somewhat more positive light as the shrubby 

understory, seedlings and saplings became more abundant. There is some risk that a vegetation 

type change could occur especially if there is wide spread drought, and/or if trends toward higher 

temperatures, and less annual precipitation continue. These changes would be visible throughout 

the project area in the foreground of Forest roads and trails, and as middle ground and 

background views from communities within the project area, and developed recreation sites.

Initial public reaction to a large-scale fire tends to be negative, as many people do not consider 

extensive, blackened landscapes to be natural or beneficial (Ryan 2005). These effects are often 

perceived by local residents as devastating to their community and way of life; non-local forest 

visitors may regard the effects of a catastrophic fire as interesting and something “to be seen” but 

also as a degradation of the scenic quality.

Indirect effects of high intensity wildfire include short term and temporary smoke that would 

affect nearby subdivisions, the City of Williams, and in large, high acreage blazes, could affect 

the City of Flagstaff, Sedona and Verde Valley, Grand Canyon and residents of the Navajo 

Nation. Effects would include smoky conditions and decreased visibility, and would last until the 

fire was contained and declared as “out”. Other indirect effects of high intensity wildfire could 

include damage to the Bill Williams watershed (see section 3.4 of the BWMRP DEIS) with 

subsequent effects to local reservoirs, the City of Williams water system, and the scenic character 

of locally important recreation sites such as Cataract Lake, Kaibab Lake and Dogtown Lake, as 

well as hiking trails, wildlife viewing opportunities and others.

Under this alternative there would be no opportunities to enhance and improve scenic resources 

or achieve the desired condition described in Section 2 since there would be no thinning or other 

treatments. It would maintain the existing landscape character in the short term, but in the long 

term the existing landscape character would decline.

This alternative would not meet the project’s desired conditions or forest plan direction. It would 

not move the project area toward scenic stability. Over time, scenic stability would decrease and 

move to very low. No action would result in continuation of current risks to scenic attributes and 

it is reasonable to assume that these risks increase each year and could be exacerbated by climate 

change. The No Action alternative would not meet long-term scenic integrity objectives since 

these are dependent upon improving the condition of scenic attributes so that they are more 

resilient to ecological stressors.

Since there is no change in existing condition with this alternative, there are no direct, indirect or 

cumulative effects.

Alternative 2 Proposed Action
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

282 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Preparation of sale areas may have slight effects to scenery from marking trees and project 

boundaries. These will be mitigated by using butt marks on the side facing sensitive travel 

corridors (bole marks will be facing away from sensitive road corridors). 

Mechanical Treatments

Approximately 15,200 acres of the project area would receive mechanical treatments including 

use of conventional ground based logging systems, cable logging and helicopter logging. In 

addition, approximately 2,500 acres in the strategic fuels treatment area would be thinned by hand 

or use of machinery equipped with cutting or grinding heads may be used. 

Conventional ground based logging systems include, but are not limited to: use of chainsaws or 

feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash, skidders to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile 

slash, and specialized equipment such as feller-bunchers, and tree shears to cut, chop, break, and 

lop fuel material. Cable systems use a yarder equipped with a system of cables to pull logs to a 

landing, loaders to move logs and logging trucks to haul logs. Skyline cable systems lift the logs 

off the ground to transport them instead of dragging logs across the ground. Helicopter logging 

uses helicopters to remove cut and limbed trees from an area by lifting them on with cables 

attached to a helicopter. Logs are “decked” in a central area to be hauled away.

There would be light to extensive effects on scenic quality during and immediately following 

mechanical treatments. 

• Hand thinning usually has little or no short term effects on scenery. Trees are cut down, 

then cut into segments that can be treated. Effects may include slash from limbing and topping 

trees. Project mitigations require slash to be treated.

• Conventional logging typically has moderate short term effects to scenery. During 

implementation, in most cases whole trees are cut and moved to a “landing” near a haul road. At 

the landing, the limbs and tops are removed, and the clean logs are decked to be loaded and 

hauled away. After vegetation has been thinned, the slash remains. Effects of logging operations 

typically include trampling of vegetation where equipment is operating, creation of linear skid 

trails where vegetation is trampled or completely removed exposing bare soil, creation of linear 

log landings where vegetation has been trampled or removed and bare soil is exposed, and piles 

of cull logs not suitable for commercial uses. After logs or useable material is removed, slash 

would be treated as per mitigation measures. This may include: bulldozers pushing slash into 

large piles (10-20 foot wide piles, often 10 feet tall) which can trample vegetation and cause bare 

soil to be exposed, hand piling, chipping, crushing, and lopping and scattering.

• Cable systems are used to transport cut logs to centralized processing areas and typically 

have extensive, short term effects to scenery. Trees are cut and limbed, then cables pull the trees 

to the landing area. Many cut trees are transported along a common corridor which can be up to 

1000 feet long and are about 15 feet wide. In order to remove trees in a large area, corridors 

would be established about every 100 feet. Effects typically include scraping and loss of limbs on 

existing trees as a result of adjacent trees being felled or transported, creation of linear corridors, 

slash, creation of large, cleared landings where logs are decked and equipment can be 

accommodated (moved and turned). Following log removal, activity slash must be treated. 

Methods may include bunching and piling slash mechanically which can trample vegetation and 

cause bare soil to be exposed, hand piling, chipping, crushing, and lopping and scattering.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 283

• Helicopter systems transport logs or trees to central log decks. Helicopter logging 

typically has moderate to extensive effects on scenery. Trees would be cut and limbed. Logs 

would have cables attached, then would be lifted up and transported away from the cutting area to 

central locations (log decks) where the logs are detached from the cables. Equipment such as 

grapplers are used at the log decks to stack logs and load them into trucks for transport. Effects 

include scraping and loss of limbs on existing trees as a result of adjacent trees being felled or 

transported, creation of large, cleared landings where logs are decked and equipment can be 

accommodated (moved and turned) and helicopters can be landed. Following log removal, 

activity slash must be treated which may include bunching and piling mechanically which can 

trample vegetation and cause bare soil to be exposed, hand piling, chipping, crushing, and lopping 

and scattering. The effects of slash treatment are short term depending on how slash is treated. 

Chipping has the least effects because the chips will begin to grey out and become less noticeable 

in one to two years. Hand piling creates noticeable piles, but after these are burned, there is a 

shorter recovery time than with mechanical piling. Lop and scatter results in untreated slash since 

it is allowed to remain in an area until it is burned. Ryan (2005) found this is not as acceptable as 

when slash is treated either by chipping or piling. Mechanical piling effects are found above 

under cable logging.

Road Construction would have moderate to extensive effects on scenic quality during and 

immediately following restoration treatments.

• Construction of approximately 23 miles of new roads to provide access for ground-based 

logging systems will have extensive short term effects on scenery. The new roads would add new, 

unnatural linear features into the landscape. Trees would be removed, soil exposed, and roadbeds 

constructed including minimal drainage features. Most of the new roads would be closed 

following restoration treatments. The status of the new roads that would be closed would change 

to intermittent. Mitigation measures would be used to close entrance points and Best Management 

Practices for watershed would ensure drainage is adequate and the roads would be allowed to 

naturalize. Mitigation measures and best management practices will be used to rehabilitate the 

road beds. The new roads would naturalize in 5 to 10 years and become less noticeable to the 

casual observer.

• Construction of approximately 16 miles of temporary roads would result in extensive 

short term effects on scenery. Effects are similar to new road construction noted above, although 

the temporary roads would be obliterated after use. Mitigation measures would be used to close 

entrance points and Best Management Practices for watershed would ensure drainage is reestablished and the roads can rehabilitate. The temporary roads would begin to recover and 

should be mostly recovered and less noticeable to the casual observer in 5 to 10 years.

• Road obliteration of 28 miles of roads would entail obliteration whereby road surfaces 

would be ripped and seeded or mulched, inside ditches would be filled, road prisms outsloped, 

culverts and fill materials removed, stream crossings re-contoured, unstable sidecast or cutslopes 

removed or stabilized, and entrances blocked to prevent future access (see Soils/Watershed 

Section 3.4). These would have moderate short term effects to scenery. Mitigation measures 

would help return these roads to a more stable status. The obliterated roads would begin to 

recover after treatment and would be mostly recovered and less noticeable to the casual observer 

in 5 to 10 years.

Strategic fuels treatments would have low effects on scenic quality immediately after treatment. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

284 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

• Strategic fuels treatments would enhance fire control lines enabling prescribed fire to be 

safely implemented. They include hand thinning or use of machinery equipped with cutting or 

grinding heads on 300 feet either side of control lines. Slash is treated within the cleared area, and 

this becomes the staging area for implementing prescribed burning blocks. Effects include short 

term introduction of linear features throughout the area. Upon completion of prescribed burning it 

is expected that the linear features will not be as noticeable because the density of trees on either 

side of the treatment areas would be thinned and/or burned reducing the number of trees. 

Fuels reduction and reintroduction of fire would have moderate effects on scenic quality 

immediately after treatment, and low effects after repeat burning.

• Prescribed fire would be used on approximately 15,200 acres of the project areas within 

all Operability Zones. It may be used in conjunction with mechanical treatments or singly. The 

objective of prescribed burning is to reduce fuel loading, raise crown base heights and reduce live 

tree density. Repeat or maintenance burning would help maintain these objectives. Depending on 

fire severity, effects would include: charred soil and vegetation immediately following burning; 

charred bark up to 10 feet from the ground; needle and leaf scorch typically less than 20 feet from 

the ground; and, loss of understory trees, trees with old scars or trees with large accumulations of 

dead fuels at their base. In areas of moderate to high severity, openings may be created as a result 

of more extensive tree mortality. The presence of charred surface vegetation and red or black 

trees would present a contrast to the otherwise green surroundings. These contrasts would soften 

and become less noticeable within two or three growing seasons after project completion as the 

understory component (i.e., grass, aspen and oak seedlings, etc.) moved in, as singed but not dead 

trees recovered and greened up, and as dead standing trees fell down. Effects may last longer and 

be more pronounced in areas of moderate to high fire severity, but these areas would be localized 

and limited. Repeat burning would temporarily blacken the forest floor, some charred bark, and 

scorch or burning of some understory trees and shrubs. These effects typically soften after one 

year, and are less noticeable to the casual observer after 2 to 3 years.

• Effects from pile burning would be primarily limited to the immediate dead and live 

fuels of the slash pile, although some scorching and mortality of residual trees would be expected. 

Following burning, the bare areas are susceptible to invasive species. Mitigation measures for 

invasive species will monitor and treat infested areas. The areas are expected to revegetate within 

1 to 3 years following burning.

• Smoke from pile burning and prescribed burning creates short term and temporary effects 

on scenic quality. During implementation, smoke would obscure views of the mountain. Effects 

to residents and visitors to the Williams area may be dissatisfied that their views are obstructed, 

and scenic features are obscured. Very smoky conditions typically occur during the first entry of 

prescribed burning due to heavy fuel loadings. There can be lingering smoke for two weeks to a 

month after burning as stumps, large logs and roots smolder. Smoke from repeat burns should be 

less than the initial prescribed burns, since there would be less fuel to be consumed.

There may be indirect effects of smoke as well since it drifts and is pushed by air currents. 

Nearby developed recreation sites, houses and subdivisions, and the community of Williams may 

experience reduced visibility and smoky conditions. Dispersed campers and other recreationists 

may experience reduced visibility and smoky conditions in some places near the project area.

Trails work in this project would have low to moderate effects on scenic quality.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 285

• Activities would include construction of a new parking area and trailhead for Bixler Trail, 

conversion of a portion of FR 45 to a non-motorized trail, and constructing about 1 mile of new 

trail. Effects would include removal of vegetation and construction of new features including the 

parking lot and installation of trailhead signing, placement of barriers, and creation of new trail 

segments (new linear features). Mitigations would include the use of rustic materials (boulders, 

logs, local surfacing materials) or materials that will blend in with the surrounding landscape. The 

new trail section will be most visible immediately after construction when there is the greatest 

contrast between the bare soil and surrounding vegetation. These effects will soften as trailside 

vegetation is re-established. Conversion of FR 45 to trail will reduce the impact of the road since 

it will be narrowed to a trail. Slash, rocks, and logs will be used to obscure the non-trail road 

width, and over time vegetation will be re-established.

Aspen treatments would have moderate effects on scenic quality.

• Aspen treatments to stimulate new sprouting require fencing to protect the areas from 

ungulate browsing following treatments. Aspen outside of MSO habitat would have invading 

conifers removed. The project includes treatment of aspen and fencing. Fence materials proposed 

include wire and jack-strawing of trees. All would introduce unnatural linear features into the 

landscape that would not be natural appearing. Since these are isolated areas scattered around the 

project area, introduction of linear features would have low effects. Wire and metal posts can be 

shiny and the color can contrast with the natural surroundings. Mitigation measures will be used 

to introduce the fewest contrasting elements where wire fencing is used and effort would be made 

to locate the site of the fencing where it is least noticeable. Wire fencing would have low effects 

and would meet the SIO. Jack strawing has been used to a limited extent on the Coconino NF in 

order to protect aspen restoration projects from ungulate browsing. It involves cutting and 

stacking high numbers of cut trees in an irregular manner to form a wide, tall barrier surrounding 

the aspen stand. While natural materials would be used to create the jack straw, the shape and 

form created at this scale would not normally be found in the characteristic landscape. It would 

not be completely unnatural however, as it would be similar to large scale blow down events that 

may be caused by weather related events. Placement of jack straw treatment would not meet the 

requirements for foregrounds of high concern level roads in high SIO areas. Even if these sites 

were allowed to drop one SIO level, they would still not meet the basic definition of moderate 

SIO that “noticeable deviations must remain visually subordinate to the landscape character being 

viewed” (Forest Service 2000). Beyond the foreground 300 feet, jack straw piling may be 

suitable, and would be mitigated by carefully locating these barriers. These area would drop to 

moderate SIO until the jackstraw barrier begins to deteriorate or is burned in follow up prescribe 

burn activities. Once the aspen are large enough to withstand ungulate browsing, and the 

jackstraw barriers begin to decay, they are not as noticeable, these areas will improve to the 

mapped SIO. The timeline for use of the jack straw piling may exceed the projected recovery for 

the rest of the project area. There may be a need to drop to moderate SIO in jack straw piled 

aspen treatments until the trees are large enough to withstand browsing, this could be 15 to 20 

years.

Scenic Integrity Objectives

The scenic integrity objectives for the BWMR project are shown in Figure 3.11-8. Seventy-six 

percent of the project is in high SIO.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

286 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.11-8 Forest Plan scenic integrity objectives.

Overall scenic integrity on Bill Williams Mountain will be lowered during project 

implementation. There will be evidence of new linear corridors as roads are constructed and cable 

logging is implemented trail work is completed, and mechanical treatments and prescribed 

burning are implemented. Table 3.11-3 presents the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) by 

Operability Zone. 

Table 3.11-3 Scenic integrity objectives in the proposed operability zones.

Operability Zone SIO 2 Acres SIO 3 Acres

Conventional-01 7,181 1,565

Steep 

Conventional-02 669 310

Adverse 

Forwarder-03 68 0

Excaline with 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 287

Operability Zone SIO 2 Acres SIO 3 Acres

Forwarder Swing 

Skid-04 132 0

Skyline Yarding05338 9

Mixed 

Conventional-06 634 769

Helicopter-07 2,471 994

Total Acres* 11,493 3,647

*Acreage discrepancies are due to rounding errors.

Interim measures will be used during implementation activities whereby the 11,493 acres in SIO 

2 (high) will drop to SIO 3 (moderate) until project completion and for 5 to 10 years following. 

This will ensure adequate time for closed and decommissioned roads to naturalize, evidence of 

logging activities to recover, trailside vegetation to re-establish and initial prescribed fire 

activities to soften.

Aspen treatments are the exception to the timeline for meeting SIO for the BWMR project. In 

areas where jack straw piling is used, these features must stay in place until the trees can 

withstand browsing. It is estimated that where aspen is treated and jack straw piles are used, these 

area will not meet desired SIO for 15 to 20 years after treatment.

Cable logging has not been widely used in the Southwest. It is proposed in Operability Zones 4 

and 5. Figure 3.11-8 provides an example of corridors and haul roads created for cable logging in 

Montana. In this example, the corridors angle up to the haul roads and slash is piled by the edge 

of the haul roads. The downhill area has been thinned compared to no thinning uphill of the top 

haul road. Figure 3.11-9 looks down a corridor and shows a summer picture. There is a cleared 

corridor that is beginning to have vegetation re-established.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

288 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Figure 3.11-8 Cable corridor and haul road example from Montana.

Figure 3.11-9 Looking down a cable corridor in Montana the next summer post treatment.

Haul road

Corridor 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 289

It is anticipated that after 3-5 years when understory vegetation has recovered, the corridors will 

be less visible to the casual viewer.

Similarly, the presence of skid trails, landings, and piled or scattered slash would result in a 

moderate reduction of the scenic integrity for the duration of the project. The effects in these 

areas would not be long-term since skid trails would be rehabilitated and activity generated slash 

would be mitigated in foreground areas, and treated throughout the project area. The ground 

disturbance resulting from using machines to pile slash would be noticeable for up to 1 year after 

project completion, depending on how quickly the areas were rehabilitated and vegetation 

regenerated.

Areas receiving strategic fuels treatments will follow the interim measures and timeline as 

described above. Figure 3.11-10 shows an example of this type of treatment near Elk Ridge Ski 

Area just outside of Williams, AZ.

Figure 3.11-9 Example of strategic fuels treatment near Elk Ridge Ski Area (prior to 

burning).

Scenic Stability

Scenic Stability considers the condition of the valued scenery attributes identified in the scenic 

character description of the Bill Williams project. It evaluates whether their condition is within 

the historic range of variability reference conditions, the range of conditions that indicate a 

properly functioning ecosystem. For example, the forest vegetation related scenic attributes (stand 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

290 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

structure/density, species composition, fire return interval, etc.) give an indication of whether the 

ecosystem if functioning properly and if the scenic attributes can be sustained. Scenic Stability 

also considers stressors that can affect scenery such as wildfire, insects and disease, and 

infestations of noxious weeds. Stressors may not threaten scenic attributes when the forest is 

functioning within reference conditions, but may become detrimental when the forest functions 

outside of these ranges. The scenic stability analysis for this project can be found in Appendix A 

of this report.

The dominant vegetation types of ponderosa pine and mixed conifer and their understory 

components have been identified as dominant scenic attributes. Minor scenery attributes for 

vegetation include woodlands, grasslands and aspen. Water form is a minor scenery attribute and 

there are no proposals for activities related to springs or ephemeral channels, therefore water form 

will not be included. There are indirect actions that affect landform since changes are proposed in 

the road system. Landform is, typically a more stable attribute, roads represent a minor scenery 

attribute as it relates to road construction and decommissioning.

Of the scenery attributes evaluated for the existing condition, four are at high risk, three are at 

moderate risk, and two are at low risk as shown in table 3.11-4. 

Table 3.11-4. Summary of risk rating.

Factor Risk Rating for Existing 

Condition

Tree density, improvement of age class diversity and 

structure of woody vegetation

High risk

Large, old trees are well represented across the project area High risk

Risk of high intensity wildfire is reduced and fire is 

reintroduced into the ecosystem

High risk

Aspen is retained as an important scenic attribute High risk

Understory composition and productivity is improved Moderate risk

Minor Attribute: Changes improve the motorized 

transportation system

Moderate

Minor Attribute: Mixed hardwoods are retained as important 

scenic attributes

Moderate

Minor Attribute: Pinyon-juniper and juniper woodland are 

retained as important scenic attributes

Low

Minor Attribute: Trailhead and parking construction, and new 

trail construction or conversion improve the non-motorized 

transportation system

Low

The result of the analysis is that there is HIGH risk to SOME (40-60% of dominant attributes) 

and SOME are stable. This fits into the LOW STABILITY level, some dominant scenery 

attributes of the valued scenic character are present and are likely to be sustained. Known scenery 

attribute conditions and ecosystem stressors may seriously threaten or have already eliminated 

others.

The proposed action would improve scenic stability on 15,200 acres within the project, reduce 

tree density, improve age class diversity and would make progress toward structure of woody 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 291

vegetation. The risk of high intensity wildfire would be reduced and fire would be reintroduced 

into the ecosystem helping to maintain the lower tree density. There would be some progress 

toward having large, old trees well represented, although the project area is deficit in this area, 

and it will take many decades to develop large, old trees to meet this attribute. Aspen would be 

retained as an important scenic attribute, although it will take a couple of decades for stands to 

regain their health. Understory vegetation is expected to improve through use of thinning and 

prescribed burning. The motorized transportation system would be well designed, and much of 

the new road construction would be reclosed after project implementation and allowed to 

naturalize. Mixed hardwoods would be retained and their health improved as a result of thinning 

activities. Pinyon-juniper and juniper woodland would receive minor treatments since they are at 

low risk and do not require intensive treatments to meet the purpose and need of the project. 

Similarly, the trailhead and parking lot construction and trail conversion and construction are at 

low risk and will meet project objectives.

The proposed treatments in the proposed action would meet the Forest Plan requirements for 

scenic integrity in the long term.

Cumulative Effects

The cumulative effects analysis area is the Williams Ranger District, Kaibab NF. The timeline for 

analysis is 20 years. The following is a partial listing of actions considered in the cumulative 

effects analysis for this project:

• Activities such as vegetation management, fuels management, livestock grazing, 

recreational activities, and other management activities (e.g. noxious weeds treatments) 

have occurred in the past, are occurring, and are reasonably foreseeable actions on the 

District. These activities could occur on private lands as well. 

• Firewood cutting has occurred in the past and would likely continue in the foreseeable 

future on the District and private lands. 

• Private landowners may harvest timber on their lands for lumber or to reduce fire 

hazards. 

• Urban development and interface growth will continue on private lands. 

• Road construction, road maintenance and right-of-way brushing can be expected to 

continue on non-National Forest System land. 

• Road maintenance, reconstruction, or decommissioning may occur with future vegetation 

management projects. 

• Recreation activities are expected to continue to increase on the Forest. Future recreation 

projects may be developed.

Past and present activities that created the current conditions include grazing, the evolving forest 

management practices related to timber harvest and fire suppression, drought, disease and insect 

infestations, developed and dispersed recreational use and associated developments, and private 

land in-holdings. The effects associated with this project combined with effects from past, 

present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions would not have a measurable cumulative effect 

on the scenic resources.

Past, present and future vegetation management activities and fuels management activities would 

have similar direct and indirect effects on scenic integrity objectives as found in this project and 

dotted across the Williams Ranger District. Cumulatively, it is expected there would be minor 

fluctuations in scenic quality as projects are implemented and recover. Overall, the result of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

292 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

vegetation and fuels activities is to stabilize scenic attributes and assure their presence into the 

future. 

Livestock grazing has minor cumulative effects on scenic integrity. Construction of fencing or 

other improvements may decrease scenic integrity in small, localized areas that would be 

distributed across the District.

Urban development and interface growth will continue on private lands as the population of 

Arizona continues to grow, but Williams, AZ has not grown as fast as cities near the Phoenix 

metro area or Tucson. These will have slight effects on scenic integrity but are limited to private 

land parcels in the area.

Recreation activities and developments have remained fairly stable on the District according to 

the National Visitor Use Monitoring surveys (Forest Service 2012). The effects of these activities, 

especially those related to motorized cross country travel are expected to decline. Travel 

Management has been implemented which prohibits motorized cross country travel and restricts 

travel to the designated system of roads, trails and areas. Dispersed camping will continue to be a 

popular activity, but will is restricted by Travel Management as well. Recreation opportunities 

will continue to be offered and it is expected that recreation use will grow slowly with minimal 

effects to scenic integrity.

Road construction and maintenance on forest and non-forest lands will continue. Travel 

Management reduced the number of roads open to motorized travel on forest lands. It is 

anticipated that there will be very little new road construction in the future. The cumulative 

effects of the existing road system and maintenance activities will have minor additional effects 

to scenic integrity. Decommissioning of roads will improve landscape character and scenic 

integrity.

Overall, the cumulative effects of this project and those analyzed will result in some improvement 

to the scenic integrity on the Williams Ranger District.

Alternative 3

Preparation of sale areas may have slight effects to scenery from marking trees and project 

boundaries. These will be mitigated by using butt marks on the side facing sensitive travel 

corridors. 

Mechanical Treatments

Approximately 15,200 acres of the project area would receive mechanical treatments including 

use of conventional ground based logging systems, cable logging systems, and helicopter logging. 

In addition, approximately 2,500 acres in the strategic fuels treatment area would be thinning by 

hand or use of machinery equipped with cutting or grinding heads may be used. 

Conventional ground based logging systems include, but are not limited to: use of chainsaws or 

feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash, skidders to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile 

slash, and specialized equipment such as feller-bunchers, and tree shears to cut, chop, break, and 

lop fuel material. Cable systems use a yarder equipped with a system of cables to pull logs to a 

landing, loaders to move logs and logging trucks to haul logs. Skyline cable systems lift the logs 

off the ground to transport them instead of dragging logs across the ground. Helicopter logging 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 293

uses helicopters to remove cut and limbed trees from an area by lifting them on with cables 

attached to a helicopter. Logs are “decked” in a central area to be hauled away.

There would be light to extensive effects on scenic quality during and immediately following 

mechanical treatments. 

• Hand thinning usually has little or no short term effects on scenery. Trees are cut down, 

then cut into segments that can be treated. Effects may include slash from limbing and 

topping trees. Project mitigations require slash to be treated.

• Conventional logging typically has moderate short short-term effects to scenery, these

would be the same as with Alternative 2. 

• Cable systems are used to transport cut logs to centralized processing areas and typically 

have extensive, short-term effects to scenery, these would be the same as with Alternative 

2.

• Helicopter systems transport logs or trees to central log decks. Helicopter logging 

typically has moderate to extensive effects on scenery, these would be the same as with 

Alternative 2.

Road Construction would have moderate to extensive effects on scenic quality during and

immediately following restoration treatments. The effects are the same as for Alternative 2, the 

proposed action.

Strategic fuels treatments would have low effects on scenic quality immediately after treatment. 

The effects would be the same as for Alternative 2, the proposed action.

Fuels reduction and reintroduction of fire would have moderate effects on scenic quality 

immediately after treatment, and low effects after repeat burning.

Prescribed fire would be used on approximately 14,710 acres of the project areas within 

Operability Zones 1-7 except within the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area. It may be used in 

conjunction with mechanical treatments or singly. The objective of prescribed burning is to 

reduce fuel loading, raise crown base heights and reduce live tree density. Repeat or maintenance 

burning would help maintain these objectives. Effects would be the same as for Alternative 2, the 

proposed action, but about 4 percent less of the area would show fire effects. 

Trails work in this project would have low to moderate effects on scenic quality. The effects 

would be the same as for Alternative 2, the proposed action.

Aspen treatments would have moderate effects on scenic quality and the effects would be the 

same as for Alternative 2, the proposed action. 

Scenic Integrity Objectives

Overall scenic integrity on Bill Williams Mountain will be lowered during project 

implementation. There will be evidence of new linear corridors as roads are constructed and cable 

logging is implemented, trail work is completed, and mechanical treatments and prescribed 

burning are implemented. Table 3.11-4 presents the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) by 

Operability Zone for Alternative 3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

294 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.11-4. Scenic Integrity Objectives by Operability Zone for Alternative 3

Operability Zone SIO 2 Acres SIO 3 Acres

Conventional-01 6,870 1,873

Steep 

Conventional-02 651 299

Adverse 

Forwarder-03 68 0

Excaline with 

Forwarder Swing 

Skid-04 0 0

Skyline Yarding050 0

Mixed 

Conventional-06 620 783

Helicopter-07 2,925 1,023

Total Acres* 11,134 3,978

Interim measures will be used during implementation activities whereby the 11,134 acres in SIO 

2 (high) will drop to SIO 3 (moderate) until project completion and for 5 to 10 years following. 

This will ensure adequate time for closed and decommissioned roads to naturalize, evidence of 

logging activities to recover, trailside vegetation to re-establish and initial prescribed fire 

activities to soften.

Aspen treatments are the exception to the timeline for meeting SIO for the BWMR project. In 

areas where jack straw piling is used, these features must stay in place until the trees can 

withstand browsing. It is estimated that where aspen is treated and jack straw piles are used, these 

area will not meet desired SIO for 15 to 20 years after treatment.

Effects for scenic integrity objectives are the same as for Alternative 2.

Effects for scenic stability are the same as for Alternative 2.

Cumulative Effects

Similar to Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Preparation of sale areas may have slight effects to scenery from marking trees and project 

boundaries. These will be mitigated by using butt marks on the side facing sensitive travel 

corridors. 

Mechanical Treatments

Approximately 11,150 acres of the project area would receive mechanical treatments including 

use of conventional ground based logging systems. In addition, approximately 2,500 acres in the 

strategic fuels treatment area would be thinning thinned by hand or use of machinery equipped 

with cutting or grinding heads may be used.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 295

Conventional ground based logging systems include, but are not limited to: use of chainsaws or 

feller-bunchers to cut trees and lop slash, skidders to move material to landings, bulldozers to pile 

slash, and specialized equipment such as feller-bunchers, and tree shears to cut, chop, break, and 

lop fuel material. Cable systems use a yarder equipped with a system of cables to pull logs to a 

landing, loaders to move logs and logging trucks to haul logs. Skyline cable systems lift the logs 

off the ground to transport them instead of dragging logs across the ground. Helicopter logging 

uses helicopters to remove cut and limbed trees from an area by lifting them on with cables 

attached to a helicopter. Logs are “decked” in a central area to be hauled away.

There would be light to extensive effects on scenic quality during and immediately following 

mechanical treatments. 

• Hand thinning usually has little or no short term effects on scenery. Trees are cut down, 

then cut into segments that can be treated. Effects may include slash from limbing and 

topping trees. Project mitigations require slash to be treated.

• Conventional logging typically has moderate short short-term effects to scenery. During 

implementation, in most cases, whole trees are cut and moved to a “landing” near a haul 

road. At the landing, the limbs and tops are removed, and the clean logs are decked to be 

loaded and hauled away. After vegetation has been thinned, the slash is piled using 

bulldozers. Effects typically include trampling of vegetation where equipment is 

operating, creation of linear skid trails where vegetation is trampled or completely 

removed exposing bare soil, creation of linear log landings where vegetation has been 

removed and bare soil is exposed, and piles of cull logs not suitable for commercial uses. 

After logs or useable material is removed, slash would be treated as per mitigation 

measures. This may include bulldozers pushing slash into large piles (10-20 foot wide 

piles, often 10 feet tall) which can trample vegetation and cause bare soil to be exposed, 

hand piling, chipping, crushing, and lopping and scattering.

Road Construction would have moderate to extensive effects on scenic quality during and 

immediately following restoration treatments.

• Construction of approximately 38 miles of temporary roads would result in extensive 

short term effects on scenery. Effects are similar to new road construction noted above, 

although the temporary roads would be obliterated after use. Mitigation measures would 

be used to close entrance points and Best Management Practices for watershed would 

ensure drainage is re-established and the roads can rehabilitate. The temporary roads 

would begin to recover and should be mostly recovered and less noticeable to the casual 

observer in 5 to 10 years.

• Road obliteration of 28 miles of roads would entail obliteration whereby road surfaces 

would be ripped and seeded or mulched, inside ditches would be filled, road prisms 

outsloped, culverts and fill materials removed, stream crossings re-contoured, unstable 

sidecast or cutslopes removed or stabilized, and entrances blocked to prevent future 

access (see Soils/Watershed Section 3.4). These would have moderate short short-term 

effects to scenery. Mitigation measures would help return these roads to a more stable 

status. The obliterated roads would begin to recover after treatment and would be mostly 

recovered and less noticeable to the casual observer in 5 to 10 years.

Strategic fuels treatments would have low effects on scenic quality immediately after treatment. 

• Strategic fuels treatments would enhance fire control lines enabling prescribed fire to be 

safely implemented. They include hand thinning or use of machinery equipped with 

cutting or grinding heads on 300 feet either side of control lines. Slash is treated within 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

296 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

the cleared area, and this becomes the staging area for implementing prescribed burning 

blocks. Effects include short short-term introduction of linear features throughout the 

area. Upon completion of prescribed burning it is expected that the linear features will 

not be as noticeable because the density of trees on either side of the treatment areas 

would be thinned and/or burned reducing the number of trees. 

Fuels reduction and reintroduction of fire would have moderate effects on scenic quality 

immediately after treatment, and low effects after repeat burning.

• Prescribed fire would be used on approximately 14,710 acres of the project area except in 

the Arizona Bugbane Botanical Area. It may be used in conjunction with mechanical 

treatments or singly. The objective of prescribed burning is to reduce fuel loading, raise 

crown base heights and reduce live tree density. Repeat or maintenance burning would 

help maintain these objectives. Effects are the same as for Alternative 2, but about 4% 

less area would be burned.

Aspen treatments would have moderate effects on scenic quality.

• Aspen treatments to stimulate new sprouting require fencing to protect the areas from 

ungulate browsing following treatments. Aspen outside of MSO habitat would have 

invading conifers removed. The project includes treatment of aspen and fencing. Fence 

materials proposed include wire and jack-strawing of trees. Effects would be the same as 

Alternatives 2 and 3.

Scenic Integrity Objectives 

Overall scenic integrity on Bill Williams Mountain will be lowered during project 

implementation. There will be evidence of new linear corridors as roads are constructed and cable 

logging is implemented, trail work is completed, and mechanical treatments and prescribed 

burning are implemented. Table 3.11-5 presents the Scenic Integrity Objectives (SIO) by 

Operability Zone.

Table 3.11-5 Scenic integrity objectives by operability zone for Alternative 4.

Operability Zone SIO 2 Acres SIO 3 Acres

Conventional-01 6,892 1,850

Steep 

Conventional-02 656 323

Adverse 

Forwarder-03

6 0

Excaline with 

Forwarder Swing 

Skid-04 0 0

Skyline Yarding-05 0 0

Mixed 

Conventional-06 629 774

Helicopter-07 0 0

Total Acres 8,177 2,947
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 297

Alternative 4 would result in fewer acres showing effects to scenic integrity from mechanical 

thinning than either action alternative (2 or 3). Interim measures will be used during 

implementation activities whereby the 8,177 acres in SIO 2 (high) will drop to SIO 3 (moderate) 

until project completion and for 5 to 10 years following. This will ensure adequate time for closed 

and decommissioned roads to naturalize, evidence of logging activities to recover, trailside 

vegetation to re-establish and initial prescribed fire activities to soften.

Aspen treatments are the exception to the timeline for meeting SIO for the BWMR project. In 

areas where jack straw piling is used, these features must stay in place until the trees can 

withstand browsing. It is estimated that where aspen is treated and jack straw piles are used, these 

area will not meet desired SIO for 15 to 20 years after treatment.

The presence of skid trails, landings, and piled or scattered slash would result in a moderate 

reduction of the scenic integrity for the duration of the project. The effects in these areas would 

not be long-term since skid trails would be rehabilitated and activity generated slash would be 

mitigated in foreground areas, and treated throughout the project area. The ground disturbance 

resulting from using machines to pile slash would be noticeable for up to 1 year after project 

completion, depending on how quickly the areas were rehabilitated and vegetation regenerated.

Scenic Stability

Alternative 4 would improve scenic stability on 15,200 acres within the project but not to the 

extent that Alternatives A and B would. This alternative would make less progress in reducing 

tree density and improving age class diversity and would require mechanical treatment sooner 

than the other action alternatives. It would make progress toward structure of woody vegetation 

since logging would be prohibited on slopes steeper than 40%. The risk of high intensity wildfire 

would be reduced and fire would be reintroduced into the ecosystem helping to maintain the 

lower tree density, but in 4% less of the area. There would be less progress toward having large, 

old trees well represented, although the project area is deficit in this area, and it will take many 

decades to meet this attribute. Similarly, aspen will be retained as an important scenic attribute, 

although it will take a couple of decades for stands to regain their health. Understory vegetation is 

expected to improve somewhat, although since less of the area would be thinned, fewer openings 

would be created. There is also a chance that it there will be more trees killed and more large 

openings created from prescribed burning since less area will be thinned. The motorized 

transportation system will use more temporary roads and will continue to use the poorly placed 

existing road system. Temporary roads and those identified for obliteration will naturalize. Mixed 

hardwoods would be retained but there would be little improvement in their health since less area 

would be thinned. Pinyon-juniper and juniper woodland would receive minor treatments since 

they are at low risk and do not require intensive treatments to meet the purpose and need of the 

project. Similarly, the trailhead and parking lot construction and trail conversion and construction 

are at low risk and will meet project objectives.

Cumulative Effects

Similar to Alternatives 2 and 3.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

298 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.12 Cultural Resources

3.12.1 Affected Environment

Archaeologists previously surveyed a total of 7819 acres in the proposed 15,200 acre (51%) Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project (Woodard 2012). Previous cultural resource surveys on 

the Kaibab National Forest indicate low site density in the ponderosa and mixed conifer forests 

and on slopes greater than 40%. A portion of the project area consists of very rocky steep 

topography with greater than 40% slope, areas considered unsuitable for the occurrence of 

cultural resources. Removing this area from the coverage (and 327 acres previously surveyed 

within that area) archaeologists have surveyed 7492 of the 13,047 acres (57%) where cultural 

resources are most likely to occur. During the summer of 2011, archaeologists designed their 

surveys to target locations most likely to have heritage resources in unsurveyed portions of the 

project area. As a result of that 1069 acre survey, archaeologists found 18 new sites and brought 

the survey percentage to 66%. Overall, archaeologists have recorded 115 sites, or a “low” site 

density of 8.6 sites per square mile, which supports the previous model. This is below the Forestwide average of 9.74 sites per square mile. 

The dominant site types are prehistoric structures with 1 to 2 rooms. However, other site types 

documented included pit houses, rock shelters, food gathering and processing centers, lithic 

scatters, and agricultural features. Historic sites are associated with Route 66, the Bill Williams 

Lookout Tower and the historic Civilian Conservation Corps-built Clover Ranger Station. Bill 

Williams Mountain is also a Traditional Cultural Property and has cultural values to five of the 

Kaibab’s consulting tribes. Through government to government consultation, these tribes have 

stated that the project will not adversely affect the TCP provided mitigation measures listed in 

Section 4.1 are followed. In fact, tribes have stated that decreasing the likelihood of catastrophic 

fire on the mountain will ensure the long term traditional and ceremonial use of the mountain.

3.12.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

No Action Alternative 

Under the no action alternative, project managers would not implement prescribed burns or 

mechanical vegetation treatments that involve felling, killing or removing trees in the 15,200-acre 

project area. If activities associated with the Bill Williams project were not implemented, 

mitigation measures to address heritage resource issues and concerns would no longer be 

necessary. As a result, this analysis assumes that the no action alternative will lead to a high 

intensity catastrophic fire.

Direct Effect

The continued deposition of fuels in the area would increase the likelihood of a high intensity 

catastrophic wild fire on Bill Williams Mountain. It is likely that many of the prehistoric and 

especially the few with combustible features would suffer adverse effects from intense fire 

behavior. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 299

Indirect Effect

Under this alternative, fuels would continue to accumulate on and around heritage resources sites 

increasing the likelihood that devastating fire on Bill Williams Mountain would occur. 

As noted in the draft of the revised Kaibab National Forest Plan, “In recent years, most adverse 

impacts to heritage resources are caused by high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfire and increased 

erosion associated with such fires. The majority of archaeological sites on the Forest are 

prehistoric sites lacking combustible features and are considered to be non-fire sensitive under 

low to moderate intensity burning. However, all archaeological sites are susceptible to adverse 

impacts from high intensity burning as well documented after the recent Warm (Reid et al 2008) 

and Schultz fires (Haines 2010).” 

Due to the steepness of the slopes above the archaeological and historic sites, those that survived 

a catastrophic fire would then be exposed to the threat of severe erosion and flooding. Post fire 

flooding and erosion have been shown to have adverse effects on archaeological sites, especially 

when a fire occurs on steep slopes. Kaibab archaeologists experienced this unforeseen erosion a 

year after the Pumpkin Fire (Weintraub et al. 2002). 

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action)

Under the proposed action alternative, project managers would implement prescribed burns and 

mechanical vegetative treatments on 15,200 acres. Project managers could use mechanical timber 

harvesting and piling, pre-commercial thinning, roundwood, sawtimber thinning, and hand 

pilling, fuelwood sales, helicopter logging, cable logging, skidding, crushing, and prescribed 

burns to achieve forest health and sustainability and reduce the risk of uncharacteristically intense 

stand-replacing wild fire. In addition, Alternative 2 includes the construction of 23 miles of new 

roads and 16 miles of temporary roads that would be obliterated after use. Another 28 miles of 

roads would also be obliterated. Finally, a new 1 mile section of trail and trailhead parking lot 

area would be built along Forest Road 122. 

Direct Effect

Reducing the amount of dead and down woody debris, ladder fuels, and unnaturally high tree 

density would greatly reduce the risk of effects to heritage resource sites from catastrophic 

wildfire. However, the ground disturbing activities associated with treatments under this 

alternative could potentially affect heritage resource sites adversely. Heritage staff has designed 

mitigation measures (see Section 2.3), that if followed will result in no adverse effects to heritage 

resources. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

300 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Indirect Effect

As noted above, fuels reduction throughout the project area would significantly reduce the 

possibility of a catastrophic wild fire throughout the project area. This action would also decrease 

the threat of fire on sites outside of the treatment area, especially on those with wooden 

components.

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 differs only very slightly from the proposed action. Cable logging is removed as a 

proposed activity on 480 acres of very steep rocky country. Project managers instead propose to 

treat those areas using helicopter logging. It also removes prescribed fire from 490 acres due to 

the Arizona Bugbane Botanic Area and creates 22 miles of new roads (one mile less than 

Alternative 2).

Direct and indirect effects to heritage resources are the same as those in Alternative 2.

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 differs from Alternative 3 because it does not include helicopter and cable logging 

activities on the steep slopes of Bill Williams Mountain. This also removes the logging of 70 

acres near the top of the mountain. There would be no new road construction under this 

alternative; however, the main difference is that an additional 38 miles of temporary road 

construction would be required and then obliterated. The Bixler Saddle Trail would not be 

constructed. 

The direct and indirect effects to heritage resources are similar to those in Alternative 2 and 3; 

however, because the steep slopes of Bill Williams Mountain would not be treated, most heritage 

resources would be vulnerable to the effects of post fire flooding and erosion.

3.12.3 Cumulative Effects 

Projects have been ongoing within the Bill Williams area since 1969. Because there will be no 

adverse effects to cultural resources under any of the four alternatives, as none of the actions 

under the alternatives incrementally adds to the degradation of heritage resources, there should be 

no cumulative effects to cultural resources.

3.13 Implementation Economics

Introduction

This report evaluates and discloses the project implementation economics for four alternatives 

proposed for the Bill Williams Restoration Project. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 301

Methodology and Analysis Process

Implementation of the Bill Williams Mountain project would require several types of activities. 

Costs to undertake these activities have been estimated using a variety of methods. The activities 

that have been analyzed for and the methodology that was used to estimate their costs are: 

Net Timber Value- Net timber value is the value of the timber to be harvested as it stands on the 

stump; it is also referred to as stumpage value. This is the monetary amount that a contractor 

would be willing to pay the government for the timber or the amount that the contractor would 

need to be paid in order to harvest and haul the timber from the site. The analysis in this 

document does not consider the cost of road construction, road obliteration or any Forest Service 

costs as part of the net timber value calculations. 

Recent past timber sales harvested by ground based logging methods on the Williams District 

have generated a positive value of approximately $3/CCF, (i.e. the contractor pays the Forest 

Service for the timber). Different types of logging systems have different costs associated with 

them. Ground based logging generally has the lowest cost per CCF harvested when compared to 

other logging systems such as cable, excaline or helicopter. Ground based logging in alternative 

3 was considered to be the most similar from a cost standpoint of ground based methods recently 

used on Williams District. The logging costs for ground based logging in alternative 3 was used 

as a base value of $3/CCF. Logging costs for other harvest methods were then calculated and the 

cost difference between that cost and the cost for ground based logging in alternative 3 was used 

to adjust net timber values up or down. The cost of all logging systems were estimate by using 

the Forest Service’s log cost program, (version 11.0). 

Cultural Resource Survey Cost- Prior to project implementation, within logging units, 

archaeologists must mark known cultural resource sites for protection. In addition, archaeologists 

will survey all proposed road construction and/or roads to be obliterated, they will mark sites for 

protection from road construction and/or obliteration activities, and write a clearance report to 

assure no adverse effects to cultural resources. These costs were provided by the Williams 

District archaeologist, based on past experienced costs.

Sale Preparation Cost- Sale preparation costs are all costs associated with locating harvest units, 

timber marking and timber cruising. These costs were provided by the Williams District timber 

management officer based on past experienced costs. 

 

Sale Administration Cost- This is the cost to supervise the logging done by a contractor and to 

administer the contract. These costs were estimated by the Williams District timber management 

office based on past experienced costs.

Road Engineering Cost- This is the cost to design and engineer the roads required to implement 

the project. It was estimated by using costs per mile found in the inter-regional road cost guide.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

302 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Road Construction/Obliteration Cost- This is the estimated cost for a contractor to actually build 

required roads and obliterate other roads that are not needed or are temporary roads. It was 

estimated using the costs provided in the inter-regional cost guide.

Road Construction/Obliteration Administration Cost- This is the cost to supervise the work of 

constructing and obliterating roads and to administer the contract with a contractor. It was 

estimated by the Coconino-Kaibab zone forest engineer. 

Strategic Fuel Break Construction Cost- This is the cost to construct strategic fuel breaks on Bill 

Williams Mountain. They would also be used as control lines for proposed prescribed burning. It 

was estimated by the Williams District assistant fire management officer (fuels) based on past 

experienced costs.

Prescribed Burning Cost- This is the cost to carry out prescribed burning excluding the cost of 

constructing fuel breaks. It was estimated by the Williams District assistant fire management 

officer (fuels) based on past experienced costs.

3.13.1 Affected Environment

The Kaibab National Forest currently operates and funds programs for vegetation management, 

forest products, cultural resources, engineering, and fuels management, among others. Funding 

for these programs come from annual Congressional appropriations to the USDA Forest Service, 

and then is further allocated to the USFS Southwest Region and Kaibab National Forest. Funding 

levels in recent years have been generally flat to declining, although trends are somewhat variable 

between the various National Forest program areas. Receipts resulting from National Forest 

timber sale contracts are deposited in the federal treasury. As an alternative to timber sales, the 

Forest Service currently has Stewardship Contracting authority, which provides a legal 

mechanism for exchanging the value of goods (such as forest products) for service work (such as 

pre-commercial thinning). When the value of goods such as merchantable timber in a given 

stewardship contract is less than the cost of the service work in that project, agency appropriated 

federal funding can be available through an Integrated Resource Service Contract (IRSC). IRSCs 

allow for the Forest Service to pay a contractor to carry out work on National Forest lands when 

the value of the goods does not cover the cost of the service work, which can include logging 

costs. 

3.13.2 Environmental Effects

Alternative 1- No Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Net Timber Value

No logging would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred or timber value generated.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 303

Cultural Resource Survey Cost

No heritage survey would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Sale Preparation Cost

No sale preparation would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Sale Administration Cost

No sale administration done would be under this alternative and no administrative cost incurred.

Road Engineering Cost 

No road engineering would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Road Construction 

No road construction would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Road Obliteration Cost

No road obliteration would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Road Construction/Obliteration Administration Cost

No road construction or obliteration would be done under this alternative and no administrative 

cost incurred.

 

Strategic Fuel Break Construction Cost

No strategic fuel breaks would be constructed under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Prescribed Burning Cost

No prescribed burning would be done under this alternative and no cost incurred.

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative environmental effect under this alternative.

Alternative 2- Proposed Action

Direct and Indirect Effects

Net Timber Value 

Net timber value under this alternative is a negative $8,957,696. Logging cost calculations for 

Alternative 2 are shown in table 1
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

304 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Table 3.13-1. Logging cost summary Alternative 2

Logging 

System

Stump to 

Truck Cost 

($/CCF) 

Volume/ac

(CCF) 

Acres Total

Volume

(CCF) 

Timber 

Value 

($/CCF) 

Net Timber 

Value by 

Logging 

System ($)

Ground-based 

Mechanical 70 7.0 11,150 78,050 +13 1,014,650

Cut To Length 95 0.4 70 28 -12 -336

Skyline 263 4.6 350 1,610 -180 -289,800

Excaline with 

forwarder 

swing

935 1.0 130 130 -852 -110,760

Helicopter 750 4.1 3500 14,350 -667 -9,571,450

Total -8,957,696

Cultural Resource Survey Cost

Marking cultural resource sites- 160 hours @ $31/hour = $4,960

Surveying new road locations for cultural resources- 921 acres of road @$30/acre= $27,630

Total Cultural Resource Survey Cost = $32,590

Sale Preparation Cost

11,220 acres of ground based sale preparation @ $102/acre = $1,144,440

3,980 acres of cable or helicopter sale preparation @$143/acre = $569,140

Total sale preparation cost =$1,713,580

Sale Administration Cost

15,200 acres of timber sale to administer @ $120/acre = $1,824,000

Total Sale Administration Cost = $1,824,000

Road Engineering Cost

23 miles of new permanent road @ $3,500/mile = $80,500

16 miles of temporary road @ $500/mile = $8,000

Total Road Engineering Cost = $88,050

Road Construction/Obliteration Cost

New permanent road construction, 23 miles = $321,977

New temporary road construction and obliteration, 16 miles = $172,368

Existing road obliteration, 28 miles = $$98,728

Total road construction and obliteration cost = $593,073

Road Construction/Obliteration Administration Cost

39 miles of construction, permanent and temporary @$960/mile = $37,440
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 305

44 miles of obliteration, existing and new temporary @ $480/ mile = $21,120

Total Road Administration Cost = $58,560

Strategic Fuel Break Construction Cost 

2,500 acres of strategic fuel breaks would be constructed with an estimated cost of $700/acre. 

Total cost-$1,750,000

Prescribed Burning Cost11,150 acres of slopes under 30% @ $100/acre =$1,115,000

 4,050 acres of slopes over 30% @ $250/acre = $1,012,500

Total prescribed Burn cost = $2,127,500

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative environmental effect under this alternative.

Alternative 3

Direct and Indirect Effects

Net Timber Value 

Net timber value under this alternative is a negative $47,802,207. Logging cost calculations for 

Alternative 3 are shown in table 2

Table 3.13-2. Logging cost summary Alternative 3

Logging 

System

Stump to 

Truck Cost 

($/CCF) 

Volume/ac

(CCF) 

Acres Total

Volume

(CCF) 

Timber 

Value 

($/CCF) 

Net Timber 

Value by 

Logging 

system ($)

Ground-based 

Mechanical 80 5.7 11,150 63,555 +3 190,665

Cut To Length 133 2.4 70 168 -50 -8,400

Helicopter 3,432 3.6 3980 14,328 -3,349 -47,984,472

Total -47,802,207

Cultural Resource Survey Cost

Marking cultural resource sites- 160 hours @ $31/hour = $4,960

Surveying new road locations for cultural resources- 921 acres of road @$30/acre= $27,630

Total Cultural Resource Survey Cost = $32,590
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

306 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Sale Preparation Cost

11,220 acres of ground based sale preparation @ $102/acre = $1,144,440

3,980 acres of cable or helicopter sale preparation @$143/acre = $569,140

Total sale preparation cost = $1,713,580

Sale Administration Cost

15,200 acres of timber sale to administer @ $120/acre = $1,824,000

Total Sale Administration Cost = $1,824,000

Road Engineering Cost

22 miles of new permanent road @ $3,500/mile = $77,000

16 miles of temporary road @ $500/mile = $8,000

Total Road Engineering Cost = $85,000

Road Construction/Obliteration Cost

New permanent road construction, 2 miles = $307,978

New temporary road construction and obliteration, 16 miles = $172,368

Existing road obliteration, 28 miles = $$98,728

Total road construction and obliteration cost = $579,074

Road Construction/Obliteration Administration Cost

38 miles of construction, permanent and temporary @$960/mile = $36,480

43 miles of obliteration, existing and new temporary @ $480/ mile = $20,640

Total Road Administration Cost = $57,120

Strategic Fuel Break Construction Cost

2,500 acres of strategic fuel breaks would be constructed with an estimated cost of $700/acre. 

Total cost- $1,750,000

Prescribed Burning Cost

11,150 acres of slopes under 30% @ $100/acre =$1,115,000

 3,560 acres of slopes over 30% @ $350/acre = $1,246,000

Total prescribed Burn cost = $2,361,000

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative environmental effect under this alternative.

Alternative 4

Direct and Indirect Effects

Net Timber Value 

Net timber value under this alternative is a positive $180,630. Logging cost calculations for 

Alternative 4 are shown in table 3
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 307

Table 3.13-3. Logging cost summary Alternative 4 

Logging 

System

Stump to 

Truck Cost 

($/CCF) 

Volume/ac

(CCF) 

Acres Total

Volume

(CCF) 

Timber 

Value 

($/CCF) 

Net Timber 

Value by 

Logging 

system ($)

Ground-based 

Mechanical 80 5.4 11,150 60,210 +3 180,630

Total 180,630

Heritage Survey Cost

Marking cultural resource sites- 160 hours @ $31/hour = $4,960

Surveying new road locations for cultural resources- 897 acres of road @$30/acre= $26,910

Total Cultural Resource Survey Cost = $31,870

Sale Preparation Cost

11,150 acres of ground based sale preparation @ $102/acre= $1,137,300

Total Sale Preparation Cost =$1,137,300

Sale Administration Cost

11,150 acres of timber sale to administer @ $120/acre = $1,338,000

Total Sale Administration Cost = $ 1,338,000

Road Engineering Cost

38 miles of temporary road @ $500/mil = $19,000

Total Road Engineering Cost = $19,000

Road Construction/Obliteration Cost

New temporary road construction and obliteration, 38 miles = $519,066

Existing road obliteration, 28 miles = $$98,728

Total road construction and obliteration cost = $617,794

Road Construction/Obliteration Administration Cost 

38 miles of construction, temporary @$960/mile = $36,480

43 miles of obliteration, existing and new temporary @ $480/ mile = $20,640

Total Road Administration Cost = $57,120

Strategic Fuel Break Construction Cost

2,500 acres of strategic fuel breaks would be constructed with an estimated cost of $700/acre. 

Total cost- $1,750,000
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

308 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Prescribed Burning Cost

11,150 acres of slopes under 30% @ $100/acre =$1,115,000

 3,560 acres of slopes over 30% @ $350/acre = $1,246,000

Total prescribed burn cost = $2,361,000

Cumulative Effects

There would be no cumulative environmental effect under this alternative.

Alternative Comparison 

A comparison of costs to implement this project is shown in table 4. All costs are subtracted 

from net timber value to arrive at a total cost to implement the project. Alternatives 2 and 3 show 

a negative net timber value, while alternative 4 shows a positive net timber value. All of the 

action alternatives analyzed require funding to implement.

Table 3.13-4. Estimated Implementation Costs by Alternative

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Alternative 4

Net Timber Value $0 $(8,957,696) $(47,802,207) $180,630

Cultural Resource Survey 

Cost

$0 $32,590 $32,590 $31,870

Sale Preparation Cost $0 $1,713,580 $1,713,580 $1,137,300

Sale Administration Cost $0 $1,842,000 $1,842,000 $1,338,000

Road Engineering Cost $0 $88,050 $85,000 $19,000

Road 

Construction/Obliteration 

Cost

$0 $593,073 $579,074 $617,794

Road 

Construction/Obliteration 

Administration Cost 

$0 $58,560 $57,120 $57,120

Strategic Fuel Break 

Construction Cost

$0 $1,750,000 $1,750,000 $1,750,000

Prescribed Burning Cost $0 $2,127,500 $2,361,000 $2,361,000

Cost of Implementation,

(not including net timber 

value)

$0 $8,187,353 $8,402,364 $7,312,084
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 309

Net Timber Value $0 $(8,957,696) $(47,802,207) $180,630

Costs of Implementation,

(not including net timber 

value)

$0 $8,187,353 $8,402,364 $7,312,084

Total Implementation 

Cost, 

Net Timber Value minus 

Cost of Implementation 

$0 $17,145,049 $56,204,571 $7,131,454

3.14 Socio Economics

3.14.1 Affected Environment

The City of Williams is the closest incorporated community to the Bill Williams Restoration 

Project area. In fact, the city limits extends to the top of Bill Williams Mountain. There are many 

private landowners and residents that live within and adjacent to the project area. Many of these 

residents live next to forest conditions classified by the Forest Service as high fire risk due to high 

tree densities and unnaturally high fuel loads. Fuelwood cutters, hunters, grazing permittees, and 

recreationists use the project area. The principal economic activities in this area of Coconino 

County occur with federal, state, and local governments, retail trade, and the service sector. The 

trade and service sectors are oriented toward tourism. Commercial timber cutting and livestock 

grazing are enterprises that represent minor components of the economic environment. 

The communication site on top of Bill Williams Mountain provides important communications to 

all of northern Arizona. This multi-million dollar site provides communications for a number of 

local, county, state and federal entities. A disruption in services could jeopardize public safety for 

several months. A dollar value was not estimated, but the disruption in services could cost tens of 

thousands of dollars for the building and tower owners, which includes the Federal Government 

building and tower. The situation immediately following a fire that destroyed or severely 

damaged the communication site would be chaotic to say the least. 

Bill Williams Mountain is the primary watershed for the City of Williams and provides a major 

water source for residents. A high-intensity fire could result in reservoirs filling with sediment 

which would render the water system that depends on surface water useless for a year or more. 

Water would probably have to be trucked or brought in by rail cars to sustain the local residents. 

Costs for implementing the project that remain fairly constant for the action alternatives include 

cultural resource surveys, sale preparation, sale administration, road engineering, road 

construction and obliteration, strategic fuel break construction and prescribed burning. 

The cost that would vary would be the net value for the timber. Net timber value is the value of 

the timber to be harvested as it stands on the stump; it is also referred to as stumpage value. This 

is the monetary amount that a contractor would be willing to pay the government for the timber or 

the amount that the contractor would need to be paid in order to harvest and haul the timber from 

the site. Recent timber sales harvested by ground based logging methods on the Williams District 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

310 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

have generated a positive value of approximately $3/CCF, (i.e. the contractor pays the Forest 

Service for the timber). 

Different types of logging systems have different costs associated with them. Ground based 

logging generally has the lowest cost per CCF harvested when compared to other logging systems 

such as cable, excaline or helicopter. Logging costs for other harvest methods were calculated and

the cost difference between that cost and the cost for ground based logging was used to adjust net 

timber values up or down. The cost of all logging systems were estimated by using the Forest 

Service’s log cost program, (version 11.0). 

3.14.2 Direct and Indirect Effects

Not all benefits and costs to society can be quantified. Revenues from forest products such as 

sawtimber have been assigned dollar values based on current markets and are quantifiable. Other 

resources such as watershed health, riparian health, wildlife abundance and diversity, long-term 

habitat improvement, social benefits, and scenic resources cannot easily be assigned dollar 

values. Under any of the action alternatives, this proposed project would have a sustained 

economic impact rather than a changing economic impact. 

Alternative 1 – No Action

Under this alternative, management and recreational activities in the area would continue, i.e., 

fuelwood gathering, hunting, and grazing. The risk of high-intensity stand-replacing wildfires 

would remain high, as well as the risk of the consequences that go along with such an event, 

including the loss of recreational settings and opportunities, loss of visual/scenery aesthetic 

values, loss of wildlife habitat, and the potential loss of public and private property. There would 

be no new economic benefits (i.e., new jobs, income, or tax revenue) associated with the noaction alternative. 

Under the no-action alternative, there would be no thinning or prescribed burning. The project 

area would remain at risk for a high-intensity stand-replacing fire. High-intensity stand-replacing 

wildfires can incur high costs associated with suppression, post fire rehabilitation, and 

reforestation. Post-fire rehabilitation, including emergency soil stabilization and replanting, have 

high per-acre costs. Stand-replacing wildfires also cause losses to Forest resources, which can 

have economic effects in the form of reduced tourism dollars and loss of commercial wood 

products. For comparison, the Shultz Fire on the San Francisco Peaks north of Flagstaff, Arizona 

was approximately 15,000 acres in size, roughly the same size of our project area. Suppression 

costs for the wildfire were approximately $10 million. The Forest Service spent about $4.1 

million on Burned Area Emergency Response (BAER) costs, with another $1 million to 

rehabilitate roads. They will spend another $500,000 to complete the rehabilitation in the next 

year. Coconino County spent $4-5 million to control sediment and erosion and has received a 

grant for an additional $8 million for flood control. The total expenditures to date are between 

$25-30 million. These figures do not include money spent by the utility companies and 

homeowner losses due to the flooding (Personal Communication with Mike Elson, Flagstaff 

District Ranger, May 2012). A similar fire on Bill Williams Mountain would be devastating to the 

City and the local economy for many years. 

Alternative 2 - Proposed Action
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 311

Under Alternative 2, there would be some short-term (one to ten years in any one area) effects on 

the social environment while commercial sales and follow-up activities are under way. These 

primarily include: a modest increase in fire hazard until harvest-generated slash is cleaned up; 

minor noise and human disturbance to wildlife during timber sale operations; some noise 

disturbance to adjacent private land residents; light log truck traffic on haul routes; and potential 

decrease in the quality of recreational experiences due to noise and the presence of equipment. 

There would be economic benefits (i.e., new jobs, income, or tax revenue) associated with these 

alternatives. The estimated cost for implementing this alternative is approximately $17.1 million. 

These costs include the net timber value minus the cost of implementation. This alternative would 

reduce hazardous fuels and fire risk more than the other action alternatives and would result in the 

least potential loss of other resources (DEIS, Section 3.13).

Alternative 3

Alternative 3 differs from the Proposed Action in that less hazardous fuels would be removed 

from the project area. There would be no reference condition thinning around the base of the 

mountain and there would be no cable logging in Alternatives 3, but there could be an increase in 

the helicopter logging acres. This reduction in timber removed around the base of the mountain 

and the increase in helicopter use increases the total implementation costs to approximately $56.2

million (DEIS, Section 3.13).

Alternative 4

Alternative 4 is considered the “least mechanical” of the action alternatives. There would be no 

cable or helicopter logging, and no new road construction. Only temporary roads would be built 

and then obliterated under this alternative. There would be no reference condition thinning around 

the base of the mountain, as in Alternative 3. The reduction in the logging and road building 

activities decreases the total implementation costs to approximately $7.1 million (DEIS, Section 

3.13). 

3.14.3 Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 - No Action

Implementing Alternative 1 would have no cumulative effect on the social and economic 

environment of the Williams Ranger District as there would be no changes in current 

management and recreational activities in the project area. The risks associated with taking no 

action within this project area would remain high until new vegetation management projects 

designed to reduce fuel loading and tree densities are implemented in this area.

Alternative 2 (Proposed Action), Alternative 3 and Alternative 4

When combined with the direct and indirect effects of past, present and reasonably foreseeable 

activities in the project area, implementation of either action alternative would have some minor 

short-term adverse impacts on the social environment. However, implementation of any action

alternative in conjunction with past, present and reasonably foreseeable vegetation management 

projects would help the Forest reduce fuel loading and the risk of high-intensity fires. This would 

also help maintain or boost the timber industry in the State and in turn help generate jobs and tax 

revenues for local economies.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

312 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

3.15 Lands and Minerals 

3.15.1 Affected Environment

The scope of this analysis focuses on the Lands resource located on the steep portion (over 40% 

slope) of the mountain, specifically, the Bill Williams Mountain Communication Site on top of 

Bill Williams Mountain and the electrical transmission and fiber optic lines that support the 

communication site on the east side of the project boundary. There are no minerals resources 

affected by this project. 

The top of Bill Williams Mountain has been used as a fire lookout and communication site since 

the 1950’s and serves as a critical link in the communication and distribution networks of a wide

variety of public safety, industrial and commercial users, as well as residents of Williams and 

Northern Arizona. Current development includes 11 buildings and 14 towers. Each of these 

facilities have a backup power source that include batteries (both wet and gel cell), and either 

hydrogen, propane or diesel powered generators. Some of these facilities are multiple-use, 

meaning they can house tenants, and some are single use. The building and tower owners include 

Niles Radio, Verizon Wireless, SBA Communications, the Burlington Northern and Santa Fe 

Railway, KTVK-TV, Century Link/Qwest Corporation, Arizona Public Service, Arizona 

Department of Public Safety and the United States Government building that houses the Forest 

Service, the Federal Aviation Administration, U. S. Customs and Border Protection and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. The current replacement value of each building and tower 

combination is estimated to be approximately $1.5 million dollars, which does not take into 

account the purchase of the lease site or the potential temporary disruption of service. This dollar 

figure only represents replacement value of the building and tower.

The use and occupancy of the non-Forest Service owned facilities are authorized by 10-year 

communications use leases issued by the Kaibab National Forest. Ownership and maintenance 

responsibility for the structures belong to the lessee, but the Kaibab National Forest manages and 

maintains responsibility for the land and surrounding vegetation.

There is an overhead 12.5kV electrical power line owned by Arizona Public Service and a fiber 

optic phone line owned by Century Link/Qwest Corporation located within the same 20-foot wide 

right-of-way on the east side of the mountain serving the communication site as an ancillary 

improvement. Both of the electrical and fiber optic lines are very fire and heat sensitive.

The most relavant past activity that has affected the existing condition is the Bill Williams Cap 

Project, which was a fuels reduction project implemented on 6 acres in 2010. The Cap Project 

resulted in fuels reduction on all species up to 9” diameter and several large trees over 9” 

diameter also were removed that impinged on the communication facilities. This was a move in 

the right direction, however, trees would need to be thinned and or grouped together upwards of 

one mile radius from the mountaintop to really reduce the wildfire threat from below.

Existing Condition

The existing condition for the communication site on top of the mountain can best be described as 

heavy fuel loadings due to dense stand conditions and a very high potential for damage or 

complete destruction from catastrophic wildfire from below (DEIS, Appendix E). Part of the 

communication site is located within a Mexican Spotted Owl (MSO) Protected Activity Center, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 313

which has some of the highest basal areas on the mountain. There is much dead and downed fuels 

and continuous tree crowns which could lead to devastating crown fires. The Cap project helped 

to thin some of the trees surrounding the communication site, but large trees are still interfering 

with communications by restricting beam paths. 

The electrical and fiber optic lines on the east side of the project area have a 20-foot right-of-way 

that has been cleared by APS, however, these lines are susceptible to smoke and heat from 

burning. There have been some thinning and prescribed burning projects on slopes less than 40% 

in this area (City and Twin), but there is still a threat from wildfire. 

3.15.2 Direct, Indirect, and Cumulative Effects

Alternative 1 – No Action

The direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternative 1 are a continuation of the risk of 

catastrophic wildfire because of the high fuel loadings and dense stand conditions that exist under 

current conditions. There is a high probability that an uncontrolled wildfire will burn to the top of 

the mountain and damage or destroy one or more of the facilities at the communication site at the 

top. There is also a high probability that a wildfire will damage or destroy the electrical power 

and fiber optic lines on the east side of the mountain. If fuels are not reduced under a controlled 

manner, the risk of damage to the communication site and electrical and fiber optic lines increases 

over time. 

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 1 are an increase in risk of damage or 

destruction to the communication site and the supporting power and fiber optic lines on the east 

side of the project area because fuel loading and dense stand conditions will increase over time on 

the steep (over 40%) part of the project area.

Alternative 2 

The direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternative 2 are a greatly reduced threat to the 

communication site and electrical and fiber optic lines. This alternative reduces the largest 

amount of fuels on the steep part of the mountain which directly reduces the chance of a 

catastrophic wildfire that could damage or destroy the facilities on the mountaintop. The 

reintroduction of fire into the ecosystem as maintenance burning will continue to reduce fuel 

buildup leading up to the communication site and the power and fiber optic lines on the east side 

of the project area.

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 2 are a reduction of the risk of damage or 

destruction from catastrophic wildfire because stands will be thinned and fire will be reintroduced 

into the ecosystem.

Alternative 3 

The direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternative 3 are the same as Alternative 2 

because the only real change is in the logging systems used to reduce fuel loading.

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 3 are also the same as Alternative 2 because 

of the same reasons.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

314 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Alternative 4

The direct and indirect effects of implementing Alternative 4 are less likely to reduce fuel loading 

to an acceptable level because mechanized equipment will not be used, so a substantial amount of 

fuel will remain in place. The risk to the communication site and power and fiber optic lines will 

be less than Alternative 1, but greater than Alternatives 2 and 3.

The cumulative effects of implementing Alternative 4 are a reduction in fuel loading and risk to 

the communication site to a lesser degree than Alternatives 2 and 3 because there will still be high 

fuel loadings and a high risk to the communication site.

3.16 Other Disclosures

3.16.1 Environmental Justice

On February 11, 1994, President Clinton issued Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to 

Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations." This 

Executive Order was designed to focus the attention of federal agencies on the human health and 

environmental conditions in minority and low-income communities. It requires federal agencies 

to adopt strategies to address environmental justice concerns within the context of existing laws, 

including NEPA. The goal of Environmental Justice Analysis is not to shift risks among 

populations, but to identify potential disproportionately high and adverse effects, and to identify 

alternatives that may mitigate these impacts. One way that this is achieved is by providing an 

opportunity for minority and low-income populations to participate in planning, analysis, and 

decision making. Individual tribal members may use the project area for the personal collection of

traditional or medicinal plants. Low-income groups may use the area for the collection of fuel 

wood. None of the alternatives would have disproportionate adverse effects on these uses or to 

low income and minority populations in the area. No concerns or issues related to Environmental 

Justice were raised during project scoping. Additionally, the American Indian Tribes listed in 

Chapter 4 were consulted regarding this proposal and potential effects were analyzed.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 315

Alternative 1 – No Action

The no action alternative does not reduce the risk of high-intensity, stand-replacing wildfire. 

Although all communities, wealthy and poor, suffer direct economic consequences when there are 

large wildfires, normal commercial activity can be disrupted. Many of the low-income jobs in the 

area are connected to tourism. Even a temporary loss of work can overwhelm low-income 

individuals and families. Fires can also reduce the availability of native plants and building 

supplies that sustain many traditional and indigenous communities.

Alternative 2, 3 and 4

Any of the action alternatives would reduce fuel loading and the risk of high-intensity fires. Even 

though there could be direct economic consequences associated with fires, the disruption to 

normal commercial activity would be less than the no action alternative. 

Direct and Indirect Effects

Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 – Action Alternatives

All action alternatives would reduce the risk of high-intensity stand-replacing wildfires, which 

would better protect the area resources and the communities that they serve.

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity

NEPA requires consideration of “the relationship between short-term uses of man’s environment 

and the maintenance and enhancement of long-term productivity” (40 CFR 1502.16). As declared 

by the Congress, this includes using all practicable means and measures, including financial and 

technical assistance, in a manner calculated to foster and promote the general welfare, to create 

and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony, and fulfill 

the social, economic, and other requirements of present and future generations of Americans 

(NEPA Section 101).

The proposed project was developed to promote forest diversity on Bill Williams Mountain while 

reducing the risk of high intensity fire so the area will be ecologically sustainable and contribute 

to social and economic stability of the surrounding area. The biggest risks to Bill Williams 

Mountain are the effects associated with uncharacteristic stand-replacing fire (discussed in the 

“Fire and Fuels Management” section of this chapter) and resulting soil losses (discussed in the 

“Soil and Watershed” section of this chapter), degradation of the watershed for the City of 

Williams, reduced wood production (discussed in the “Silviculture” section of this chapter), loss 

of wildlife habitat (discussed in the “Wildlife” section of this chapter) and the potential 

interruption of important communications (discussed in the “Lands and Minerals” section of this 

chapter). There are differences in alternatives that would result in more or less modification of 

stand structure and fuel loading which correlates to ecosystem diversity and the risk of fire. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

316 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

Unavoidable Adverse Effects

With the Proposed Action under Alternative 2 only, approximately 8,900 acres of ponderosa pine 

forest surrounding the base of Bill Williams Mountain would have reduced stand densities similar 

to pre-settlement reference conditions and would be removed from the KNF Forest Plan’s 

designated suitable timber base by amending the Forest Plan (DEIS, Section 2.2). Alternative 2 

also would result in the largest reduction in large trees initially, but then remaining trees would 

grow faster due to increased sunlight, nutrients and water (DEIS, Section 2.5).

Alternatives 3 and 4 move less than half of the project area to the historic fire regime range. 

Alternative 2 would result in more than half the area available for direct attack tactics and 

Alternative 3 and 4 would result in less than half the area available for direct attack tactics (DEIS, 

Sections 2.5 and 3.3). 

All of the action alternatives would result in a short term increase in particulate matter from 

burning. There would also be short term increases in soil disturbance, erosion potential and soil 

compaction (DEIS, Sections 2.5 and 3.4).

The action alternatives would result in short term reduction of Mexican Spotted Owl habitat, but 

Alternative 2 moves toward the most sustainable conditions. Under Alternatives 2-4, the area 

moves from the most to least protection of nest area and PFA’s from active crown fires (DEIS, 

Sections 2.5 and 3.6).

Cable logging associated with the proposed action may result in the loss of portions of the 

Arizona Bugbane population due to dragging trees through the plants (DEIS, Section 3.8). 

The action alternatives would also result in a temporary reduction in forest visitors, and short 

term affects to Scenery Management due to the mechanical treatments (DEIS, Sections 2.5, 3.10 

and 3.11).

Alternative 4 would result in the most increase in risk to cultural resource sites from flooding and 

erosion following high intensity fires (DEIS, Sections 2.5 and 3.12).

Alternative 2 would result in the greatest short term potential increase in weeds. This alternative 

would also result in the greatest long term potential reduction in bugbane habitat of any of the 

action alternatives (DEIS, Sections 2.5, 3.7 and 3.8).

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources

Irreversible commitments of resources are those that cannot be regained, such as the extinction of 

a species or the removal of mined ore. Irretrievable commitments are those that are lost for a 

period of time such as the temporary loss of timber productivity in forested areas that are kept 

clear for use as a power line rights-of-way or road.

Alternative 2, the preferred alternative, will result in the temporary loss of approximately 8,900 

acres of suitable timberland due to the nature of reference condition mechanical treatments 

around the base of Bill Williams Mountain. This means there will not be regulated timber 

production from this area, but we may still need to harvest timber in the future to move toward or 

maintain the desired conditions. However, the trade off for thinning to reference conditions will 

be the creation of groups of diverse age class stands with grassy openings between groups which 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences 317

will not only promote stand diversity and make the area more resilient to mistletoe infection and 

bark beetle losses, but will greatly contribute to lowering the risk of high-intensity fire. The 

reduced threat of these fires will help protect the watershed for the City and wildlife habitat 

characteristics on the Mountain (discussed in the “Silviculture”, “Fire and Fuels Management” 

and “Wildlife” sections of this chapter).

Alternatives 3 and 4 would not result in the temporary loss of 8,900 acres of suitable timberland, 

but would still contribute to improving stand diversity and forest health and would reduce the risk 

of fire. 

Cumulative Effects

Cumulative effects for each resource area are addressed in their respective sections of Chapter 3. 

There are inter-relationships of cumulative effects between the Silviculture, Fire and Fuels 

Management and Wildlife sections. 

Other Required Disclosures

NEPA at 40 CFR 1502.25(a) directs “to the fullest extent possible, agencies shall prepare draft 

environmental impact statements concurrently with and integrated with other environmental 

review laws and executive orders.” 

• Fish and Wildlife Service under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act for causing water 

to be impounded or diverted; 

This project will not result in water becoming impounded or diverted so consultation is 

not required under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. 

• National Historic Preservation Act for causing ground disturbing actions in historical 

places; 

Consultation with the Arizona State Historic Preservation Office is currently underway 

and concurrence on the project will be reached before the FEIS and Record of Decision 

are published. 

• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service in accordance 

with the ESA implementing regulations for projects with threatened or endangered 

species; 

Consultation, coordination and discussions with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have

been ongoing since those discussions began in the Fall 2010. An informal brainstorming 

session was held in Flagstaff, AZ in mid-January 2011 to discuss and seek input about the 

project design. A formal comment letter was received on May 23, 2011 on the proposed 

action and a meeting was held in our office on June 23, 2011 to discuss their comments. 

A meeting was held in our office on July 13, 2011 to continue the coordination and 

development of the project and alternatives. There was a field trip to the project area to 

discuss Pine Oak Target/Threshold habitat and the Arizona Bugbane population on June 

23, 2011 and August 23, 2011. Another meeting was held in our office on October 11, 

2011 to discuss desired conditions and recommendations for MSO habitat. 

• Any applicable State and county laws affected by the alternatives;

There are no State or county laws affected by this project. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

318 Chapter 3 – Affected Environment and Environmental Consequences

[This page intentionally left blank]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 319

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

Preparers and Contributors 

The Forest Service consulted the following individuals, Federal, State, and local agencies, tribes 

and non-Forest Service persons during the development of this environmental assessment:

ID Team Members: 

Paul Hancock Co-Team Leader, NEPA Specialist

Tom Mutz Co-Team Leader, Lands and Minerals Specialist

Mark Herron Siviculturist

Richard Gonzalez Siviculturist

Mike Uebel Fuels Specialist

Christopher MacDonald Soils and Hydrology

Ed Monin Assistant Forest Engineer

John DeLuca Wildlife Biologist

Roger Joos Wildlife Biologist

Jason Stevens Botanist/Range Specialist

Deirdre McLaughlin Recreation Forester

Charlotte Minor Landscape Architect, Coconino National Forest Service

Neil Weintraub Archaeologist

Erin Woodard Archaeologist

Bob Rich Logging Specialist, Regional Office

Martie Schramm District Ranger

Mike Lyndon Assistant Forest Archaeologist/Forest Tribal Liaison

Micah Grondin Timber Staff

Sandra Moore Fire Information Officer

Federal, State, and Local Agencies: 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Arizona Game and Fish Department

City of Williams

Arizona Department of Transportation

Grand Canyon National Park

Tribes: 

Hopi Tribe

Navajo Nation

Hualapai Tribe

Havasupai Tribe

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

Kaibab Band of Paiute

Pueblo of Zuni
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

320 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

Others:

Ponderosa Fire Advisory Council (PFAC) 

Wildland Fire Advisory Council (WFAC) 

Coconino County Board of Supervisors

Grand Canyon Trust

Bill Williams Mountain Communication Site Improvement Association

Northern Arizona University

Ecological Restoration Institute (ERI) 

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of 

the DEIS, Supplement and FEIS Were Sent

This environmental impact statement has been distributed to individuals who specifically 

requested a copy of the document [(for final environmental impact statements only) and those 

who submitted substantive comments on the draft environmental impact statement]. In addition, 

copies have been sent to the following Federal agencies, federally recognized tribes, State and 

local governments, and organizations representing a wide range of views regarding the Bill 

Williams Mountain Restoration Project:

United States Fish and Wildlife Service

Arizona State Game and Fish Department

City of Williams

Hopi Tribe

Navajo Nation

Hualapai Tribe

Havasupai Tribe

Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe

Kaibab Band of Paiute

Pueblo of Zuni

4.1 Tribal Consultation Summary

Government-to-government consultation with tribes is guided by existing law, regulation, and 

policy, including the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Archaeological Resources 

Protection Act (ARPA), the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), the American Indian 

Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA), the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) of 1976, the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act (RFRA), Executive Order 13007-Indian Sacred Sites, Executive Order 13175-

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, and Executive Order 12898- 

Environmental Justice. The Kaibab National Forest has entered into Memoranda of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 321

Understanding with the Havasupai Tribe, the Hualapai Tribe, the Hopi Tribe, and the Kaibab 

Band of Paiute Indians to establish a standard process for consultation with each tribe. 

The Kaibab National Forest recognizes that area tribes have cultural ties and knowledge about the 

lands now managed by the Forest Service. Many tribal members regularly visit the Kaibab 

National Forest to gather traditional resources and to visit traditional cultural properties and 

sacred sites. Therefore, tribes share an interest in the management of Forest lands. 

Due to the level of use of the forest by tribal members and the unique interests of area tribes, the 

Kaibab National Forest has conducted extensive tribal consultation and scoping of tribal 

communities throughout the environmental analysis process. This consultation process reflects a 

long-standing commitment by the Kaibab National Forest to share the stewardship of public lands 

with area tribes. For the current project, tribal consultation was conducted at the government-togovernment level with concerned tribes according to established Memoranda of Understanding 

and pertinent laws and regulations. Additionally, the Forest scoped tribal communities that 

utilize the forest. The Kaibab initiated consultation with tribes in the earliest stages of analysis, 

and incorporated tribal comments into the development of the Alternatives. 

A summary of tribal consultation regarding the project is included in Table 4.1-1.

Table 4.1-6: Summary of tribal consultation on the Bill Williams Restoration Project.

Date Tribe Location

09/14/10 Havasupai, Hopi, 

Hualapai, 

Flagstaff, AZ At 4th Annual Intertribal Meeting, District 

Ranger Martie Schramm briefed tribal 

representatives on project and invited early 

participation from tribes in environmental 

analysis

11/03/10 Havasupai, Hopi, 

Hualapai, Kaibab Band of 

Paiute, Navajo, YavapaiPrescott, Pueblo of Zuni

Letter District Ranger Martie Schramm sent a letter 

to tribes with notification of the project and 

invitation for early involvement in planning 

process.

12/02/10 All Tribes and Chapters Letter Forest Supervisor Mike Williams sent a letter 

to tribes inviting them to participate in the 

early planning process.

2/15/11 Yavapai-Prescott Prescott Forest officials met with the Tribe and 

provided tribal representative with a list of 

known plants for circulation within the tribe. 

Yavapai-Prescott is supportive of reducing 

threats of catastrophic fire on mountain.

2/16/11 Hualapai Tribe Peach Springs Forest officials met with the Tribe and 

provided tribal representatives with a list of 

known plants for circulation within the tribe. 

Hualapai Tribe would be interested in 

conducting plant surveys in the project area.

2/23/11 Pueblo of Zuni Zuni, NM Forest officials met with the Tribe. Pueblo of 

Zuni expressed interest in project and 

requested field visit to project area. Pueblo of 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

322 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

Date Tribe Location

Zuni request common names for plants in 

project area.

2/24/11 Navajo Nation Window Rock Forest representatives met with the Navajo 

Nation. Navajo Nation supports a project to 

restore the mountain and voiced concerns 

about potential impacts from additional road 

construction. Navajo Nation request a field 

trip to project area and additional information 

on watershed impacts. Navajo Nation 

generally supports reducing fuels on Bill 

Williams Mt and other TCPs to prevent 

catastrophic wildfire. 

3/7/11 Havasupai Tribe Flagstaff Forest representatives met with the Tribe 

regarding other issues. Forest representatives 

notified the Tribe of project.

4/21/11 Havasupai, Hopi, 

Hualapai, Kaibab Band of 

Paiute, Navajo, YavapaiPrescott, Pueblo of Zuni

NA Forest emailed Notice of Intent and invitation 

to public meeting. Forest invited tribes to 

conduct field visits of project area.

7/21/11 Hopi Tribe Project Area Williams District Ranger Martie Schramm 

and other Forest staff conducted a site visit to 

the project area with cultural advisors from 

the Hopi Tribe. Hopi voiced support for the 

project and stated it would protect the 

mountain and resources from future wildfire.

11/1/11 Havasupai Tribe Project Area Williams District Ranger Martie Schramm 

and other Forest staff conducted a site visit to 

the project area with the Havasupai Tribe. 

Havasupai representatives supported the 

project and requested specific mitigation 

measures as outlined below.

2/1/12 Navajo Nation Flagstaff, AZ Forest officials met with Navajo Nation to 

discuss the range of Alternatives and the 

proposal for new roads in the Preferred 

Alternative. Navajo Nation supports the 

Preferred Alternative. Navajo Nation requests 

mitigation measure to GPS plants with 

traditional significance during 

implementation. 

Tribal Concerns with the Bill Williams Restoration Project

The Kaibab National Forest has been consulting with tribes on the management of Bill Williams 

Mountain for the last 20 years. During that time, tribal representatives have stated a number of 

general concerns related to the mountain. These concerns are summarized as follows; 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination 323

1) Concerns with impacts to the visual quality of Bill Williams Mountain, 2) 

Concerns with commercial development of the mountain, 3) Disruption of 

ceremonial activities related to the mountain and ensuring access for those 

activities, 4) Impacts to important medicinal plants and other traditional use 

resources, 5) Protection of specific ceremonial sites, 6) Protection of ancestral

sites/archaeological sites, 7) Overall forest health on the mountain, 8) Impacts to 

the integrity of the Bill Williams Mountain traditional cultural property, 9) 

Monitoring of important plant resources, 10) Impacts to threatened and 

endangered species.

During consultation on the Bill Williams Restoration Project, Tribes have stated three additional 

concerns regarding management of the mountain summarized as follows;

11) Concerns with impacts to the watershed, particularly to Cataract Creek, 

Havasu Creek and the village of Supai, AZ, 12) Direct monitoring of the project 

by Tribes, 13) Acquisition of cleared timber for fuelwood and traditional use.

Mitigation Measures to Address Tribal Concerns

Of the concerns stated above, # 2 is outside the scope of the analysis, numbers #’s 1, 4, 6, 8, 9, 

10, and 11 are wholly or partially addressed with mitigation measures outlined in Section 2.3.1 

and 2.3.2. Number 7 is directly addressed by the Purpose and Need of the Project. Given the 

concerns stated above, the following additional mitigation measures are proposed for all 

Alternatives.

1. The Kaibab National Forest will consider all requests to issue temporary closures within 

the project area to accommodate ceremonial use as authorized in the Food, Conservation, 

and Energy Act of 2008, SEC. 8104 

2. The Kaibab National Forest will ensure that free-use permits for the collection of tree 

boughs, thinning slash, branches and other non-merchantable timber, are readily available 

to tribal members for fuelwood or personal ceremonial use. 

3. The Kaibab National Forest will coordinate with the Hopi Tribe to provide timbers for 

the purpose of rebuilding kivas and clan houses, and for other traditional and cultural 

purposes. The Hopi Tribe will provide for the transport of all such materials. The Forest 

will work with additional tribes to provide forest products for similar requests. 

4. The Kaibab National Forest will maintain the confidentiality of specific ceremonial sites 

and traditional collecting areas. Specific ceremonial sites will be avoided by project 

activities, or the Forest will work with the affiliated Tribe to develop site-specific 

mitigation measures. 

5. The Havasupai Tribe will be invited to monitor the project during the first phase of 

implementation. The Forest will work with all tribes to coordinate project monitoring by 

tribal representatives upon request.

6. The Kaibab will contract with the Hualapai Tribe to perform plant surveys conducted 

within the project area under a grant funded by the Coconino County Resource Advisory 

Committee. This work is to begin in the fall of 2012 and continue into 2013 as funding 

allows. 

7. The Forest will continue to work with tribes to identify traditionally important plant 

species and populations that occur within the project area, and facilitate the sustainable 

collection of these resources for traditional and cultural purposes. Monitoring of known 

collection sites will occur within the project area during implementation. Newly 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

324 Chapter 4 – Consultation and Coordination

documented populations will be recorded and mapped for consideration as collection 

sites. 

Based on consultations with the above Tribes, all Tribes support the Purpose and Need for the 

project. No Tribe has recommended Alternative 1- the No Action Alternative. Indeed, Tribes 

agree with the Forest Service assessment that current conditions in the project area present an 

unacceptable long-term risk to cultural and traditional resources. While Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 

propose active thinning treatments on the mountain, Tribes have stated that these activities will 

result in a long-term beneficial effect to the Bill Williams Mountain Traditional Cultural 

Property. The Navajo Nation has stated support for the Preferred Alternative. Provided the 

above mitigation measures are followed, implementation under any of the Alternatives is not 

expected to impact traditional tribal values or use areas associated with the project area.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Glossary 325

Glossary

Cover type – This term refers to the most represented species within a stand. There can be 

multiple species within a cover type.

Crowns – Tree crowns are generally from the lowest live limb to the top of the tree. Crowns 

consist of leaves/needles and limbs.

Crown Closure- This is the interaction of trees as they start to compete for resources within a 

stand. As trees start to grow closer together, growing space and crown space become limited; this 

is when you get crown closure.

Density- This term refers to the density of trees generally measured in Trees per Acre and Stand 

Basal Area. Managers use other forms of forest/stand tree density measures to determine stand 

condition based on forest dynamics. 

Encroachment- This is the movement of any living organism to an area where it has been 

previously excluded or had low populations that inhibits growth to another living organism. 

Encroachment can encourage higher stress levels and higher risk of fire within a stand. 

Fuel loadings – Accumulation of dead and down woody material is generally what this term is 

referring but fuel loading can also means live trees. 

Ladder fuels – Under certain conditions, fire that is burning on the forest floor can climb upward 

using latter fuels. These consist of smaller trees positioned under larger trees. 

Mortality- Because trees within the forest grow as a group or in stands, mortality refers to 

multiple trees dying due to an impact of competition for sunlight, water and nutrients, stress, or 

insects and diseases. 

Overstory competition – This term refers to the competition for resources such as sunlight, water 

and nutrients between the trees that are representing the overstory tree composition or canopy. 

Pre-settlement evidence – This is evidence that is left behind to describe the forest structure and 

composition on a particular stand. Evidence includes but is not limited to, stumps, stump holes, 

snags, trees with fire scares and old living trees. Pre-settlement evidence provides a snapshot in 

time of the condition within the natural range of variability of trees generally alive prior to 1870. 

Recruitment- This term refers to regeneration within the forest successfully avoiding mortality to 

become part of the stand. The forest can regenerate a lot of trees, depending on the contrition, 

only a certain amount will be recruited into the stand. 

Restoration – There are many definitions of restoration. Typically restoration restores functions 

within the forest such as snags, logs, fire etc. Other types of restoration focus on structure and 

arrangement of trees within the natural range of variability.

Snags- Dead and standing trees that provide wildlife habitat and vertical dead fuel structure to a 

stand. 

Stands – A stand is a delineation of a small portion of the landscape that is similar in cover type 

and overstory connectivity. Stands can range from approximately 150 acres to 1 acre in size.

Stand-replacement wildfires- This term refers to a type of fire that drastically changes the 

overstory arrangement of trees. Generally these fires kill all of the overstory and are replaced by

tree regeneration in the future. 

Stand Density Index- Any index that expresses relative stand density based on a comparison of 

measured stand values with some standard condition. 

Slash – Dead and down material that is created naturally or mechanically.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

326 Glossary

[This page intentionally left blank]
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 327

References Cited

Abella, S.R. 2004. Tree thinning and prescribed burning effects of ground flora in 

ponderosa pine forests: A review. Journal of Arizona-Nevada Academy of Science 

36: 68-76.

Abella S. R., P. Z. Fulé, and W. W. Covington, 2006. Diameter Caps for thinning southwestern

 ponderosa pine forests: viewpoints, effects, and tradeoffs. Journal of Forestry, December.

Agee, J. K. 1993. Fire ecology of the Pacific Northwest forests. Washington, D.C.: Island Press. 

493p. 

Agee, J. K., B. Barho, M. A.Finney, P. N. Omi, D. B. Sapsis, J. W. van Wagtendonk, C. C. 

Skinner, C. P. Weatherspoon, 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire 

management. Forest Ecol. Manage. 127, 55-66.

Allen, C. D., M. Savage, D. A. Falk, K. F. Suckling, T. W. Swetnam, T. Schulke, P. B. Stacey, P. 

Morgan, M. Hoffman, and J. T. Klingel. 2002. Ecological restoration of southwestern 

ponderosa pine ecosystems: a broad perspective. Ecological Applications 12:1418-1433.

Arizona Department of Environmental Quality. 2008. Intergovernmental agreement between the

State of Arizona and US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Southwestern 

Region. February 15, 2008.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2004. Aranaria aberrans. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 3 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2008. Cimicifuga arizonica. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 4 pp.

Arizona Game and Fish Department. 2003. Penstemon nudiflorus. Unpublished abstract 

compiled and edited by the Heritage Data Management System, Arizona Game and 

Fish Department, Phoenix, AZ. 3 pp.

Arizona Rare Plant Committee. 2001. Arizona Rare Plant Field Guide. 

Arnold, J.F. 1950. Changes in ponderosa pine bunchgrass ranges in northern Arizona 

resulting from pine regeneration and grazing. Journal of Forestry: 118-126. 

Bakker, J.D. and M.M. Moore. 2007. Controls on vegetation structure in southwestern 

ponderosa pine forests, 1941 and 2004. Ecology 88: 2305-2319.

Benavides-Solorio, Juan de Dios, Lee H. MacDonald. 2005. Measurement and prediction of

post-fire erosion at the hillslope scale, Colorado Front Range. International Journal of 

Wildland Fire. 14: 1-18.

Beymer, Renee J., Jeffrey M. Klopatek. 1992. Effects of Grazing on Cryptogamic Crusts in
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

328 References Cited

Pinyon- Juniper Woodlands in Grand Canyon National Park. American Midland 

Naturalist, Vol. 127, No. 1, 139-148.

Binkley D., Sisk T., Chanmbers C., Springer J., Block W. 2007. The Role of Old-Growth Forest

in Frequent-fire Landscapes . Ecology and Society 12(2): 18. [online] URL: 

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art18

Bolton, S.M., T.J. Ward, and J.S. Krammes. 1991. Hydrologic processes in the pinyon-juniper

vegetation zone of Arizona and New Mexico. pp. 31-44. IN: Agencies and science 

working for the future, New Mexico Water Resources Research Institute, November.

Bormann, B.T., P.S. Homann, R.L. Darbyshire, B.A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest 

wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Canadian 

Journal of Forestry 38: 2771-2783.

Bosch, J.M.; Hewlett, J.D. 1982. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of

vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. Journal of Hydrology. 55: 3-

23.

Boussard, Liz, Martha E Lee, Andrew J Stevens. 2002. Kaibab National Forest User 

Study Final Report. On file at: USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest. 209p

Brewer, David G., Rodney K. Jorgensen, Lewis P. Munk, Wayne A. Robbie, and Janet L. Travis.

1991. Terrestrial Ecosystem Survey of the Kaibab National Forest, Coconino County and 

Part of Yavapai County. USDA Forest Service. 319 

Brown, J. K.; E. D. Reinhardt; and K. A. Kramer. 2003. Coarse woody debris: Managing benefits 

and fire hazard in the recovering forest. USDA Rocky Mountain Research Station 

RMRS-GTR-105. Available online at 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_gtr.html

Burroughs, E.R., Jr.; King, J.G. 1989. Reduction of Soil Erosion on Forest Roads. Res. Pap. 

INTGTR-264. USDA Forest Service. Intermountain Research Station. 21 p. 

CARB, 2007. California Air Resources Board; http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/cc.htm

Chen, J., S.C. Saunders, T.R. Crow, R.J. Naiman, K.D. Brosofske, G.D. Mroz, B.L. 

Brookshire, and J.F. Franklin. Microclimate in forest ecosystem and landscape 

ecology. BioScience 49: 288-297.

Clary, W. P. 1975. Range management and its ecological basis in the ponderosa pine type of 

Arizona: The status of our knowledge. USDA For. Serv. Res. Pap. RM-157. 35p.

Cocke A. E., Fule P. Z. Crouse J. E. 2005. Forest change on steep mountain gradients after

extended fire exclusion: San Francisco Peaks, Arizona, USA. Journal of Applied 

Ecology.2005.42,814-823

Comer, P., D. Faber-Langendoen, R. Evans, S. Gawler, C. Josse, G. Kittel, S. Menard, M. Pyne, 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 329

M. Reid, K. Schulz, K. Snow, and J. Teague. 2003. Ecological Systems of the United 

States: A Working Classification of U.S. Terrestrial Systems. NatureServe, Arlington, 

VA. 75 p.

Conklin, D.A.; Fairweather, M.L. 2010. Dwarf mistletoes and their management in the 

Southwest. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region, R3-FH-10-01. 23p. 

http://www.fs.fed.us/r3/resources/health

Cooper C. F. 1960. Changes in Vegetation, Structure, and Growth of Southwestern Pine Forests 

since White Settlement: Ecological Monographs, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Apr., 1960), pp. 129-

164Published by: Ecological Society of AmericaStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/

Cooper, C.F. 1960. Changes in vegetation, structure, and growth of southwestern pine forest since 

white settlement. Ecological Monographs 30:126-164.

Corbin, J. and C.M. D’Antonio. 2004. Effects of invasive species on soil nitrogen 

cycling: Implications for restoration. Weed Technology 18:1464–1467.

Covington, W.W., and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa forest structure: 

changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry: 39-47.

 

Covington, W.W. and M.M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern Ponderosa Pine: Changes since EuroAmerican settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39-47.

Covington, V. V., and M. M. Moore. 1994. Southwestern ponderosa pine forest structure: 

changes since Euro-American settlement. Journal of Forestry 92:39-47. Debano, L.F., 

D.G. Neary, and P. F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. John Wiley & Sons, 

Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012. p 331

Covington, W.W., DeBano, L.F., 1990. Effects of fire on pinyon–juniper soils. In: Krammes, J.S.

(Technical Coordinator), Effects of Fire Management of Southwestern Natural 

Resources. USDA For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Report RM-191, pp. 78–86.

Crawford, J.A., C.H.A. Wahren, S. Kyle, and W.H. Moir. 2001. Responses of exotic plant 

species to fires in Pinus ponderosa forests in northern Arizona. Journal of Vegetation 

Science 12:261-268.

Crookston N. L., Stage A. R., 1999. Percent Canopy Cover and Stand Structure Statistics form a 

forest from the Forest Vegetation Simulator: United States Department of Agriculture 

Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station General Technical Report RMRSGTR-24

Crosby,J.S.;Chandler,C.C.2004.FireManagementNotes.Getthe most from your windspeed 

observations. Vol. 64, No. 1, Winter 2004.Reprinted from: FireControl News 27(4): 12-

13, 1966.

D’Antonio, C. M., and P. M. Vitousek. 1992. Biological invasions by non-native grasses, the 

grass fire cycle, and global change. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 23: 63-

87.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

330 References Cited

Daehler, C.C. 2003. Performance comparisons of co-occurring native and alien plants: 

Implications for conservation and restoration. Annual Review of Ecology and 

Systematics 34:183–211.

Davis, M. A., J. P. Grime, and K. Thompson. 2000. Fluctuating resources in plant communities: a 

general theory of invasibility. Journal of Ecology 88:528–534.

Debano, L.F., D.G. Neary, and P. F. Folliott. 1998. Fire’s effects on ecosystems. John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc., 605 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10158-0012. p 331

Debano, L. F.; Neary, D.G.; Ffolliot, P.F. 1998. Fire's effects on ecosystems. New York: John

Wiley and Sons, Inc. 333 p.

DeBano, L. F. and Krammes, J. S. 1966. Water repellent soils and their relation to wildfire

temperatures. Bulletin of the I.A.S.H., XI(2):14- 19.

DiTomaso, J.M. 2000. Invasive weeds in rangelands: species, impacts, and management. Weed

Science 48:255-265. 

Dixon, G.E. 2002. Essential FVS : A User’s guide to the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Internal 

Rep. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest 

Management Service Center. 208p

Donovan G. H., Thomas C. Brown T. C., 2008. Estimating the Avoided Fuel-Treatment Costs of

Wildfire. Copyright © 2008 by the Society of American Foresters. WEST. J. APPL. 

FOR. 23(4) 2008

Ecological Restoration Institute. 2006. Ecological Restoration at the Gus Pearson Natural Area.

Ecological Restoration Institute, Flagstaff, AZ. 11 pages (see page 2)

Elson, T.E. 1972. Williams Municipal Watershed Hydrologic Survey and Analysis. 172 pp.

Elton, C. S. 1958. The ecology of invasions by animals and plants. Methuen, London.

Environmental Protection Agency. 2010. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/

Fairweather M. L., Geils B. W., Manthei M., 2008. Aspen Decline on the Coconino National

Forest. WIFDWC 55, 2007

Fettig C. J. Klepzig K. D., Billings R. F., Munson A. S., Nebeker T. E., Negro ́n J. F., Nowak J. 

T., 2007. The effectiveness of vegetation management practices for prevention and 

control of bark beetle infestations in coniferous forest of western and southern United 

States. Forest Ecology and Management 238 (2007) 24–53

Fettig C. J., McMillin J. D., Anhold J. A., Hamud S. M., Borys R. R., Dabney C. P., Seybold S. 

J., 2006. The effects of mechanical fuel reduction treatments on the activity of bark 

beetles (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infesting ponderosa pine. Forest Ecology and 

Management 230 (2006) 55–68
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 331

Finney, M. A. 2003. FlamMap: Fire Behavior Mapping and Analysis Model. http://fire.org/ 

Finney, M. A. 2006. An overview of FlamMap Fire Modeling Capabilities, in: Andrews, 

P.Butler, B. W., comps. 2006. Fuels Management – How to Measure Success: 

Conference Proceedings. 28-30 March 2006; Portland OR. Proceedings RMRS-P-41. 

Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station.

FIRESTAT. www.fs.usda.gov/goto/r3/gis. Kaibab NF Fire Management Fire History Points.

Fule P. Z., 2008. Does it make sense to restore wild land fire in changing climate?: 2008 Society 

for Ecological Restoration International doi: 10.1111/j.1526-100X.2008.00489.x

Fule P. Z., Korb J. E., Wu R., 2009. Changes in forest structure of a mixed conifer forest, 

southwestern Colorado, USA; Forest Ecology and Management 258 (2009) 1200–1210

Galeano-Popp, R. Survey of Bill Williams Mountain Cimicfuga population. July 1988. 

Unpublished.

Grahan R. T., Jain T. B., Sandquist J., 2006. Free Selection: A Silvicultural Option: USDA Forest 

Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-203. 2006.

Graham, R.T.; Harvey, A.E.; Jurgensen, M.F.; Jain, T.B.; Tonn, J.R; Page-Dumroese, D.S. 1994. 

Managing course woody debris in forests of the Rocky Mountains. Res. Pap. Int-477. 

Ogden, UT. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Intermountain Research 

Station. 13 p. 

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 146: 239-245.

Guido, Zack. (2008). Southwest Climate Change Network. 

http://www.southwestclimatechange.org/impacts/land/fire

Haase, S.M. 1986. Effect of prescribed burning on soil moisture and germination of southwestern 

ponderosa pine seed on basaltic soils. Research Note RM-462. Fort Collins, CO: U.S.

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 6 p.

Haines, Jeremy, and Michael Lyndon. 

2010. Schultz Fire Technical Specialist’s Report- Burned Area Emergency 

Rehabilitation. Ms on file, Coconino National Forest, Peaks Ranger District. 

Hann, W.J., A. Shlisky, D. Havlina, K. Schon, S. Barrett, T. DeMeo, K. Pohl, J. Menakis, D. 

Hamilton, J. Jones, M. Levesque, and C. Frame. 2004. Interagency Fire Regime 

Condition Class Guidebook. Last update June 2008: Version 1.3.0 Available: 

www.frcc.gov.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

332 References Cited

Hann, W.J. D.L. Bunnell. 2001 Fire and land management planning and implementation across

multiple scales. Int. J. Wildland Fire. 10:389-403.

Hardy, C.C., Schmidt, K.M., Menakis, J.M., Samson, N.R. 2001. Spatial Data for National Fire 

Planning and Fuel Management. International Journal of Wildland Fire 10:353-372

Harmon, M.E., Franklin, J.F., Swanson, F.J., et al., Ecology of Coarse Woody Debris in

Temperate Ecosystems, Adv. Ecol. Res., 1986, vol. 15, pp. 133–302.

Harvey, A. E., M. J.Geist, G. I. McDonald, M. F. Jurgenson, P. H. Cochran, D. Zabowski

and R. T. Meurisse. 1994. Biotic and Abiotic Processes in Eastside Ecosystems: The 

Effects of Management on Soil Properties, Processes and Productivity. USDA Forest 

Service Pacific Northwest Research Station. General Technical Report PNW-GTR-323.

Haupt, Harold F. and W. Joe Kidd. 1965. Good Logging Practices Reduce Sedimentation in

Central Idaho. Journal of Forestry. J. Forestry. 63:664-670. 

Hawksworth, F.G. 1977. The 6-class dwarf mistletoe rating system. USDA Forest Service Gen.

Tech. Rep. RM-48. 7 p.

Hawksworth F.G.; Geils B.W.1996. Biotic associates. In: Hawksworth, F.G. and D. Wiens. 1996. 

Dwarf mistletoes: biology, pathology, and systematics. Agric. Handb. 709. Washington, 

DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service: 73-89.

Hellmann, J. J., J. E. Byers, G. Bierwagen, and J. S. Dukes. 2008. Five Potential 

Consequences of Climate Change for Invasive Species. Conservation Biology 22: 

534-43.

Hobbs, R.J. 1989. The nature and effects of disturbance relative to invasions. Pages 389– 

405 in J.A. Drake, H.A. Mooney, F. diCastri, R.H. Groves, F.J. Kruger et al. (eds), 

Biological Invasions: A Global Perspective. SCOPE 37. New York: John Wiley & 

Sons.

Hungerford, Roger D., M. G. Harrington, W. H. Frandsen, K. C. Ryan, and G. J. Neihoff. 1991. 

Influence of Fire on Factors that Affect Site Productivity. Paper presented at the

Symposium on Management and Productivity of Western-Montane Forest Soils, Boise, 

ID, April 10-12, 1990.

Hunter, M.E., P.N. Omi, E.J. Martinson, and G.W. Chong. 2006. Establishment of nonnative plant species after wildfires: effects of fuel treatments, abiotic and biotic 

factors, and post-fire grass seeding treatments. International Journal of Wildland Fire 

15: 271-281.

Ice, George. 2004. History of Innovative Best Management Practice Development and its Role in 

Addressing Water Quality Limited Waterbodies. Journal of Environmental Engineering,

Volume: 2, Issue: 6, Pages: 684-689

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 333

Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. S. Solomon, D. Quin, M. Manninget al. 

Cambridge, United Kingdom, Cambridge University Press: 996.

Kaye, J.P., and S.C. Hart. 1998a. Ecological restoration alters N transformations in a ponderosa 

pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecol. Appl. 8:1052–1060.

Kaye, J.P. and S.C. Hart. 1998. Ecological restoration alters nitrogen transformations in a 

ponderosa pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Ecological Applications 8: 1052-1060. 

Kaye, T.N. and M. Kirkland. 1999. Effects of timber harvest on Cimicifuga elata, a rare 

plant of western forests. Northwest Science 73: 159–167. 

Kaye, T. 1994. Cimicfuga elata – tall bugbane. Kalmiopsis 4: 29-29. Native Plant Society 

of Oregon.

Kenaley S., R., Mathiasen, and E.J. Harner. 2008. Mortality associated with a bark beetle 

outbreak in dwarf mistletoe-infested ponderosa pine stands in Arizona. Western Journal 

of Applied Forestry 23: 113-120.

Kerns, B. K., M. M. Moore, M. E. Timpson, and S.C. Hart. 2003. Soil properties associated with

vegetation patches in Pinus ponderosa bunchgrass mosaic. West. N. Am. Naturalist 

63(4):452-462.

Klenner W., Arsenault A., 2009. Ponderosa pine mortality during a severe bark beetle 

(Coleoptera: Curculionidae, Scolytinae) outbreak in southern British Columbia and 

implications for wildlife habitat management. Forest Ecology and Management 258S 

(2009) S5–S14

Korb, J.E., N.C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2003. Arbuscular mycorrhizal propagule

densities respond rapidly to ponderosa pine restoration treatments. J. App. Ecol. 40:101–

110.

Korb, J.E., Nancy C. Johnson, and W.W. Covington. 2004. Slash Pile Burning Effects on Soil

Biotic and Chemical Properties and Plant Establishment: Recommendations for 

Amelioration. Restoration Ecology Vol. 12 No. 1, pp. 52-62. 

Lane, Liz. 2003. The Kaibab National Forest’s Heritage Program: Brokering Culture Inside and 

Outside the Forest, Unpublished Internship Paper, Northern Arizona University, Ms. on 

file at Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, J.D. Bakker, C.A. Casey, J.D. Springer, P.Z. Fule, W.W. 

Covington. 2006. Assessing targets for the restoration of herbaceous vegetation in 

ponderosa pine forests. Restoration Ecology 14: 548-560. 

Laughlin, D.C., J.D. Bakker, M.L. Daniels, M.M. Moore, C.A. Casey, and J.D. Springer. 

2008. Restoring plant species diversity and community composition in a ponderosa 

pine-bunchgrass ecosystem. Plant Ecology 197: 139-151.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

334 References Cited

Laughlin, D.C., M.M. Moore, and P.Z. Fule. 2011. A century of increasing pine density 

and associated shifts in understory plant strategies. Ecology 92: 556-561.

Loeser, M.R., T.D. Sisk, and T.E. Crews. 2006. Impact of Grazing Intensity during Drought in 

an Arizona Grassland. Conservation Biol. 21(1):87-97.

Lonsdale, W. M. 1999. Global patterns of plant invasions and the concept of invasibility. Ecology 

80:1522–1536.

Lyndon, Michael G. 2008. Bill Williams Cap Fuels Reduction Project, A Heritage Resource 

Clearance, KNF Report 2008-43, Ms. on file at Kaibab National Forest Supervisor’s 

Office.

MacDonald, L.H.; Stednick, J.D. 2003. Forests and water: A state-of-the-art review for Colorado.

Colorado Water Resources Research Institute Rep. No. 196. Fort Collins, CO. Colorado 

State University. 65 p.

Mack, R. N., D. Simberloff, W. M. Lonsdale, H. Evans, M. Clout, and F. A. Bazzaz. 

2000. Biotic invasions: causes, epidemiology, global consequences, and control. 

Ecological Applications 10: 689–710. 

Malmsheimer, R.W., P. Heffernan, S. Brink, D. Crandall, F. Deneke, C. Galik, E. Gee, J.A. 

Helms, N. McClure, M. Mortimer, S. Ruddell, M. Smith, and J. Stewart. 2008. Forest 

Management Solutions for Mitigating Climate Change in the United States. Journal of 

Forestry 106(3):115-173. Available online at:

http://www.safnet.org/jof_cctf.pdf

Moldenke, Andrew. 1999. Soil-dwelling arthropods: their diversity and functional roles. In

Proceedings: Pacific Northwest Forest and Rangeland Soil Organisms Symposium, 

Robert T. Meurisse, William G. Ypsilantis and Cathy Seybold, editors. USDA Forest 

Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. PNW-GTR-461. Pg. 33-44.

Moore, M.M., C.A. Casey, J.D. Bakker, J.D. Springer, P.Z. Fule, W.W. Wallace, and 

D.C. Laughlin. 2006. Herbaceous vegetation responses (1992-2004) to restoration 

treatments in a ponderosa pine forest. Rangeland Ecology and Management 59: 135- 

144.

Moore, M. M., D. W. Huffman. 2004. Tree encroachment on meadows in Grand Canyon National 

Park, Arizona, USA. Arct. Antract. Alp. Res. 36(4): 474-483.

Moore M. M., Covington W. W., Fule P. Z., 1999.Reference Conditions and Ecological

Restoration: A Southwestern Ponderosa Pine Perspective: Ecological Applications, Vol. 

9, No. 4. (Nov., 1999), pp. 1266-1277.http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=1051-

0761%28199911%299%3A4%3C1266%3ARCAERA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-F 

Moore M. M., Huffman D. W., 2004. Tree Encroachment on Meadows of the North rim, Grand

Canyon National Park, Arizona USA. Arctic, Antarctic, and Alpine Research, Vol. 36, 

No. 4, 2004, pp. 474–483
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 335

Moore, M.M., W.W. Covington, P.Z. Fule, S.C. Hart, T.E. Kolb, J.N. Mast, S.S. Sackett, M.R.

Wagner. 2008. Ecological Restoration Experiments (1992-2007) at G.A. Pearson 

Natural Area, Fort Valley Experimental Forest. USDA-FS RMRS-P-53CD:290-304.

Moore, M. M., W. W. Covington, and P. Z. Fulé. 1999. Reference conditions and ecological

restoration: A southwestern ponderosa pine perspective. Ecol. Applic. 9(4):1266-1277.

Negro ́n J. F., McMillin J. D., Anhold J. A., Coulson D., 2009. Bark Beetle-caused mortality in a

drought-affected ponderosa pine landscape in Arizona, USA. Forest Ecology and 

Management 257 (2009) 1353–1362

Neary, Daniel G., Carole C. Klopatek, Leonard F. DeBano and Peter F. Ffolliott. 1999. Fire

effects on belowground sustainability: a review and synthesis. Forest Ecology and 

Management, Volume 122, Issues 1-2, Pg. 51-71. 

Neary, Daniel G., K. Ryan, L. DeBano. 2005. Wildland Fire in Ecosystems. Effects of Fire on

Soil and Water. USDA Forest Service. RMRS-GTR-42-Volume 4. Ft Collins, CO. 250 p.

Noble, Bill O. 2012. Understory Response to Changes in Overstory Cover. Unpublished Paper, 

USDA Forest Service, Coconino NF, Flagstaff, AZ 62p.

Novotny, Michael J., John Paul Schubert and Neil S. Weintraub. 2007 McCracken Fuels 

Reduction, A Heritage Resource Clearance, KNF Report 2007-53, Ms. on file at Kaibab 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

NWCG 2004 Fireline Handbook. NWCG Handbook 3 PMS410-1 March 2004

Omi, P. N. and E. J Martinson. 2002. Effects of Fuel Treatment on Wildfire Severity, Final

Report; Joint Fire Science Program, Western Forest Fire Research Center, Colorado State 

University, Ft. Collins, CO. 

http://www.cnr.colostate.edu/frws/research/westfire/finalreports.pdf

Ower, C.L.1985. Changes in ponderosa pine seedling growth and soil nitrogen following

prescribed burning and manual removal of the forest floor. M.S.F. Thesis. Flagstaff, AZ: 

Northern Arizona University. 109 p.

Paige, G.B., Stone, J.J., Smith, J., Kennedy, J.R. 2003. The Walnut Gulch rainfall simulator: A

computer-controlled variable intensity rainfall simulator." Applied Engineering 

inAgriculture, ASAE 20(1), pp 25-31.

Parker, Patricia L. and Thomas F. King. 1998. Guidelines for Evaluating and Documenting 

Traditional Cultural Properties, National Register Bulletin No. 38, US Department of the 

Interior, National Park Service, National Register, History and Education.

Parker, Sharon; Hummel, Susan Stevens. 2002. Beyond 2001: a silvicultural odyssey to

sustaining terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems—proceedings of the 2001 national 

silviculture workshop, May 6-10, Hood River, Oregon. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-546. 

Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest 

Research Station. 114 p.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

336 References Cited

Phillips, B.G., and R. Popowski. 1995. Arizona bugbane (Cimicifuga arizonica) 

conservation assessment and strategy on the Coconino and Kaibab National Forests.

Pinkham, Richard and Bill Davis. 2002. North Central Arizona Water Demand Study. A report 

submitted to the Coconino Plateau Water Advisory Council. Rocky Mountain Institute. 

178 pp.

Pollet and P. N. Omi 2002. Effect of thinning and prescribed burning on crown fire severity in

ponderosa pine forests. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2002, 11,1-10

Potyondy, John P. and Theodore W. Geier. 2011. Waterhsed Condition Classification Technical 

Guide. United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service Technical Guide FS-978. 41 pp.

Puettmann K. J., 2011. Silvicultural Challenges and Option in the Context of global Change:

“Simple” Fixes and Opportunities for New Management approaches. Copyright © 2011 

by the Society of American Foresters.

Reeves, Derrick; Page-Dumroese, Deborah; Coleman, Mark. 2011. Detrimental soil disturbance

associated with timber harvest systems on National Forests in the Northern Region. Res. 

Pap. RMRS-RP-89 Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

Rocky Mountain Research Station. 12 p.

Reid, Connie, Collen Nicholas and Erin Woodard. 

2008. Warm Fire Site Stabilization 2008. KNF Report 2008-07-16A. Ms on file, Kaibab 

National Forest Supervisor’s Office.

Reinhardt, E. D. and N. L. Crookston, (Technical Editors). 2003. The Fire and Fuels Extension to

the Forest Vegetation Simulator. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-116. Ogden, UT: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 209 p.

Rice, R.M.; Rothacher, J.S.; Megahan, W.F. 1972. Erosional consequences of timber harvesting: 

An appraisal. In: Watersheds in transition. Amer. Water Res. Assoc. Urbana, IL. 321-

329.

Rleveld W. J., 1978. Forecasting Seed Crops and Determining Cone Ripeness in Southwestern

Ponderosa Pine. Gen. tech. Rep. RM-50, 12p. Rocky Mountain For and Range Exp. 

Station., For. Service., U.S. Department of Agriculture

Robichaud, Peter R. 2000. Fire effects on infiltration rates after prescribed fire in northern Rocky

Mountain forests, USA. Journal of hydrology. 231-232(1-4): 220-229.

Robichaud, Peter R.; Elliot, William J.; Pierson, Fredrick B.; Hall, David E.; Moffet, Corey A.

2006. Erosion Risk Management Tool (ERMiT) Ver. 2009.09.17. [Online at: 

http://forest.moscowfsl.wsu.edu/fswepp/] Moscow, ID: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 337

Robichaud, Pete R.; MacDonald, Lee H.; Foltz, Randy B. 2010. Fuel management and erosion. 

Chapter 5 in: Elliot, W.J.; Miller, I.S.; Audin, L., eds. 2010. Cumulative watershed 

effects of fuel management in the western United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR231. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain 

Research Station. 79-100.

Rosentreter, R. 1986. Compositional patterns within a rabbitbrush (Chrysothamnus) community

of the Idaho Snake River Plain. In: McArthur, E. D., and B. L. Welch, comps. 

Proceedings—Symposium on the Biology of Artemisia and Chrysothamnus. General 

Technical Report INT-200. USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, 

Ogden, UT. Pages 273-277.

Rothermel, R. C. 1983. How to predict the spread and intensity of forest and range fires. USDA

Intermountain Forest and Range Experiment Station. GTR-INT-143

Rothermel, R. C. 1991. Predicting behavior and size of crown fires in the northern Rocky 

Mountains. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station; Res. Pap. INT-438. 46p.

Ryan, Robert I. 2005. Social Science to Improve Fuels Management: A Synthesis of Research on 

Aesthetics and Fuels Management. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-261. St Paul, MN. USDA Forest 

Service, North Central Research Station. 58p.

Ryan, M.G., and W.W. Covington. 1986. The effect of a prescribed burn in ponderosa pine on

inorganic nitrogen concentrations of mineral soil. Research Note RM-464. Fort Collins, 

CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Forest and Range 

Experiment Station. 5 p.

S ́anchez Meador A. J., Parysow P. F., Margaret M. Moore M. M.,2010. A new Method for

Delineating tree Patches and Assessing Spatial Reference Conditions of Ponderosa Pine 

in Northern Arizona: Society for Ecological Restoration International doi: 

10.1111/j.1526-100X.2010.00652.x

Savage M., Mast J. N.,2005. How Resilient are Southwestern ponderosa pine forest after Crown 

Fires? Can. J. For. Res. 35: 967–977 (2005) doi: 10.1139/X05-028 © 2005 NRC Canada

Seager, R., R. Burgman, et al. 2008. "Tropical Pacific Forcing of North American Medieval

Megadroughts: Testing the Concept with an Atmosphere Model Forced by CoralReconstructed SSTs." Journal of Climate 21: 6175-6190.

Seager, R., R. Burgman, et al. 2008. "Tropical Pacific Forcing of North American Medieval

Megadroughts: Testing the Concept with an Atmosphere Model Forced by CoralReconstructed SSTs." Journal of Climate 21: 6175-6190.

Schmidt, K. M., J. P.Menakis, C. C.Hardy, W. J. Hann, D. L. Bunnell, 2002. Development of

coarse-scale spatial data for wildland fire and fuel management. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRSGTR-87. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky 

Mountain Research Station. 41 p.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

338 References Cited

Scott, J.H. and R.E. Burgan, 2005. Standard fire behavior fuel models: a comprehensive set for

use with Rothermel’s Surface fire spread model. Gen. Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-153. Fort 

Collins, CO; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research 

Station. 72p

Scott, J. H. and E. D. Reinhardt, 2001. Assessing crown fire potential by linking models of 

surface and crown fire behavior. Research Paper RMRS-RP-29. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 59 p.

Scott, J. H. 2003. Canopy fuel treatment standards for the wildland-urban interface. In Fire, Fuel

Treatments, and Ecological Restoration, Conference Proceedings. April 2002. Ft. Collins, 

CO. USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-29. Available at: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/publications/online/rmrs_proceedings.html

Seager, R. et al. 2007. Model Projections of an Imminent Transition to a More Arid 

Climate in Southwestern North America Science 316: 1181.

Skov K. R., Kold T. E., Wallin K. F.2005. Difference in Radial Growth Response to Restoration

Thinning and Burning Treatments Between Young and Old Ponderosa Pine in Arizona: 

WJAF 20(1) 2005

Stark, J.M. and S.C. Hart. 1997. High rates of nitrification and nitrate turnover in undisturbed

coniferous forests. Nature 385 (1997), pp. 61–64.

Stednick, J. D. 1996. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. Journal of 

Hydrology 176(1/4): 79-95.

Stoddard M. T., McGlone C. M., Fule P. Z., Laughlin D. C., Daniels M. L., 2011.Native Plants 

Dominate Understory Vegetation Following Ponderosa Pine Forest Restoration 

Treatments: Western North American Naturalist 71(2), © 2011, pp. 206–214

Strom B. A., Fule P. Z., 2007.Pre-wildfire treatments affecting long-tem ponderosa pine forest

dynamics; International Journal of Wildland Fire, 2007, 16, 128–138

Stoddard, M.T., C.M. McGlone, P.Z. Fule, D.C. Laughlin, M.L. Daniels. 2011. Native 

plants dominate understory vegetation following ponderosa pine forest restoration 

treatments. Western North American Naturalist 71: 206-214.

Stratton, R. D. 2004. Assessing the Effectiveness of Landscape Fuel Treatments on Fire Growth

and Behavior. Journal of Forestry. October/November 2004

Stratton, R. D. 2006. Guidance on spatial wildland fire analysis: models, tools, and techniques.

Gen.Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-183. Fort Collins, CO: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 

Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 15p.

Strom B. A. and P. Z. Fulé 2007. Pre-wildfire fuel treatments affect long-term ponderosa pine

forest dynamics. International Journal of Wildland Fire, 16:128-138.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 339

Swank, W.T., L.F. DeBano, D. Nelson. 1989. Effects of timber management practices on soil and

water. In: Burns, Russell [Tech. comp.]. The scientific basis for silvicultural and 

management decisions in the National Forest System. GTR-WO-55. Washington, DC. 

USDA Forest Service: 79-106.

Swetnam, T.W. and C.H. Baisan. 1996. Historical fire regime patterns in the Southwestern United

States since AD 1700. Pages 11-32 In Fire effects in Southwestern forests: Proceedings 

of the second La Mesa fire symposium. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report

Swetnam, T. W., C. D. Allen, and J. L. Betancourt. 1999. Applied historical ecology: using the

past to manage for the future. Ecological Applications, 9:1253-1265.

TEAMS Enterprise Unit. 2007. Arizona Bugbane (Cimicfuga arizonica) monitoring data. 

Unpublished data.

Thomsen, Bert W. 1969. Surface Water Supply for the City of Williams, Arizona. M.S. Thesis 

submitted to the Committee on Hydrology and Water Resources. University of Arizona. 

55 pp. 

Thuiller, W., Albert, C., Araujo, M.B., et al. 2007. Predicting global change impacts on 

plant species’ distributions: Future challenges. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, 

Evolution, and Systematics 9: 137-152.

Tiedemann, A. R. and T.D. Anderson. 1980. Combustion losses of sulfur from native plant

materials and forest litter. In: Proceedings Sixth Conference on Fire and Forest 

Meterology, April 22-24, 1980. Society of American Foresters. Pages 220-227.

Tiedemann, Arthur R.; Conrad, Carol E.; Dieterich, John H. 1979. Effects of fire on water: a

state-of-knowledge review. In: General Technical Report WO-10. USDA, Forest 

Service. 

Triepke, F. J., B. J. Higgins, R. N. Weisz, J. A. Youtz, and T. Nicolet. 2011. Diameter caps and

forest restoration —Evaluation of a 16-inch cut limit on achieving desired conditions. 

USDA Forest Service Forestry Report FR-R3-16-3. Southwestern Region, Regional 

Office, Albuquerque, NM. 31 pp.

Truebe, M.; Evans, G. 1994. Lowell surfacing thickness design test road: Final report. Federal

Highway Administration Report FHWA-FLP-94-008. USDA Forest Service. San Dimas 

Technology and Development Center. San Dimas, CA. 108 p.

USDA, Forest Service. 1985. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams 

Mountain Ski Area Proposal, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, AZ.

USDA Forest Service 1988, as amended. Kaibab National Forest Land Management 

Plan.

USDA Forest Service; Summary of Arizona bugbane, Level 1 Monitoring, Coconino and 

Kaibab National Forests, 1995-1998; 1998; Unpublished. 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

340 References Cited

USDA, Forest Service. 2000. Draft Environmental Impact Statement Regarding the Expansion 

of the Williams Ski Area, Kaibab National Forest, Williams, AZ.

USDA Forest Service. 2004 Arizona bugbane (Cimicfuga arizonica) on the Fry Fire. 

Unpublished data. 

USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region; Final Environmental Impact Statement for 

Integrated Treatment of Noxious or Invasive Weeds: Coconino, Kaibab, and Prescott 

National Forests within Coconino, Gila, Mojave, and Yavapai Counties, Arizona; 

MB-R3-16-1; January 2005.

USDA Forest Service; Regional Forester’s List of Sensitive Plants; September 2007. 

USDA Forest Service; Kaibab National Forest; Environmental Assessment for the Hat Grazing 

Allotment; 2009.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Arizona Bugbane (Cimicfuga arizonica) monitoring data. 

Unpublished data.

USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest. 2005. Assessment of Grassland/Savannah

Invasion by Trees on the Williams Ranger District Kaibab National Forest, Kaibab 

National Forest. Williams, Arizona.

USDA. 1988. Kaibab National Forest Land Management Plan, as Amended. USDA Forest

Service, Southwestern Region. 173 pp.

USDA. 1990. Soil and Water Conservation Practices Handbook. Forest Service Handbook

2509.22. USDA Forest Service, Southwestern Region. pp 83.

USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1997. Introduction to Microbiotic Crusts. Soil

Quality Institute; Grazing Lands Technology Institute. USDA. 2010. Agriculture 

Research Service, Water Erosion Prediction Project Website. URL: 

http://www.ars.usda.gov/Research/docs.htm?docid=10621. Accessed July 15, 2010.

USDA Forest Service March 2010. Cost Estimating Guide for Road Construction

USDA Forest Service Log cost program, (version

USDA Forest Service. 1986. ROS Book. US Government Printing Office, Washington DC. 42p.

USDA Forest Service. 2000. Landscape Aesthetics: A Handbook for Scenery Management as 

updated. Agriculture Handbook 701. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 

135p.

USDA Forest Service. 2000a. Legislation and Directives. Appendix B. Agriculture Handbook 

701. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 5p.

USDA Forest Service. 2004. Recreation Opportunity Spectrum-Scenery Management System 

Guidebook. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Kaibab National Forest. 53p.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

References Cited 341

USDA Forest Service. 2007. Recommended SMS Refinements. Appendix J. Agriculture 

Handbook 701. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC . 33p.

USDA Forest Service. 2007a. Recreation Facility Analysis. Unpublished report. USDA Forest 

Service, Kaibab National Forest.

USDA Forest Service. 2010. Kaibab National Forest Management Plan, as amended. USDA 

Forest Service, Southwestern Region. p.

USDA Forest Service. 2011. Existing and Desired Conditions Report for the Bill Williams 

Mountain Restoration Project. Unpublished report. USDA Forest Service, Kaibab 

National Forest. 16p.

USDA Forest Service. 2012. Updated National Visitor Use Report. Third round, Kaibab NF. 

Available at: http://apps.fs.usda.gov/nrm/nvum/results/A03007.aspx/Round3

United States Department of Agriculture. 2001. Smoke Management Guide for Prescribed and

Wildland Fire. Pg. 98.Van Wagner 1977. Conditions for the start and spread of crown 

fire. Can. J. For. Res. 7: 23-34.

United States Department of Interior Geologic Survey. 2001. The San Francisco Volcanic Field, 

Arizona. Available at: http://geopubs.wtusgs.gov/fact-sheet/fs017-01

USFWS Threatened and Endangered Species List. 

http://www.fws.gov/southwest/es/arizona/

Warren, P.L. 1991. Monitoring Arizona bugbane (Cimicfuga arizonica) in the Bill 

Williams Botanical Area, Kaibab National Forest. Unpublished.

Whisenant, S.G. 1990. Changing fire frequencies on Idaho’s Snake River Plains: ecological and

management implications. In: McArthur, E.D., E.M. Romney, S.D. Smith, and P.T. 

Tueller, eds. Proceedings—Symposium on Cheatgrass Invasion, Shrub Die-off, and 

Other Aspects of Shrub Biology and Management. General Technical Report INT-276. 

USDA Forest Service, Intermountain Research Station, Ogden, UT. Pages 4-10.

White, P. S. & Pickett, S. T. A. 1986. Natural disturbance and patch dynamics. Pp 3-13 In: 

Pickett, S. T. A. & White, P. (eds.) The Ecology of Natural Disturbance and Patch 

Dynamics. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

White A. S. 1985. Pre-settlement Regeneration Patterns in a Southwestern Ponderosa pine Stand.

Ecological Society of America: Ecology 66(2) pp 589-594

Wiedinmyer C. and Hurteau M. D., 2010. Prescribed Fire as a means of reducing forest carbon

emissions in the western United States. Environ. Sci. Technol. 44. 1926-1932.

Woolsey, Theodore S. 1911. Western yellow pine in Arizona and New Mexico. Forest Service

Bulletin 101. USDA Forest Service, Washington DC. 64 pp.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

342 References Cited

Zouhar, K. 2003. Bromus tectorum. In: Fire Effects Information System. Fort Collins, CO 

USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station Fire Sciences Laboratory.

Zouhar, K., J.K. Smith, and S. Sutherland. 2008. Effects of fire on nonnative invasive plants and 

invisibility of wildland ecosystems. Pp 7-31 In: Zouhar, K., J.K. Smith, S. Sutherland, 

and M. Brooks. Wildland fire in ecosystems: Fire and nonnative invasive plants. Gen. 

Tech. Rep. RMRS-GTR-42-vol. 6. Ogden, UT: U.S. Department if Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. 355 p.

1737-9. Bureau of Land Management, BLM/SC/ST-93/003+1737, Service Center, CO. 60 pp.
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Index 343

Index

A 

Abstract · i

Affected Environment and Environmental 

Consequences · 45

Air Resources · 33, 100, 101

Alternative 1 – No Action · 11

Alternative 2 – The Proposed Action · 11

Alternative 3 · 14

Alternative 4 · 16

Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Detailed 

Study · 26

Alternatives Considered in Detail · 11

Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action · 11

Arizona Bugbane · 20,44, 240 243, 249

B 

Background · 1

C 

City of Williams Municipal Watershed · 105, 125, 279

Comparison of Alternatives – Key Features · 29

Comparison of Alternatives – Summary of Effects on 

Resources · 30

Consultation and Coordination · 319

Cultural Resources · 298

Cumulative Effects · 317

D 

Decision Framework · 5

E 

Economics · 300, 309

F 

Fire and Fuels Management · 84

G 

Glossary · 325

I 

ID Team Members · 319

Invasive Species · 230

Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of 

Resources · 316

Issues · 6

L 

Lands and Minerals · 312

List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom 

Copies of the DEIS, Supplement and FEIS Were 

Sent · 320

M 

MANAGEMENT INDICATOR SPECIES · 214

Mexican Spotted Owl · 7, 14, 40, 92, 96, 173, 312, 316

Mitigation · 18

Monitoring · 24

N 

Northern Goshawk · 197

O 

Other Disclosures · 314

Other Required Disclosures · 317

P 

Proposed Action · 4

Public Involvement · 5

Purpose and Need for Action · 3

R 

Rangeland Resources · 253

Rare Plants · 238

Recreation Resources · 260
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

344 Index

S 

Scenic Resources · 269

Short-term Uses and Long-term Productivity · 315

Silviculture · 45

Soils and Watershed · 108

T 

Transportation · 163

Tribal Consultation Summary · 320

U 

Unavoidable Adverse Effects · 316

W 

Water Quality · 128

Water Resources · 122

Wildlife · 168
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Bill Williams Mountain Restoration Project

Appendices 345

Appendices

All appendices are contained in a separate document